The objective of this study is to assess the consequences of the termination of the main lease agreement due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the liability of the co-working area service provider in the event of termination. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the co-working area service provider is held liable to the user for the early termination of the sublease agreement, provided that the termination of the main rental agreement was caused by the co-working area service provider. Since the COVID-19 pandemic is not sufficient to terminate the lease per se, termination under COVID-19 can be considered as such and the co-working area service provider is liable accordingly. Finally, the user may claim positive damage in the context of the liability of the co-working area service provider. The law states that the expiration applies „during the period of prohibition of business.“ For this reason, we believe that the scope of the provision should be linked to the scope of the prohibition and that the temporary expiry of obligations should apply only to leases that relate to premises covered by the prohibition. In conclusion, the user may be entitled to claim positive damage (both actual loss and loss of profits) caused or caused by the breach of obligations arising from the sublease agreement by the co-working area service provider. In this sense, the costs of changing offices and registering a new address could be considered „actual losses“; and if the amount of the rental of the new place that the user will move is higher than that made with the co-working area service provider, this can also be considered a real loss. This results in a proportional rental decree according to the rental agreement. However, whether these considerations apply to tariffs and taxes and other recovery fees is less clear, but a tenant remains responsible for all distribution companies that it actually consumes during the lockdown period, for example the electricity consumed on the leased site during the lockdown period.
However, the application of the clauses relating to force majeure and exclusion clauses is subject to certain recitals of public policy and the Constitution. Certain clauses of a rental agreement may be considered contrary to public policy (and therefore unenforceable) if the obligations imposed on a tenant are excessively onerous. . . .