My friend Anja is originally from Russia, but she has been living in Switzerland for what feels like forever. She has adapted well to Swiss culture and built a successful career. Anja is incredibly helpful, funny, and has a big heart. Spending time with her is always a joy. However, in certain areas, she’s quite particular, and even after all these years in Switzerland, things like punctuality haven’t left much of an impression on her. I’m used to her being late. Not always, but almost always. That’s why I only meet her in places where I don’t mind waiting. The best option is when she comes over to my place. Then I couldn’t care less if she shows up at 7 or half past 8.
We had made plans again recently, and based on my past experiences, I suggested she come to my place for dinner. So, we agreed. I told her 6 o’clock on purpose, knowing that she wouldn’t show up before 8 anyway. I didn’t stress about having dinner ready at a specific time either. By 8 o’clock, I had pretty much eaten alone. Calling Anja doesn’t help anyway, because she never picks up her phone. In the past, I used to worry when she was late and tried to find out what was going on. But I stopped doing that a long time ago, as I know it doesn’t help. She’ll eventually show up, smiling as if nothing’s wrong.
That evening, however, Anja didn’t come at all. Since I had a few things to finish, I dedicated the rest of my evening to work.
The next day, Jacob was visiting me when, at 7 p.m., the doorbell rang. There was Anja, greeting me as exuberantly as ever. “Anja,” I asked, surprised, “didn’t we agree to meet yesterday?” Completely calm, Anja replied, “My dear, I couldn’t make it earlier,” kissed me on the cheek, and started taking off her shoes.
We ended up having a great evening with lively conversations, though the food was a bit scarce for three. But that’s just typical Anja.
A new and upcoming amendment of the Czech VAT Act will very likely come into effect from 1 January 2025 in the Czech Republic (“CZ“). This amendment will, among other things, include two new significant obligations for businesses which were established outside the European Union and are registered/identified for VAT purposes in CZ. The new obligations are as follows:
1. Appoint an agent for communication with the Czech tax authorities.
A non-resident entity established outside the EU will be required to appoint an agent for communicating with the Czech tax authorities (“agent”). The Czech tax authorities require a specific channel for communication, so by law the agent can only be an entity that is legally obligated to have a data mailbox. Non-resident companies that have already set up their own data mailboxes will not have to appoint an agent.
2. Notify the Czech tax authorities of an email address.
A non-resident entity established outside the EU will also be required to announce an email address for electronic communication with the Czech tax authorities. This must be done by submitting the official form for a change of registration details.
The deadline for both obligations is the end of February 2025.
What steps need to be taken to comply with the new rules?
1. The agent has to be appointed in CZ and announced to the Czech tax authorities by providing a special power of attorney. This can be done at any time between now and the end of February 2025 (unless the entity has already appointed an agent).
2. The email address for electronic communication has to be announced to the Czech tax authorities by submitting the form for a change of registration details. This can be done between 1 January 2025 and the end of February 2025.
What penalties can apply for non-compliance?
If an entity fails to fulfil one or both of the obligations, penalties will apply.
1. A penalty of CZK 1,000 (approx. EUR 40 / USD 44) per day will be imposed if the agent has not been appointed, starting from 1 March 2025.
2. A penalty of up to CZK 500,000 (approx. EUR 19,750 / USD 21,590) may be imposed for failing to announce the email address by 28 February 2025.
How can PwC help?
We are ready to assist with both obligations. We provide the agent service for our clients based on a power of attorney. The agent service includes forwarding enquiries which the Czech tax authorities have delivered to the PwC CZ data mailbox addressed to the client with a brief English summary of the content of the received document (all communication received from the Czech tax authorities is in Czech). We can also help announce the email address for electronic communication to the tax authorities by submitting the form for a change of registration details, again based on a power of attorney.
If you are interested in our assistance or need any consultation on this issue, please contact our experts Michaela Vrana or Sarka Horvathova from PwC Czech Republic.
Die kleine Anna wollte schon immer ein Haustier – egal welches, hauptsache etwas Lebendiges. Da sich die Diskussion mit ihren Eltern über einen Hund oder eine Katze als schwierig gestaltete, brachte sie nach Hause, was sich draußen so bewegte. Es gab Regenwürmer, Kaulquappen, Schnecken, Zikaden, Schmetterlinge und Ähnliches. Anna pflegte die Tiere und ließ sie meistens nach einer bestimmten Zeit wieder frei.
