Helena Seger was present during the main hearing in the Stockholm District Court.
Photo: SVEN LINDWALL
Foto: DOMENICO CIPPITELLI/IPA SPORT/IP / SHUTTERSTOCK EDITORIAL/IBL
The tenancy dispute in brief
• Zlatan Ibrahimovic is involved in a rental dispute in Östermalm where he bought an apartment building for SEK 130 million in 2022.
• A tenant, who has rented his accommodation through a rental company with which the former property owner formed an agreement, refuses to move and has sued Zlatan to be allowed to stay with the same rights as a first-time tenant. Zlatan has terminated the agreement with the rental company.
• The dispute is based on a judgment in the Supreme Court from 2022 that strengthened the tenant’s rights in the event of alleged street layouts.
• Zlatan’s representative denies the plan and also claims that the tenant did not have the apartment as a permanent residence, with reference to the fact that the guest was not registered there the whole time.
• Zlatan has offered replacement apartments which the tenant declined, due to a lack of equivalence.
The summary is made by Chat GPT and is fact-checked by Expressen.
Show more
It was last week that the rent dispute surrounding the apartment in Östermalm was taken up in the district court.
Zlatan Ibrahimovic did not attend the negotiations, instead partner Helena Seger was present as a representative of the property owner.
Seger said, among other things, that the tenant is only after her and Ibrahimovic’s money – something the tenant called a “false claim”.
The district court will soon issue its verdict in the dispute, which has been going on for over a year.
Zlatan’s million bill for the lawyers
And for the losing party, the whole thing can become an expensive story, according to Dagens Juridik.
The newspaper writes that Zlatan and Helena’s legal costs amount to SEK 1.2 million. The agent representing the tenant requests compensation of SEK 367,000.
It is likely that the person who loses the dispute will have to bear all legal costs, unless parts of them are judged to be unreasonable.
Neither party wanted to comment after the proceedings in the district court last week.
