1Der Anteil von Zweitwohnungen am Gesamtbestand der Wohneinheiten und der für Wohnzwecke genutzten Bruttogeschossfläche einer Gemeinde ist auf höchstens 20 Prozent beschränkt.
2Das Gesetz verpflichtet die Gemeinden, ihren Erstwohnungsanteilplan und den detaillierten Stand seines Vollzugs alljährlich zu veröffentlichen.
Art. 75b BV — Second homes
#Overview
Art. 75b BV limits the construction of second homes in Switzerland. The provision originated from the popular initiative «Stop the excessive construction of second homes!», which was accepted on 11 March 2012.
The core rule is simple: In municipalities with more than 20% second homes, no new second homes may be built. A second home is a dwelling that does not serve as a principal residence. The proportion is measured against the entire housing stock of a municipality.
The prohibition applies immediately and directly. Already on the day of the vote, new second home construction permits in affected municipalities became void. This was decided by the Federal Supreme Court in the landmark judgment BGE 139 II 243.
First homes (principal residences) are exempt from the prohibition. However, builders must credibly demonstrate that the planned dwelling will actually be used as a principal residence. In case of suspected abuse of rights, the authorities scrutinise carefully.
An exception exists for second homes with tourism economic benefit. These must be permanently rented commercially and bring something to the local economy.
Example: The municipality of Verbier has a second home share of 75%. There, no one has been allowed to build a new holiday apartment since March 2012. Anyone who nevertheless plans a chalet for holidays can only have it approved as a first home - but must then also live there.
The rule has far-reaching consequences: Property values in affected municipalities fell dramatically in some cases. Conversely, no new «cold beds» are created that are only used a few weeks per year.
Nature and heritage protection associations can file appeals against second home construction permits. They see the restriction as an important instrument against urban sprawl in the mountain landscape.
The second home prohibition shows: Direct democracy can also intervene in complex property rights when the people want this.
Art. 75b FC — Second Homes
#Doctrine
#1. Legislative History
N. 1 The popular initiative «Stop the endless construction of second homes!» was adopted on 11 March 2012 with 50.6% of the votes and 13.5 cantons, supplementing the Federal Constitution with Art. 75b and the transitional provision Art. 197 No. 9 (AS 2012 3627; BBl 2012 6623). The initiative arose against the backdrop of decades of controversy over the consequences of second-home construction in Swiss mountain regions. At the centre was the problem of so-called «cold beds»: holiday apartments used for only a few weeks per year that occupy scarce building land, displace the local resident population, and damage the landscape. The problem of foreign demand had previously been addressed by the «Lex Koller» (Federal Act on the Acquisition of Immovable Property by Persons Abroad, SR 211.412.41), but this had lost considerable effectiveness (Mösching, Massnahmen zur Beschränkung von Zweitwohnungen, Diss. Bern 2014, p. 155 f.).
N. 2 As an indirect counter-proposal to the initiative, Parliament in 2011 transferred the spatial planning provisions on second homes into Art. 8 paras. 2 and 3 of the Federal Act on Spatial Planning (SPA), but the legislature did not go far enough for the initiative's proponents. In its message of 29 October 2008 (BBl 2008 8757), the Federal Council rejected the initiative and warned that it would lead to an «abrupt construction freeze» in numerous municipalities and would confer upon the Confederation competences that ought substantively to be placed at a different level of the federal structure (BBl 2008 8768 No. 4.3). The initiative was nonetheless adopted and immediately generated considerable legal uncertainty: the central concept of «second home» was not defined, the provision combined elements of directly applicable requirements with legislative mandates, and the date of entry into force was disputed (Mösching, Massnahmen, p. 65 ff.; Biaggini, BV, 2nd ed. 2017, Art. 75b N. 13).
N. 3 To bridge the legislative gap, the Federal Council issued an ordinance on second homes on 22 August 2012, which entered into force on 1 January 2013 (former ZWV, AS 2012 4583). The question of its competence basis for this prematurely enacted ordinance — grounded in Art. 182 para. 2 FC or only in Art. 197 No. 9 para. 1 FC after the expiry of the two-year period — was deliberately left open by the Federal Supreme Court (BGE 140 II 378 E. 4.1). The Federal Act on Second Homes of 20 March 2015 (AFSH, SR 702) entered into force on 1 January 2016 and replaced the former ZWV. It implemented an extraordinary parliamentary compromise that involved the initiative committee, which in return refrained from launching a referendum (SHK-Wolf/Nuspliger, Einleitung ZWG, N. 32 ff.).