Eines Tages bot Vivien ihr zwei Mäuse an. Natürlich musste man Anna nicht lange überzeugen. Ihre Antwort war sofort “Ja!” – die eigentliche Frage war eher, wie sie ihre Eltern überzeugen könnte. Nicht überraschend erwies sich die Diskussion am Abend als schwierig. Trotz Annas taktischem Geschick wollten die Eltern nichts von Mäusen wissen. Anna war ziemlich deprimiert. Sie verweigerte ihr Lieblingsessen und lehnte auch den angebotenen Film ab. Sie zog sich in ihr Zimmer zurück und blätterte in ihrer großen Tier-Enzyklopädie, die sie vor zwei Jahren von ihrer Großmutter zu Weihnachten bekommen hatte. Die Bilder trösteten sie jedoch nicht. Anna hatte eine unermessliche Sehnsucht nach etwas Lebendigem, um das sie sich kümmern konnte.
Währenddessen diskutierten die Eltern, ob es vielleicht doch möglich sei, zwei kleinen Mäusen ein Heim zu geben. Es könnte für Anna von Vorteil sein, dachten sie. Die Mutter besuchte Anna in ihrem Zimmer und fragte sie, wie lange solche Mäuse leben würden. Anna wusste es nicht, also begannen beide, nach Informationen zu suchen. Sie fanden heraus, dass Mäuse eine Lebensdauer von etwa zwei Jahren haben. Für die Mutter schien das ein überschaubares Risiko zu sein – einer Schildkröte hätte sie nie zugestimmt.
Und so zogen bei den Müllers zwei kleine Mäuse ein: Lisa und Isa. Der Vater besorgte zusammen mit Anna aus zweiter Hand ein großes Terrarium, und Anna richtete ihren beiden Mäusen ein bequemes und liebevolles Heim ein. Nach der Schule schloss Anna immer die Tür zu ihrem Kinderzimmer ab und ließ die Mäuse darin frei herumlaufen. Die Eltern schauten ab und zu nach, ob alles in Ordnung war, aber es war gar nicht nötig. Anna kümmerte sich sehr gewissenhaft und vorbildlich um Lisa und Isa. Wochen, Monate und schließlich Jahre vergingen. Mittlerweile war Anna ein Teenager, und die beiden Mäuse hatten fast vier Jahre bei ihnen gelebt. Das Fell der Mäuse war an den Seiten weiß geworden, aber das fortgeschrittene Alter schien ihnen keine Probleme zu bereiten.
Eines Tages, als Anna von der Schule nach Hause kam, bewegte sich Lisa nicht mehr. Sie war tot. Isa saß gedrängt neben der toten Lisa und rührte sich nicht. Anna traute sich nicht, die tote Lisa wegzunehmen. Sie war zutiefst erschüttert über den Tod der kleinen Maus, aber noch mehr Sorgen machte sie sich um Isa. Die Maus, die ihr ganzes Leben lang nie allein war und alles geteilt hatte, war plötzlich allein. Anna wusste nicht, wie man eine Maus tröstet oder ihr helfen konnte.
Anna holte Rat bei Vivien, von der sie Lisa und Isa bekommen hatte und die für Anna die größte Mäuse-Expertin war. Vivien war besorgt und sagte, dass Isa nicht allein bleiben könne – sonst würde sie auch sterben. Deshalb beschlossen Anna und Vivien, dass Anna ihre Isa zu den Mäusen von Vivien bringt. Das war jedoch nicht so einfach, denn obwohl Isa ursprünglich aus Viviens Terrarium stammte, akzeptierten die Mäuse, die dort heute lebten, Isa mit grosse Wahrscheinlichkeit nicht. Vivien bereitete daher ein Kamillebad vor und badete alle ihre Mäuse darin. Die Mäuse waren zwar wenig begeistert, aber Viviens Finger entkam keine. Schließlich badete auch Anna ihre Isa im Kamillebad. Der ganze Raum roch nach Kamille. Schweren Herzens ließ Anna ihre Isa zu Viviens Mäusen, die sofort anfingen, Isa zu beschnuppern. Die Akzeptanz war da, und so hatte Isa ein neues Zuhause in einer Gemeinschaft gefunden.
Vivien erklärte Anna, dass Isa, wenn sie nicht gebadet worden wäre und anders gerochen hätte, möglicherweise von den anderen Mäusen gebissen worden wäre.
