Seems they do own it though along with a couple of other places.
" The owner is reportedly injured – New details emerge
The managers of the bar “Le Constellation”, in which the fatal fire in Crans-Montana occurred on New Year’s Eve, survived the disaster. The owner was herself injured and suffered burns."
And SF1 (Swiss Television) only started to mention it at 11am. What the fuck!!
Live update just starting now.
Sadly I have that problem too. Was really disappointed to find out and it looks like the rules are unlikely to change now.
There’s still no screening test for creutzfeldt-jakob disease for blood donations.
I can’t give it either and I’ve got O negative blood type which can be used by anyone.
Yet it’s not a restriction in the UK itself. Guess they reckon so many people might carry it it’s not worth being on the restricted list.
I have seen a video on Instagram of the fire taking hold and the party goers are filming it and singing and dancing around it like it is entertainment not a threat to life — astonishing!
I guess it’s conpletely normal. When I was 20 and after 6 beers I’d probably have done the the same.
That’s why alarms are so important. Loud noise, lights on, music off…something that clearly sends the message that there’s something wrong. And not only for the people with line of sight to the fire, but also for the others that must exit first so the ones at the bottom can escape too 
A bit late to the conversation on this devestating tragedy…my heart goes out to all affected.
However, I work with fire regulations quite frequently, and in my professional opinion, the big issue for the owners will be the over occupancy in the basement and the lack of fire compartmentalisation between the basement and ground floor.
The fact the basement only had a single exit (staircase max. 1.2m wide) limits the occupance to 50 persons…and even a second exit would make a maximum occupancy of 100.
However, this still requires that the staircase be compartmentalised against spreading fire, smoke and heat to the escape stairs and upper floors. So technically, the visible setup would limit the sum of both floors to 100 persons.
That this wasn’t flagged by the local fire police will possibly come under equal scrutiny as the owners.
Oddly, I was in a ski restaurant today which was full. The staff had placed a mum with a stroller at the table next to the fire exit…which she blocked with her stroller. In a fire, it would have cost lives.
EDIT: a total revision of the Fire Regulations (last updated 2015) is due this year (2026). I have no doubt this incident will lead to stricter technical, construction and organisatiional requirements for entertainment and gastronomy locations. Including training of staff.
The ceiling material (the sound proofing) would definitely have broken EU laws.
Swiss Laws - who knows - they are cantonal based. Not sure why they feel they need to do this as fires are the same throughout Switzerland and not different in different cantons.
As an aside, there were quite a few fires caused by fireworks on New Year’s Eve in Switzerland.
Not true. Cantonal differences are minor - but the majority of the requirements are federallly based. This includes building materials, which are classified on their flammabilty, smoke generation, toxicity and droplet generation, amongst many things.
My bet is those tiles aren’t actually tested or rated as they are usually used in niche circumstances (sound studios or labs with minimal occupancy). In this case, the approval is down to the local fire police.
True, but enforcement is canton based.
The premises had three checks in the last ten years so either the checks were inadequate or the requirements are lacking - or both.
Limiting the basement to 50 was at best, wishful thinking, as the bar’s toilets were in the basement along the furthest wall from the stairs. That room should have a second exit or not used for anything other than toilets.
Totally.
Although one thing I forgot to mention..Swiss fire regulations are to a large extent not retrospective…ie existing buildings only need to upgrade to the latest standards if there is a significant constructional change OR change in the use of the space. I’m not sure what the construction date of the building is.
This is why I said that the local fire authorities will be sweating as much as the owners right now.
Might be misinformation but I read somewhere that in VS the canton was responsible for writing the regulations but enforcement was delegated to the communes, at least the larger ones.
It was apparently an abandoned building until 2015 when the current owners bought it and renovated it so any work done was at most ten years ago.
Switzerland federalism is not doing well. Fire safety is a municipal issue in Valais (according to cantonal law). But if something unpleasant happens, municipal authorities don’t want to hear about that. TALK TO CANTONAL POLICE!
What about the municipality, which is responsible for compliance with the operating regulations for restaurants in Switzerland? When and how was the restaurant controlled? The fire safety regulations, the emergency exits, the maximum occupancy?
The community is walloping on this issue. At a press conference, the municipality president, Nicolas Féraud, remained vague, referring to (fire safety) evaluations that would have taken place “annually or twice a year.” When and how the local was last controlled, he did not say.
When SPIEGEL inquires in writing to the municipal president on Friday morning, a snuffle is answered. “Who are you to ask for something like that! I have the decency not to treat you the way you deserve, and I force me to inform you that the cantonal police are in charge of informing the press.”
It looks like a dungeon.
