Greenkama

No house expropriation due to the EU program “Fit for 55”

As part of the “European Green Deal”, we will face immense costs for climate protection. However, the expropriation of homeowners is not planned.

Author: Walter Feichtinger

The claim

Behind the EU climate initiative “Fit for 55” lies a program for the gradual expropriation of homeowners by 2030

Our conclusion

The climate-friendly renovation of all buildings in the EU will not be cheap. By 2030, all residential buildings must meet efficiency class D and even be climate-neutral by 2050. There are exceptions for, among other things, historical buildings. The costs are cushioned by the “climate social fund”.

A widely shared video and blog article claim that “Fit for 55” results in residential properties being classified as uninhabitable and subsequently having to be evicted. This also applies to historical buildings such as old half-timbered houses, which can no longer be modernized to the required standard. If the renovation is not possible or affordable, then this regulation amounts to a de facto expropriation.

YT video: Expropriation of buildings
Screenshot of the YT video “Scandal: EU plans targeted expropriation of houses”

___STEADY_PAYWALL___

What is Fit for 55?

The EU Commission has set itself the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the Union by at least 55 percent by 2030 compared to 1990. To ensure that this doesn't just remain a pious wish, the “Fit for 55” climate program has drawn up twelve concrete suggestions on how this can be achieved. Although that can only be the first step. Europe should be climate neutral overall by 2050, according to the “European Green Deal”. The twelve proposals concern twelve laws: eight existing ones must be changed and four others must be re-enacted, it was said when the program was presented on July 14, 2021.

The specific measures concern, among other things:

  • the emissions trading system, which now also includes the building sector
  • the Renewable Energy Directive, the common framework for the production of energy from renewable sources
  • the Energy Efficiency Directive, which sets targets for energy efficiency
  • the Effort Sharing Regulation, which distributes climate targets according to the performance of the EU member states
  • and the Energy Taxation Directive, which regulates the taxation of energy

A revision of the EU Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings (EPBD) was also on the agenda. This had to be discussed by both the EU Parliament and the EU Council. The Commission therefore acted as a mediator. The Council has now set ; what the details and sanctions should look like is left to the member states when ratifying the directive.

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure the implementation of the minimum energy performance targets referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, including appropriate monitoring mechanisms and sanctions in accordance with Article 31.

From the EPBD recast proposal

Expropriation is not the goal

This makes it clear right away that the execution of the guidelines is not in the hands of EU bodies. Theoretically, this can still be handled very differently by individual members. But what is referred to as “expropriation” is clearly not the plan. The costs for a climate-neutral Europe are estimated at around one trillion euros, including 120 billion euros per year for necessary investments in the area of ​​energy efficiency in residential buildings. However, these immense expenses are to be mitigated by the “climate social fund” :

The Fund is intended to provide Member States with financial support to finance the measures and investments mentioned in their plans and to promote improvements in energy efficiency, renovation and decarbonization of heating and air conditioning in buildings, as well as zero- and low-emission options in the field of mobility and transport . Also included are measures that – temporarily and to a limited extent – ​​provide direct income support.

Press release from the Council of the EU of June 29, 2022

Homeowners with a tight budget are therefore given a helping hand. Residential buildings have a total of 10 years to bring them up to energy efficiency class D. Zero emissions must be achieved by 2050. However, there are exceptions to the required energy efficiency, for example in historical buildings, churches, barracks, workshops, agricultural buildings and detached houses under 50 m². Buildings under monument protection – including many half-timbered houses – will probably be affected.

So where does this idea of ​​expropriation come from?

The crux of the criticism is probably the statement: The buildings may no longer be inhabited or used. However, there is no corresponding, explicit statement in the Fit for 55 texts. So where does this claim come from? An article in Spiegel from the end of 2021, which is still quoted by many media outlets on this topic, refers to the owners' association Haus & Grund :

He writes that the new building directive, which was still being planned at the time, would mean the end for “40 million buildings across Europe”. In Germany, around 3 million buildings would be affected, which would then “no longer be used”. “For many buildings in energy classes F and G, renovation will not be an option; replacement construction will cost at least 1,200 billion euros. For many private owners, the EU is ending the dream of having their own four walls,” said Association President Kai Warnecke at the presentation of the draft directive on December 15, 2021 in Berlin.

The Vienna real estate timeline is still in the same vein in February 2022. The President of the Austrian House and Landowners Association specifically uses the E-word in a blog text:

From 2033 onwards, all residential buildings must be at least in efficiency class E. 40 million buildings are affected across the EU. If the minimum efficiency requirements are not achieved within the specified deadlines, these buildings may no longer be used. This measure amounts to expropriation. An owner would often only have the option of selling or demolishing their property.

Martin Prunbauer in “Is there a risk of expropriation through climate neutrality and the energy transition?”

The concept of “expropriation” is not in the text of the proposal, and the EU Commission also denies it

The current “compromise text” on a new version of the EU directive on the energy performance of buildings says that the sanctions for non-compliance with the requirements should be a deterrent. However, the concept of “expropriation” or anything that could be interpreted that way is not found in the text:

Member States shall determine the sanctions to be imposed in the event of a breach of the national rules implementing this Directive and shall take the necessary measures to enforce them.
The penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall immediately inform the Commission of any changes to the rules notified in accordance with Article 27 of Directive 2010/31/EU.

“Article 31: Sanctions” in the EPBD recast proposal

The dpa asked the EU Commission again why it was regulated this way. The answer: “The Commission proposal gives Member States flexibility in deciding which measures they want to introduce to achieve the objectives set out in the Directive. […] Under no circumstances does the Commission expect anyone to be kicked out of a house in order to implement efficiency targets. This would be completely disproportionate.”

The concepts in the proposal text are not yet set in stone. If you read this text carefully, some details differ from the position of the EU Commission. The legislative process is still ongoing, the next step is for Parliament to take a position. This can all take a while.

Conclusion: The costs of climate protection as part of the “European Green Deal” and the “Fit for 55” program are enormous. A not insignificant part of the investment costs relate to residential buildings that must meet efficiency class D by 2030 and even be climate-neutral by 2050. However, there are exceptions for historical buildings, among other things. The costs are also cushioned by the “climate social fund”. Implementation and sanctions are left to the member states in consultation with the Commission.


Sources: Website of the Council of the EU and the European Council, dpa , Spiegel , Immo-Timeline , Haus & Grund , haufe.de

Current fact checks:
Can the federal government use vaccines that transmit themselves?
Is the letter from the German reservist association real?
WHO does not want to remove human rights from the “International Health Regulations”!

Subscribe to our WhatsApp channel via link or QR scan! Activate the small 🔔 and receive a current news overview as well as exciting fact checks .

Link: Mimikama's WhatsApp channel

Mimikama WhatsApp channel

Notes:

1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication
.
The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual articles (not fact checks) were created using machine help and
were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )


With your help, you support one of the most important independent sources of information on the subject of fake news and consumer protection in German-speaking countries

Are you concerned about misinformation online? Mimikama is committed to a fact-based and safe internet. Your support allows us to continue to ensure quality and authenticity online. Please support and help us create a trustworthy digital environment. Your support counts! You too can become an ambassador for Mimikama

More from Greenkama