Damit war das Kapitel der Haustiere für Anna abgeschlossen. Lisa wurde unter Tränen im Garten begraben, das Terrarium wurde wieder verkauft – sogar zum gleichen Preis wie damals gekauft – und Anna musste ihrer Mutter erklären, dass die Lebensdauer von zwei Jahren nur in freier Natur gilt. Unter stressfreien Bedingungen mit genügend Futter kann sich die Lebensdauer verdoppeln.
Anna hat gelernt, wie wichtig es ist, den gleichen „Stallgeruch“ zu haben, um in eine Gemeinschaft aufgenommen zu werden. Was bei den Mäusen gilt, ist bei den Menschen nicht anders – nur sind die Lösungen, die bei Mäusen funktionieren, bei Menschen kaum umsetzbar.
Little Anna had always wanted a pet – it didn’t matter what kind, as long as it was something alive. Since the discussion with her parents about getting a dog or a cat proved difficult, she brought home whatever she could find outside. There were earthworms, tadpoles, snails, cicadas, butterflies, and similar creatures. Anna took care of them and usually set them free after a certain amount of time.
One day, Vivien offered her two mice. Naturally, there was no need to convince Anna – her answer was an immediate “yes!” The real question was how Anna would convince her parents. Unsurprisingly, the discussion that evening was tough. Despite Anna’s tactical skill, her parents didn’t want to hear anything about mice. Anna was quite upset. She refused her favorite food and even turned down the movie they offered to watch together. She withdrew to her room and flipped through her large animal encyclopedia, which she had received from her grandmother for Christmas two years earlier. But the pictures offered her no comfort. Anna had an immense longing for something alive, something she could care for.
Meanwhile, her parents discussed whether it might indeed be possible to give two little mice a home. It could be beneficial for Anna, they thought. Anna’s mother visited her in her room and asked how long these little mice would live. Anna didn’t know, so they began searching for information. They found that mice have a lifespan of about two years. For her mother, this seemed like a manageable risk – she would never have agreed to a turtle.
And so, two little mice – Lisa and Isa – moved in with the Müllers. Together with Anna, her father got a large terrarium second-hand, and Anna set up a cozy and loving home for her two mice. After school, Anna would lock her bedroom door and let the mice roam freely in her room. Her parents would occasionally check to see if everything was okay, but it wasn’t really necessary. Anna took care of Lisa and Isa very responsibly and diligently. Weeks, months, and eventually years passed. By this time, Anna was a teenager, and the two mice had lived with them for nearly four years. The mice’s fur had turned white on the sides, but their advanced age didn’t seem to cause them any problems.
One day, when Anna came home from school, Lisa was no longer moving. She had died. Isa sat closely beside the lifeless Lisa, completely still. Anna didn’t dare move Lisa’s body. She was deeply shaken by the death of the little mouse, but she was even more worried about Isa. Isa, who had never been alone in her life and shared everything with her companion, was now left by herself. Anna didn’t know how to comfort a mouse or how to help her.
Anna sought advice from Vivien, from whom Lisa and Isa had originally come, and who, in Anna’s eyes, was the greatest expert when it came to mice. Vivien was concerned and told Anna that Isa couldn’t be left alone – otherwise, she would die too. So, Anna and Vivien decided that Isa should join Vivien’s mice. But this wasn’t so simple, because even though Isa had originally come from Vivien’s terrarium, the mice living there now didn’t accept Isa right away. Vivien therefore prepared a chamomile bath and bathed all her mice in it. The mice weren’t too thrilled, but none managed to escape Vivien’s grasp. Finally, Anna bathed her Isa in the chamomile bath as well. The entire room smelled of chamomile. With a heavy heart, Anna left Isa with Vivien’s mice, who immediately began sniffing her. The acceptance was there, and so Isa found a new home in the company of other mice.
Vivien explained to Anna that if they hadn’t bathed the mice and Isa had smelled different, the other mice might have bitten her.
And with that, the chapter of having pets came to an end. Lisa was buried in the garden amid tears, the terrarium was sold again – even for the same price as it was bought – and Anna had to explain to her mother that the two-year lifespan applied to wild mice, but under conditions with little stress and plenty of food, their lifespan could double.
Anna learned how important it is to have the same “group smell” in order to be accepted into a community. What applies to mice is no different for humans – it’s just that the solutions that work for mice are hardly practical for people.