#2. Systematic Classification
N. 4 Art. 75b FC is a competence norm with directly effective elements (para. 1) and a legislative mandate (para. 2). Systematically, it supplements Art. 75 FC (spatial planning), which grants the Confederation only framework legislative competence. With the adoption of the second-homes initiative, the Confederation has an independent competence to regulate second-home construction, which according to the prevailing view is to be characterised as concurrent — i.e., subsequently derogating — federal competence: cantonal law remained applicable until the AFSH entered into force and has since been superseded to the extent that the Confederation has exhausted its competence (Biaggini, Art. 75b BV N. 3; SHK-Mösching, Art. 1 ZWG N. 4; contra BSK-Alig/Griffel, Art. 75b BV N. 8, who assume a comprehensive federal competence).
N. 5 Art. 75b FC is closely substantively connected with Art. 78 para. 2 FC (nature and cultural heritage protection in the performance of federal tasks): the Federal Supreme Court characterised the capping of second-home construction as a federal task within the meaning of Art. 78 para. 2 FC, serving the protection of nature and the local landscape (BGE 139 II 271 E. 11.2). This entails the standing to appeal of national organisations for the protection of nature and cultural heritage under Art. 12 of the Federal Act on the Protection of Nature and Cultural Heritage (NCHA) against building permits for second homes. The constitutional objective of spatial planning (→ Art. 75 FC), the guarantee of ownership (↔ Art. 26 FC), and the principle of proportionality (→ Art. 5 para. 2 FC) form the constitutional framework within which Art. 75b FC is to be read.
N. 6 Art. 75b para. 1 FC — comparable to the mire protection provision in Art. 78 para. 5 FC — claims priority over other constitutional provisions, in particular the guarantee of ownership (Art. 26 FC) and the requirement of proportionality (Art. 5 para. 2 FC). The 20% threshold precludes case-by-case assessments; objections based on proportionality must be accepted insofar as they follow from the wording of Art. 75b para. 1 FC itself (Mösching, Massnahmen, p. 88 ff.; BSK-Alig/Griffel, Art. 75b BV N. 8).
#3. Elements of the Provision / Normative Content
3.1 Art. 75b para. 1 FC: The Prohibition on Second Homes
N. 7 Art. 75b para. 1 FC contains a quantitative maximum limit: the proportion of second homes in the total stock of dwelling units and the gross floor area used for residential purposes in a municipality may not exceed 20%. The Federal Supreme Court has characterised this provision as directly applicable in its «hard core»: insofar as classic holiday apartments in municipalities with a second-home proportion exceeding 20% are at issue, there is a prohibition on granting building permits flowing directly from the Constitution, without any further implementing provisions being necessary (BGE 139 II 243 E. 10.5). In all other respects — in particular as regards commercially managed second homes, changes of use, and extensions — the provision requires legislative concretisation.
N. 8 The concept of second home has, since the entry into force of the AFSH, been exhaustively defined in Art. 2 AFSH: a dwelling is deemed a second home if it is neither used as a primary residence (i.e., no person with their place of residence in the municipality occupies it permanently) nor treated as equivalent to a primary residence (Art. 2 paras. 2–4 AFSH). Dwellings permanently occupied for professional or educational purposes are, in particular, treated as equivalent to primary residences (Art. 2 para. 3 lit. a AFSH). This statutory concept corresponds to the purpose of the initiative — primarily to capture «cold beds», i.e., holiday property used only occasionally — and is characterised in the literature as unobjectionable (Mösching, Massnahmen, p. 95).
N. 9 Due to the absence of statistical bases, the AFSH refrains from collecting gross floor area as a second calculation parameter (Message on the AFSH, BBl 2014 2301). The second-home proportion is determined exclusively on the basis of dwelling units (Art. 4 f. AFSH). BSK-Alig/Griffel, Art. 75b BV N. 21 and CR-Besse, Art. 75b BV N. 43 regard this as a breach of the Constitution, since Art. 75b para. 1 FC expressly and cumulatively prescribes both parameters. Mösching, Massnahmen, p. 97 (in his commentary) relativises this criticism: as long as it can be empirically established that second homes are on average smaller than primary residences, exclusive counting of dwelling units tends to produce results below the 20% threshold. The first impact analysis by the Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE, 2021) was at any rate unable to refute this assumption.
