TAE: Resilient housing markets for a competitive Europe

Background

Short-term rentals: EU Regulation 2024/1028

1. Already decided: The EU is harmonising registration, data collection and data exchange for short-term rentals via platforms. The aim is not an EU-wide ban, but rather to provide authorities with better data so they can better enforce local rules. The regulation applies to short-term accommodation, not regular long-term tenancies.
2. Registration numbers and platform obligations
   Where Member States introduce registration systems, hosts are to be issued with a registration number; platforms must share certain data and ensure compliance with local requirements.
3. European Affordable Housing Plan
   In December 2025, the Commission presented the first European plan for affordable housing. The focus is on increasing the housing supply, reducing administrative burdens, speeding up planning and approval procedures, encouraging private and public investment, and introducing measures regarding short-term rentals in tight housing markets.
4. No full EU competence for housing policy
   Housing policy remains, and is fundamentally, the responsibility of Member States, regions and local authorities. The EU justifies its action primarily on the grounds of internal market, platform, data and state aid issues.
5. Current situation according to the Commission
   The Commission points to a sharp rise in housing costs: across the EU, house prices have risen by over 60 per cent and average rents by around 20 per cent since 2013; short-term rentals are projected to grow by 93 per cent between 2018 and 2024.

TAE assessment and approaches

From the Taxpayers’ Association’s perspective, the key question is: does the already heterogeneous housing market really need European regulation – or are transparency, data sharing and the consistent application of existing local rules sufficient?

Greater transparency can help prevent abuse and create a level playing field. But the crucial point is this: more data does not create a single square metre of new housing.

From the Taxpayers’ Association’s perspective, the debate risks heading in the wrong direction. Instead of strengthening the supply side, there is increasing discussion of regulation, intervention and restrictions. Yet numerous examples show where such measures can lead:

• Rent control in Germany:
  Well-intentioned as a safeguard for tenants, but in practice often an obstacle to investment. Private landlords are pulling out, and new-build projects are becoming less profitable. The result: less supply – and thus higher prices/rents in the long term.
• Rigid interventions such as rent caps (e.g. Berlin or Munich):
  Short-term relief for some tenants, but at the same time a massive slump in new builds and renovations. Investors are steering clear, housing becomes outdated or is simply no longer being built.
• Index-linked rents under political pressure:
  When even contractually agreed, inflation-linked rent models are restricted by policy, uncertainty for investors rises. Anyone who doesn’t know today whether their investment will still pay off tomorrow simply won’t build.
• Strict restrictions on short-term rentals
  (e.g. in tourist cities):
  If these are restricted across the board, fewer holiday homes will be built – but this does not automatically lead to more affordable housing. Instead, supply shifts to the informal market or disappears altogether, whilst local revenue (taxes, tourism) declines.
• Bureaucracy/regulatory standards:
  As regulatory requirements continue to rise, construction and letting become more expensive. Ultimately, it is precisely those people who cannot afford high rents or expensive hotels who are excluded.

The crux of the problem: it is not primarily about distribution, but about scarcity. Europe does not have a rent problem on its own – above all, Europe has a housing supply problem.

It comes down to the fundamental question:
Should a highly heterogeneous housing market be regulated at EU level at all?

The reality is:

• Housing markets differ massively between rural regions and major cities
• Homeownership rates, rental cultures and legal frameworks vary greatly between countries such as Germany and Austria
• Local conditions determine supply and demand – not Brussels

Uniform European regulation therefore carries the risk of misguided policies.

Furthermore, two markets must be clearly distinguished:

1. Short-term rentals (tourism, business travel) – here, transparency, registration, safety standards and fair taxation make sense.
2. Long-term rentals (housing) – here the focus is on security of supply, investment and social balance.

Anyone who conflates the two is regulating in a way that misses the point.

For the Taxpayers’ Association, the following therefore applies:

• Property rights and freedom of choice must be safeguarded
• Investment certainty is essential for creating more housing
• Regulation must be proportionate, targeted and tailored to local conditions,
  i.e. it should only regulate what absolutely must be regulated
• Compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. responsibility lies primarily at local, regional and national level
• A comprehensive and transparent regulatory impact assessment must be carried out for all EU projects

Transparency, digitalisation and data sharing can help to identify market distortions. But they must not become a gateway to ever-increasing intervention.

Because ultimately:
Housing is not created through regulation – but through investment.
And these require trust, planning certainty and economic prospects – not additional bureaucracy from Brussels.

Brussels/Munich, May 7, 2026