The European Commission has released new FAQ clarifications and a guidance document on the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), offering detailed insights into various aspects such as traceability, geolocation and due diligence requirements. In response to global feedback, the Commission proposed a 12-month extension for implementation of the regulation. If accepted by the EU Parliament and Council, this will give larger operators time until December 2025 and SMEs until June 2026 to fully comply with the new regulation.
The European Commission’s latest updates include two crucial documents: updated FAQs and a guidance document. Additionally, a user guide on the Information System has been also published along with online training appointments. These resources aim to help businesses navigate the complexities of the new regulation on deforestation-free products by clarifying key aspects, such as traceability requirements, legal requirements and geolocation standards, and the obligations of SMEs.
While the updated documents provide clarity on certain aspects of the EUDR, preparing for compliance remains a significant challenge for companies. On the other hand, the additional timeline allows businesses to refine their processes and better align with sustainability goals, particularly in light of the forthcoming Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) regulation.
What is the EUDR?
The EUDR is an environmental regulation that prohibits the placement of certain commodities linked to deforestation on the EU market. The EUDR focuses on the below high-risk commodities and related products:
palm oil
soy
coffee
cocoa
wood
cattle
rubber
Based on the EUDR, the commodities and products in scope must fulfil three cumulative requirements to be compliant and allowed on the EU market:
No or negligible risk of deforestation.
Produced in accordance with local legislation.
Accompanied by a Due Diligence Statement (DDS).
Some highlights from the updated FAQ
Traceability
The recent updates to the EUDR FAQ provide several clarifications on geolocation and traceability. For example, the requirements have been simplified for small land plots under four hectares, allowing operators to use a single latitude and longitude point and it is mentioned that one DDS can cover more than one commodity and it can be consolidated to cover more shipments. Additionally, guidance has been provided on how to declare the place of production for mixed goods and under what circumstances operators can declare geolocation “in excess.” Operators are reminded that full traceability and documentation are crucial for compliance.
DDS submission and correction
The updated FAQ also elaborates on when operators and traders must submit a due diligence statement (DDS) before placing relevant products on the EU market or exporting them. The DDS reference number must be included in the customs declaration for products entering or leaving the EU, and it should be obtained prior to lodging the customs declaration. For products produced within the EU, the DDS submission is required once the product is physically available and a supply agreement has been finalised, regardless of payment, shipment, or transfer of ownership. A DDS number can be amended or cancelled within 72 hours unless the product has already been placed on the market.
Transitional period
The EU Commission also clarifies some questions with respect to the transition period. During these periods, operators and traders are not obligated to meet the EUDR requirements for products placed on the market before these respective deadlines. The transition period extends until December 30, 2024, with the exception of SMEs, who will have an extended transition until June 30, 2025 (these deadlines will shift by a year if the EU Parliament and Council accept the 12-month extension). Evidence for products placed on the market before the regulation’s full applicability can be provided through customs declarations for imported goods, while EU-produced goods may require various forms of documentation, such as production records or delivery notes, to demonstrate compliance.
Guidance document gives more details on the legality requirements
The determination of whether a relevant commodity or product has been produced in accordance with the legislation of the country of production relies on the specific laws governing the area where the commodity was grown, harvested, or raised. The EUDR adopts a flexible stance by acknowledging a range of laws relevant to the legality of production without specifying which laws, as they can vary by country and change over time. However, only those laws that directly affect the legal status of the production area are deemed relevant. This includes laws related to land use rights, environmental protection, forest management, third-party rights, and labor rights, among others. Operators are required to gather information about applicable legislation in the countries and specific areas from which they source commodities, ensuring that they comply with national and international laws. Specificities that need to be collected include for example official documents from authorities, contracts with local communities, and environmental assessments. Additionally, operators must be vigilant regarding the risk of corruption in the countries of production, taking extra measures to verify the authenticity of documents where corruption risks are high.
New TARIC document codes created for EUDR
Directorate-General Taxation and Customs Union has also published new TARIC codes addressing the requirements of EUDR. For example, a new TARIC document code C716 has to be used to declare that a company is in possession of the required due diligence statement (DDS). Code Y129 has been established for products listed with an HS code in the regulation but not derived from the relevant commodity. This allows the declarant to indicate that, while the product falls under a nomenclature code impacted by the EUDR, it is not subject to the regulation because it is not produced from the specified commodity.