N. 10 The prohibition on the creation of new second homes in affected municipalities (second-home proportion > 20%) is specified at the statutory level in Art. 6 para. 1 AFSH. New dwellings in such municipalities are in principle only permissible with one of the statutorily prescribed use restrictions (Art. 7 AFSH: primary residence or commercially managed tourist dwelling). Exceptions apply to dwellings for the cross-subsidisation of structured accommodation establishments (Art. 8 AFSH) and to protected or townscape-defining buildings (Art. 9 AFSH). The use restriction is imposed as a condition in the building permit and must be noted in the land register (Art. 7 para. 3 AFSH). Any subsequent modification is in principle subject to a building permit requirement (Art. 13 AFSH).
N. 11 Pre-existing dwellings — i.e., dwellings lawfully existing on 11 March 2012 or for which a legally binding permit had been granted (Art. 10 AFSH) — are free as to their residential use: they may be used as primary or second residences (Art. 11 para. 1 AFSH), renovated and converted within the principal usable floor area (Art. 11 para. 2 AFSH), and extended within building zones by up to 30% of the principal usable floor area, provided no new dwellings are created (Art. 11 para. 3 AFSH). This vested-rights provision does not give rise to a direct effect of the guarantee of vested rights: existing buildings were not rendered unlawful by Art. 75b FC; the provision only restricts the construction of new second homes, without retroactively capturing already existing dwellings (Mösching, Massnahmen, p. 208).
3.2 Art. 75b para. 2 FC: The Legislative Mandate
N. 12 Art. 75b para. 2 FC obliges the legislature to require municipalities to publish their primary-residence proportion plan and the status of its implementation on an annual basis. Unlike para. 1, this provision has no directly applicable content; it is a pure legislative mandate and cannot be applied directly without implementing legislation (SGK-Ruch, Art. 75b BV N. 43). The mandate was implemented by Art. 4 AFSH: all Swiss municipalities — irrespective of their second-home proportion — are required to draw up a dwelling inventory annually and to maintain it in the Federal Register of Buildings and Dwellings (RBD). The Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE) determines by 31 March of each year for each municipality whether its second-home proportion exceeds 20% (Art. 2 para. 2 of the Ordinance on Second Homes, SR 702.1).
#4. Legal Consequences
N. 13 In municipalities where the 20% proportion has been reached or exceeded, a prohibition on granting building permits for new second homes applies. This prohibition follows directly from Art. 75b para. 1 FC and is concretised at the statutory level by Art. 6 para. 1 AFSH. Violations of the prohibition may entail criminal consequences pursuant to Art. 21 f. AFSH.
N. 14 With regard to intertemporal legal consequences, the Federal Supreme Court established the following sequence (BGE 139 II 243 E. 11.6; BGE 139 II 263 E. 7): building permits for second homes that were granted at first instance before 11 March 2012 remain valid irrespective of subsequent appellate proceedings. Building permits granted at first instance between 11 March and 31 December 2012 in affected municipalities are contestable on appeal and must be quashed. Building permits granted from 1 January 2013 up to the entry into force of the implementing legislation are null and void ex officio pursuant to Art. 197 No. 9 para. 2 FC. Since 1 January 2016, the applicable rules are governed by Art. 25 para. 1 AFSH (BGE 144 II 326 E. 2.4).
N. 15 The prohibition, based on Art. 75b FC, on creating a second home redefines the content of the right of ownership and in principle does not give rise to a right to compensation for substantive expropriation within the meaning of Art. 26 para. 2 FC (BGE 144 II 367 E. 3.2). A redefinition of the content of ownership can give rise to expropriation-like effects only exceptionally, where the transition to new law produces gross inequalities («flagrant differences») for individual owners. For building permit applicants who had submitted an application after 11 March 2012, this condition is not met given the existing transitional law (BGE 144 II 367 E. 3.4). Jurisdiction over any compensation claims lies with the public authority that refused the building permit, not the Confederation (BGE 144 II 367 E. 1.2).
