TAE: Resilient housing markets for a competitive Europe

Background 

  1. Short-term rentals: EU Regulation 2024/1028
    Already adopted: 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 to enable them to monitor local rules more effectively. 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 housing supply, reducing administrative burdens, speeding up planning and approval procedures, private and public investment, and 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 estimated to have grown 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 and 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 is becoming outdated or is simply no longer being built.
  • Index-linked rents under political pressure:
    If even contractually agreed, inflation-linked rent models are restricted by policy, uncertainty for investors increases. Anyone who does not know today whether their investment will still pay off tomorrow simply will not build.
  • Strict restrictions on short-term rentals
    (e.g. in tourist cities)    :
    If these are restricted across the board, fewer holiday homes will be created – 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
  • Home ownership 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 are appropriate.
  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 security is a prerequisite for more housing
  • Regulation must be proportionate, targeted and adapted 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, the fact remains:
Housing is not created through regulation – but through investment.
And this requires trust, planning certainty and economic prospects – not additional bureaucracy from Brussels.

Brussels/Munich, 7 May 2026