Outstanding clarifications and future developments for EUDR Compliance
Although the updated documents provide additional guidance for companies, certain areas still need further clarification. The Commission is developing a benchmarking system to classify countries based on their deforestation risk, enhancing risk assessments for operators. It will also further clarify the role of certification schemes in risk mitigation and is developing specific criteria for sufficient documentation in complex supply chains. Moreover, guidance is being prepared on the definition of “agricultural use,” agroforestry practices, and other legal aspects of interest. The Commission continues to engage with stakeholders to provide informal guidance and good practice examples while addressing commodity-specific aspects.
What is needed
The numerous requirements under the EUDR present significant challenges for companies. Strong governance frameworks and effective data management are crucial to navigate these obligations. I recommend conducting a thorough assessment of your current compliance status and identifying any potential gaps. We can assist in several key areas to ensure EUDR compliance:
Impact Assessment: Support with identifying if your company qualifies as an operator or trader handling affected commodities.
Due Diligence Processes: Assistance with setting up due diligence procedures, identifying risks, and ensuring compliance with EUDR requirements.
Governance Model: Assistance in setting up a governance model and implementing a control framework for yearly reviews and audit preparation.
Supply Chain Redesign: Support in creating a sustainable supply chain and adapting distribution processes to meet regulatory requirements, which go beyond EUDR.
I had dinner plans. As soon as I arrived at the restaurant, my phone rang, and my best friend explained that she was stuck in traffic and would be at least half an hour late. That’s nothing unusual, it happens almost every time. I didn’t get upset. I wanted to read my emails, but the conversation at the next table drew me in and fascinated me. I listened. The volume made it easy to follow without any effort. Here’s what I heard:
Norma and Thomas met at university. Both were studying law. After successfully completing their degrees, they both went on to obtain their law licenses. They moved in together and planned their future. They had agreed on having two careers and sharing family responsibilities. It’s now been 33 years since they got married. In the first year of their marriage, a son was born. He was born with a heart defect. By the time he turned three, he had undergone three surgeries. That time was extremely difficult for everyone, as it was uncertain whether the boy would survive, and if he did, whether there would be lasting developmental issues. With all the doctor’s appointments, Norma returning to her demanding job was out of the question. Norma stayed home and fought with all her might for her son’s life and health. After four years, they could finally say they had made it. Shortly after, a daughter was born, and then another daughter. With three children, one of whom still had some health concerns, and the limited childcare options in Switzerland, it was unthinkable for Norma to return to the professional world.
In the beginning, after the birth of their first son, Thomas was very involved and supported Norma, even attending some of the medical appointments with her. But this only lasted until it was clear that the boy would survive. After that, Thomas reduced his involvement significantly, and eventually, it was Norma who became the family manager while Thomas earned the money. He was an excellent lawyer and made a lot of money. From then on, all family-related appointments were organized solely by Norma. Thomas never attended a single school meeting. Their lives over the past 33 years unfolded in the same space but as if in parallel worlds.
By now, all three children have moved out. The son is working, and the two daughters are still studying, but no longer live at home. The departure of the last child hit Norma hard. Norma and Thomas’s daily routine always looked the same: In the morning, Thomas got ready for the office, kissed Norma on the forehead, and left for work without saying when he would be back. Norma cooked dinner but increasingly found herself eating alone, as Thomas worked late into the evening. When he finally came home, he was tired and hungry and didn’t want to talk. He ate dinner without saying thank you, then watched sports on TV. After that, he kissed Norma on the forehead and went to bed. Norma cleaned the kitchen and went to bed too.
They didn’t do much together on weekends either, as Thomas wanted to play sports and wasn’t really interested in cultural activities. Norma felt increasingly lonely.
That’s the background I understood. However, the conversation was actually about the fact that, over the weekend, Norma had suggested divorce to Thomas. She had prepared the divorce papers, including a proposal for dividing the assets and a solution for their living situation. Thomas was shocked and completely unprepared. Norma told her friend that he kept repeating that he couldn’t understand why. After all, they had such a great life. Norma wondered if she hadn’t told Thomas enough how unhappy she was with their life together.
At that moment, my best friend arrived, and I didn’t hear the rest of the conversation at the next table. I don’t even know if Thomas accepted the divorce. Honestly, I completely understood Norma’s need for change.