N. 16 Art. 75b FC and the AFSH based thereon continue to leave cantons and municipalities room for independent measures: Art. 3 para. 2 AFSH expressly allows them to enact provisions that restrict the construction and change of use of dwellings more stringently than the AFSH — in particular through quotas or second-home taxes. A municipal levy on unmanaged second homes is not already impermissible merely because Art. 75b FC itself regulates the stock of second homes; the constitutional provision does not contain an exhaustive solution to the «cold beds» problem (BGE 140 I 176 E. 5.5).
#5. Contested Issues
N. 17 Direct applicability (2012/2013): The most significant dispute concerns the question of whether Art. 75b para. 1 FC was directly applicable from 11 March 2012. The cantonal administrative courts of the cantons of Graubünden, Valais, and Vaud, as well as a substantial part of the legal literature (notably Mösching, Zeitpunkt, Jusletter 10.12.2012, Rz. 25 ff.; Norer, in: Norer/Rütsche [eds.], Rechtliche Umsetzung der Zweitwohnungsinitiative, 2013, p. 36 f.; Ganz, Jusletter 10.12.2012, Rz. 33), denied direct applicability and regarded Art. 197 No. 9 para. 2 FC as an intertemporal transitional provision: until 31 December 2012 the old law would still apply. The ARE and another part of the doctrine (Marti, ZBl 113/2012 p. 281 f.; Waldmann, Jusletter 10.12.2012) affirmed (at least partial) direct applicability. The Federal Supreme Court, in BGE 139 II 243 E. 9–11, followed the latter approach: Art. 197 No. 9 para. 2 FC does not contain a transitional period but merely intensifies the legal consequence from 1 January 2013 onwards (nullity instead of contestability).
N. 18 Gross floor area as a calculation parameter: BSK-Alig/Griffel, Art. 75b BV N. 12 and 21 and CR-Besse, Art. 75b BV N. 43 consider the AFSH's omission of the gross floor area calculation to be unconstitutional, since Art. 75b para. 1 FC expressly and cumulatively prescribes both parameters. Mösching, Massnahmen, p. 97, by contrast, regards this criticism as overstated: given the absence of uniform federal definitions and data, the provisional restriction to counting dwelling units is appropriate provided the result does not systematically fall below the 20% threshold.
N. 19 Federal competence: concurrent or exclusive? Mösching, Massnahmen, p. 75 ff. and SHK-Mösching, Art. 1 ZWG N. 4 argue that Art. 75b FC is merely a supplement to the framework legislative competence under Art. 75 FC and is to be interpreted restrictively. BSK-Alig/Griffel, Art. 75b BV N. 8 and SGK-Ruch, Art. 75b BV N. 24, by contrast, see a comprehensive federal competence that allows the Confederation to conclusively regulate all legal issues relating to second homes. The practical significance of this dispute lies in the question of how far cantonal law (in particular use quotas and allocation systems) is derogated by the AFSH.
N. 20 Constitutionality of the AFSH (Art. 8 AFSH — dwellings for cross-subsidisation): BSK-Alig/Griffel, Art. 75b BV N. 40 and CR-Besse, Art. 75b BV N. 76 object that Art. 8 AFSH, under certain conditions, permits the construction of new «cold beds» for the cross-subsidisation of hotel operations, thereby undermining the core objective of Art. 75b FC. Mösching, Massnahmen, p. 97 (in his commentary) and the initiative proponents themselves, however, considered this to be an acceptable compromise compatible with the will of the electorate, since the consenting initiative proponents expressly supported the parliamentary decision. This distinction is also regarded by CR-Besse, Art. 75b BV N. 74 as a strong indication of constitutional conformity.
N. 21 Abuse of rights in applications for primary-residence permits: A central dispute concerns the conditions under which a building permit application for a primary residence is to be characterised as a circumvention of the law (abuse of rights). The Federal Supreme Court developed a case-specific standard in BGE 142 II 206 E. 2.5: abuse of rights is to be assumed only where there are manifest indications that primary-residence use is unrealistic from the outset. In BGE 145 II 99, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed and tightened this standard for large projects: where a large number of planned «primary residences» are in tourist-oriented locations, it is to be examined ex officio whether there is sufficient local demand for primary residences. Decisive indications are location, typology, price, number of planned units, and known intentions of the building applicant.
#6. Practical Notes
N. 22 Building permit procedure: In municipalities with a second-home proportion exceeding 20%, every building permit application for a new dwelling must be examined for its conformity with Art. 75b FC in conjunction with Art. 6 ff. AFSH. Building authorities must examine ex officio whether there are concrete indications militating against the intended use as a primary residence; a substantiated objection by the appellant is not a prerequisite (BGE 142 II 206 E. 2.5; BGE 145 II 99). If there are serious doubts, the project must be rejected or a demand verification (vacancy survey, declarations of intent to purchase) ordered.
N. 23 Dwelling inventory and border municipalities: Municipalities whose second-home proportion is close to the 20% threshold («lift municipalities») should go beyond the minimum survey required by Art. 4 para. 2 AFSH and also separately record in the RBD dwellings treated as equivalent to primary residences (Art. 2 para. 3 AFSH) pursuant to Art. 4 para. 3 AFSH in conjunction with Art. 1 para. 1 of the Ordinance on Second Homes. Otherwise, the second-home proportion will be statistically overstated, because dwellings without a registered resident are automatically assigned the status of a potential second home (SHK-Mösching, Art. 4 ZWG N. 8 ff.). A decision by the ARE on the second-home proportion may be appealed to the Federal Administrative Court and subsequently to the Federal Supreme Court.
N. 24 Intertemporal questions in the relationship between the AFSH and the former ZWV: The AFSH applies to all building permit applications that had not yet been conclusively decided as at 1 January 2016 (BGE 144 II 326 E. 2.4; Art. 25 para. 1 AFSH). Exceptions apply to building permits that had been conclusively granted before 11 March 2012 (Art. 25 para. 2 AFSH), as well as to project-specific special land-use plans under Art. 26 f. AFSH. Such a plan must make clear with sufficient clarity that it is aimed, at least in substantial part, at the creation of second homes (BGE 146 II 80).
N. 25 Cantonal and municipal discretion: Notwithstanding the federal law regulation, cantons and municipalities retain considerable room for manoeuvre: they may enact more restrictive provisions (Art. 3 para. 2 AFSH), levy fiscal steering charges on second homes (BGE 140 I 176), and independently shape the implementation of the AFSH (Art. 23 AFSH). These options are particularly relevant for economically disadvantaged mountain regions that need a pragmatic approach to the prohibition in order to prevent further emigration of the resident population (Mösching, Massnahmen, p. 235 ff.).
N. 26 Expropriation law claims: Anyone who suffers expropriation-like disadvantages as a result of a refusal of a building permit grounded in Art. 75b FC must direct their compensation claim against the public authority (canton or municipality) that issued the refusal — not against the Confederation (BGE 144 II 367 E. 1.2). Such a claim has prospects of success only in exceptional circumstances, since the second-home restriction is treated as a redefinition of the content of the right of ownership and not as an interference with an already existing property right (BGE 144 II 367 E. 3.2 f.).
Bibliography (selected):
- Alig Jonas/Griffel Alain, in: Waldmann/Belser/Epiney (eds.), Basler Kommentar Bundesverfassung, Basel 2015 [BSK-Alig/Griffel]
- Besse Marc-Olivier, in: Martenet/Dubey (eds.), Constitution fédérale, Commentaire Romand, Basel 2021 [CR-Besse]
- Biaggini Giovanni, Bundesverfassung, 2nd ed. 2017
- Mösching Fabian, Massnahmen zur Beschränkung von Zweitwohnungen, Diss. Bern 2014
- Ruch Alexander, in: Ehrenzeller/Schindler/Schweizer/Vallender (eds.), St. Galler Kommentar BV, 3rd ed. 2014 [SGK-Ruch]
- Wolf Stephan/Pfammatter Aron (eds.), Stämpflis Handkommentar ZWG, 2nd ed. 2021 [SHK]
#Case Law
#Direct Applicability and Transitional Law
BGE 139 II 243 of 11 March 2012 Art. 75b para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 197 no. 9 para. 2 Fed. Const. contains a directly applicable building permit prohibition for second homes in municipalities where the 20% share is reached or exceeded. This landmark ruling created clarity regarding the immediate effect of the second homes initiative after its adoption.