Ich war zum Abendessen verabredet. Kaum im Restaurant angekommen, läutete mein Telefon, und meine beste Freundin erklärte mir, dass sie im Stau steckte und mindestens eine halbe Stunde zu spät kommen würde. Das ist nichts Ungewöhnliches und passiert ihr fast jedes Mal. Ich regte mich nicht auf. Eigentlich wollte ich meine E-Mails lesen, doch die Konversation am Nebentisch zog mich in ihren Bann und faszinierte mich. Ich hörte zu. Die Lautstärke der Unterhaltung machte es leicht, ohne jegliche Anstrengung alles zu verstehen. Hier ist, was ich mitbekommen habe:
Norma und Thomas haben sich an der Universität kennengelernt. Beide studierten Jura. Nach ihrem erfolgreichen Abschluss absolvierten sie noch das Anwalts-Patent. Sie zogen zusammen und planten ihre gemeinsame Zukunft. Vereinbart waren zwei Karrieren und das Teilen der familiären Pflichten. Es ist nun 33 Jahre her, dass sie geheiratet haben. Im ersten Jahr ihrer Ehe kam ihr Sohn zur Welt, doch er wurde mit einem Herzfehler geboren. Bis zu seinem dritten Lebensjahr wurde er dreimal operiert. Diese Zeit war extrem schwierig für alle, da es lange unklar war, ob der Junge überleben würde und ob bleibende Schäden in seiner Entwicklung zu erwarten seien. An eine Rückkehr von Norma in ihren anspruchsvollen Beruf war bei all den Arztterminen nicht zu denken. Norma blieb zu Hause und kämpfte mit aller Kraft um das Leben und die Gesundheit ihres Sohnes. Nach vier Jahren konnte man sagen, dass sie es geschafft hatte. Kurz danach kam erst eine Tochter, dann noch eine zweite Tochter zur Welt. Mit drei Kindern, von denen eines gesundheitlich nicht ganz unproblematisch war, war es im Schweizer Betreuungssystem undenkbar, dass Norma in die Berufswelt zurückkehren konnte.
Am Anfang, nach der Geburt des ersten Sohnes, engagierte sich Thomas stark und unterstützte Norma, indem er einige Arzttermine mit ihr wahrnahm. Doch das hielt nur so lange an, bis klar war, dass der Junge überleben würde. Danach reduzierte er sein Engagement stark, und schließlich war es Norma, die zur Familienmanagerin wurde, während er das Geld verdiente. Thomas war ein ausgezeichneter Jurist und verdiente viel Geld. Die Termine, die die Familie betrafen, organisierte dann ausschließlich Norma. Thomas war nicht ein einziges Mal bei einem Schultermin. Das Leben der letzten 33 Jahre von Norma und Thomas verlief zwar im gleichen Raum, aber wie in parallelen Welten.
Mittlerweile sind alle drei Kinder ausgezogen. Der Sohn arbeitet, und die beiden Mädchen studieren noch, aber sie wohnen nicht mehr zu Hause. Der Auszug des letzten Kindes traf Norma hart. Der Alltag von Norma und Thomas sah immer gleich aus: Am Morgen machte sich Thomas für die Arbeit fertig, küsste Norma auf die Stirn und verschwand ins Büro, ohne zu sagen, wann er nach Hause kommen würde. Norma kochte das Abendessen, aber immer öfter aß sie allein, da Thomas bis spät in den Abend arbeitete. Wenn er schließlich nach Hause kam, war er müde und hungrig und hatte keine Lust auf eine Unterhaltung. Er aß das Abendessen, ohne sich zu bedanken, und schaute dann Sport im Fernsehen. Danach küsste er Norma auf die Stirn und ging schlafen. Norma räumte die Küche auf und ging dann auch ins Bett.
Auch am Wochenende unternahmen sie nicht viel zusammen, denn Thomas wollte Sport treiben, und für Kultur interessierte er sich nicht wirklich. Norma fühlte sich immer einsamer.
Das war der allgemeine Hintergrund, den ich verstanden habe. Die eigentliche Konversation drehte sich jedoch darum, dass Norma am Wochenende Thomas die Scheidung vorschlug. Sie hatte die Scheidungspapiere vorbereitet, einen Vorschlag zur Aufteilung des Vermögens und eine Lösung der Wohnsituation. Thomas war schockiert und völlig unvorbereitet. Norma erzählte ihrer Freundin, dass er immer wiederholte, er verstehe überhaupt nicht, warum sie sich scheiden lassen wolle. Sie hätten doch ein tolles Leben. Norma fragte sich, ob sie Thomas zu wenig gesagt hatte, wie unglücklich sie mit ihrem gemeinsamen Leben war.