«Art. 75b para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 197 no. 9 para. 2 Fed. Const. contains a directly applicable building permit prohibition for second homes in municipalities where the 20% share is reached or exceeded. This prohibition applies to all building permits that have been granted at first instance in the affected municipalities since 11 March 2012.»
BGE 139 II 263 of 22 May 2013 The constitutional provision is applicable to building applications that were submitted before 11 March 2012 but were only granted at first instance after that date. The ruling specifies the transitional application to pending proceedings.
«In the absence of a special transitional provision, the general principles must be applied. Accordingly, Art. 75b para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 197 no. 9 para. 2 Fed. Const. is in principle applicable if the building permit was granted at first instance after its entry into force on 11 March 2012.»
BGE 144 II 326 of 24 May 2018
The Second Homes Act is applicable to all building applications that had not yet been definitively approved on 1 January 2016.
The ruling clarifies the relationship between the constitutional article and the implementing law.
«The SHA is applicable to all building applications that had not yet been definitively approved on 1 January 2016 (date of entry into force of the SHA). This also applies if the building permit was granted at first instance before the entry into force of Art. 75b Fed. Const. on 11 March 2012.»
#Abuse of Rights in Primary Residences
BGE 142 II 206 of 3 May 2016 Abuse of rights exists when the building owner claims to be creating a primary residence but actually intends to circumvent the second homes prohibition. Landmark decision on the abusive circumvention of second homes restrictions through feigned primary residences.
«There is a risk of abuse of rights when the building owner claims to be creating a primary residence but actually intends to circumvent the prohibition contained in Art. 75b Fed. Const. and Art. 6 SHA.»
BGE 145 II 99 of 1 January 2018 Abuse of rights in 12 planned primary residences in Saanen due to unrealistic marketing as primary residences. The ruling specifies the criteria for examining abuse of rights in primary residence projects.
«According to the newer case law of the Federal Supreme Court, it must be examined ex officio whether concrete indications exist that make the intention or possibility of primary residence use of the building project appear unrealistic.»
#Standing to Appeal and Procedure
BGE 139 II 271 of 22 May 2013 Nature and heritage protection associations have standing to appeal against building permits for second home construction, as second homes restrictions represent a federal task of landscape conservation. The ruling expands the circle of those entitled to appeal against second home construction.
«The capping of second home construction according to Art. 75b Fed. Const. represents a federal task that serves to protect nature and the domestic landscape.»
BGE 140 II 378 of 15 August 2014 Municipalities have standing to appeal against decisions that oblige them to grant second home permits that they consider void. The ruling strengthens the legal position of municipalities in enforcing the second homes prohibition.
«The municipality has standing to appeal against a decision that obliges it to grant a building permit that would, in its view, be void according to Art. 197 no. 9 para. 2 Fed. Const.»
#Expropriation Law Aspects
BGE 144 II 367 of 6 August 2018 The second homes prohibition redefines the content of property rights and does not generally create a right to compensation. Landmark ruling on the expropriation law assessment of second homes restrictions.
«The restriction of second homes redefines the content of property rights. When the content of property rights is newly defined, compensation for material expropriation is in principle excluded.»
#Tax Law Aspects
BGE 140 I 176 of 1 January 2014 Municipal second homes taxes are permissible, as Art. 75b Fed. Const. does not contain a conclusive solution for the problem of "cold beds". The ruling confirms the compatibility of municipal steering measures with the Federal Constitution.
«The second homes initiative adopted in the federal referendum of 11 March 2012, or the newly created Art. 75b Fed. Const., does not contain a comprehensive and thus conclusive solution for the problem of so-called ‹cold beds› and therefore does not preclude the disputed municipal second homes tax.»
#Exceptions and Special Land Use Plans
BGE 146 II 80 of 23 January 2020 A special land use plan approved before 11 March 2012 must clearly show that second homes are to be built at least to a substantial extent. The ruling specifies the requirements for exceptions based on old plans.
«The special land use plan must clearly show that the construction of second homes is intended at least to a substantial extent. The mere intention to build second homes is not sufficient.»
#Spatial Planning Aspects
BGE 140 II 25 of 6 December 2013 The second homes prohibition must be considered when reviewing land use plans due to changed circumstances. The ruling illustrates the effects of Art. 75b Fed. Const. on municipal spatial planning.
«The introduction of second homes restrictions represents a substantial change in legal circumstances that may require a review of municipal land use planning.»