In diesem Moment kam meine beste Freundin an, und ich hörte den weiteren Verlauf der Konversation am Nebentisch nicht mehr. Ich weiß nicht einmal, ob Thomas die Scheidung akzeptiert hat. Ganz ehrlich, ich habe Normas Bedürfnis nach Veränderung vollkommen verstanden.
Navigating the life sciences regulatory jungle – challenges and opportunities
About the event
In an era when the life sciences sector is evolving at an unprecedented pace, staying abreast of the pharma regulatory landscape is not just necessary; it is a strategic imperative.
Join us for a thought-provoking session where we will delve into the complexities of that landscape and navigate through the dense regulatory thicket that governs the pharma and life sciences industry. Our main theme, “Navigating the life sciences regulatory jungle – challenges and opportunities”, will serve as the compass guiding us on this journey of exploration.
Our panel of experts will dissect critical topics, share insights, and offer foresight into the dynamic pharma regulatory frameworks that impact our operations, compliance, and technological advancements. This webinar is an invaluable opportunity for professionals seeking to enhance their understanding, ensure compliance, and leverage regulatory challenges to seize strategic opportunities.
Don’t miss this chance to gain expert knowledge and network with industry leaders.
Once upon a time, there was an old apartment building near the airport. It was built in the late 1960s, featuring spacious floor plans, a beautiful garden – but also a poor energy performance with old windows, inadequate insulation, and a fossil fuel heating system. The building housed six apartments, each between 90 and 100 m². In five of these, only one person lived in each unit, and one apartment was occupied by a family. The rents were very low since most tenants had been living there for decades. Only the utility costs had surged to unbearable levels due to the gas heating costs skyrocketing since the war in Ukraine.
The owner decided it was time to modernize the building and improve its energy efficiency.
The objectives were clear: preserve the old structure (including the beautiful garden, even if that meant additional costs) and only replace what was absolutely necessary to keep rents low. Install an energy-efficient heating system. Ideally, the renovation should be carried out while the tenants remained in the building to avoid displacement.
Economically, it became apparent that adding extra floors would be necessary. The plan was to add two additional floors.
To avoid objections, the owner met with all the neighbors. All but one agreed to the plan. This one neighbor, however, stated that if two floors were added, his view would be obstructed, and he would file a formal objection. He had no issue with a single floor being added. Even though the likelihood of defeating the objection was high, the additional costs and uncertainty caused the owner to decide on adding only one floor, forfeiting 200 m² of potential living space.
Further analysis revealed that many of the original objectives could hardly be met. The water pipes and electrical wiring had to be replaced entirely, and the bathrooms had to be completely redone. Renovating while the building was occupied was therefore impossible. First goal: not achieved.
After submitting the building permit, it became clear that the garden could not be preserved either. In addition to the six existing garages and six outdoor parking spaces, the building authority required even more parking spaces, which meant paving over more than half of the garden. Along with the parking spaces, more than 35 bicycle parking spots were also required for the ten apartments, further reducing the garden area. After lengthy negotiations, a compromise was reached, but still, half the garden had to be sacrificed. The lush garden, with over 50-year-old shrubs and flowers, was turning into a barren landscape. Efforts to save some of the older plants (despite the gardener’s prediction that success was no more than 50% likely) were ultimately thwarted by the arrival of the Japanese beetle and a regulation that prohibited any plants or soil from being moved out of the municipality. Second goal: also not achieved.
The third goal, installing an optimal heating system, was the only one successfully accomplished. The building’s exterior was newly insulated, old windows were replaced with triple-glazed windows, the gas heating system was swapped for a heat pump, and photovoltaic panels were installed on the roof.
As for keeping renovation costs low, this goal was also not achieved. The many regulations largely prevented it. For instance, all the 50-year-old wooden interior doors had to be replaced due to fire safety regulations, costing thousands of francs, which inevitably had to be reflected in the rent. Not only parts of the apartments, but the entire building had to be adapted for disabled access, which led to further demolition of elements that otherwise would have been retained, increasing the cost for each of the ten units. The metal stair railing, which had served faithfully for 50 years, was deemed too dangerous and had to be replaced. In short, had the entire building been demolished and rebuilt, it would have been an ecological absurdity, but likely less stressful.
In the end, today’s regulations and procedures resulted in higher rents, the loss of over half the garden, and less living space than could have been built. What a sad fairy tale.
Michaela Merz 