General Meeting of a Condominium Owners' Association: When Annulment of a Decision Is Impossible

Imagine: you are the owner of a flat in Lodève, and at the last general meeting of your condominium owners' association, the managing agent was elected under dubious circumstances. You challenge the validity of the meeting itself, and consequently, you seek the annulment of all decisions taken, including the one that elected the managing agent. But here's the thing: the appeal court annuls the meeting, but not the election decision. Why? Because in your submissions, you only sought the annulment of that decision as a consequence of the annulment of the meeting, and not as a principal claim. Result: the court was not seised of that individual claim. This decision of the French Supreme Court of 2 July 2014 (No. 13-13.738) is a classic case for all condominium owners who wish to challenge a general meeting. So, how to draft your submissions correctly to avoid this pitfall? That is what we will see.

The facts: a story like any other

Mr X, owner of a unit in a condominium owners' association in Lodève, attends the general meeting of 14 February 2008. On the agenda, item no. 6: election of the managing agent and adoption of a new management contract as from 28 February 2008, with fees of €16,175 including VAT. Mr X considers that this meeting is tainted by irregularities: non-compliant notice, lack of quorum, etc. He therefore decides to challenge the validity of the meeting itself, and, as a consequence, of all decisions taken, including decision no. 6 concerning the election of the managing agent.

He sues the condominium owners' association before the Tribunal de grande instance of Montpellier, which dismisses his claim. Mr X appeals. Before the appeal court, he reiterates his claim: annulment of the general meeting of 14 February 2008 and, consequently, annulment of all decisions, notably decision no. 6. The appeal court, by a judgment of 21 January 2013, annuls the general meeting, but refuses to annul decision no. 6 on the ground that Mr X did not expressly request this annulment in the operative part of his submissions, but only as a consequence of the annulment of the meeting. Mr X appeals to the French Supreme Court.

Before the French Supreme Court, he argues that the appeal court was indeed seised of the claim for annulment of decision no. 6, since that was a necessary consequence of the annulment of the meeting. But the French Supreme Court disagrees: it dismisses the appeal, confirming that the appeal court was not seised of the individual claim for annulment of decision no. 6, for lack of being formulated in the operative part of Mr X's submissions. In short, the claimant must, in the operative part (the final part of the submissions setting out the claims), expressly mention each decision for which he seeks annulment, independently of the annulment of the general meeting.

The reasoning of the court — broken down

The French Supreme Court relies on Article 954 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This text provides that in the operative part of the submissions, the parties must set out their claims, i.e., what they ask the judge to decide. If a claim is not included in the operative part, it is deemed abandoned. Here, Mr X had indeed requested the annulment of the general meeting and, consequently, the annulment of all decisions. But the appeal court considered that this wording did not amount to a principal claim for annulment of decision no. 6. The French Supreme Court approves: annulment of the general meeting does not automatically entail the annulment of each individual decision, because the judge must rule on each claim. In other words, one must explicitly request the annulment of the contested decision, not merely that of the meeting.

This reasoning is a strict application of the principle of concentration of claims. The French Supreme Court reminds that the judge can only rule on what is requested of him. If the condominium owner wishes to obtain the annulment of the decision electing the managing agent, he must say so in the operative part of his submissions, even if this annulment logically follows from the annulment of the meeting. However, note: this decision does not call into question the right to challenge a meeting, but it imposes a rigorous drafting of submissions. undefined that to avoid this type of disappointment, one must list one by one the decisions for which annulment is sought.

undefined, I have encountered cases where condominium owners in Lunel lost their case for the same reason: they had requested the annulment of the general meeting, but not expressly that of the decision relating to the voted works. Result: the appeal court annulled the meeting, but the works remained valid! It is therefore essential to be precise.

What this changes for you — concretely

This decision has direct implications for all actors in a condominium owners' association. For an owner who challenges a general meeting, the reflex must be to list in his submissions all the decisions he wishes to see annulled, and not only the meeting itself. For example, if you challenge the election of the managing agent and the approval of the accounts, you must write: "seek the annulment of the general meeting of ... and, consequently, the annulment of decisions no. 1 (approval of accounts), no. 2 (election of managing agent), etc." Otherwise, the judge cannot annul these decisions.

For a managing agent or a condominium owners' association, this decision is a protection: if a condominium owner does not properly formulate his claim, the contested decisions remain valid. But caution: this should not encourage negligence. It is always preferable to check that the opposing party's submissions are properly drafted.

Let's take a concrete example: in Lunel, a condominium owners' association of 50 units voted for repointing works for €80,000. A condominium owner challenges the meeting for defective notice. In his submissions, he requests the annulment of the meeting, but does not mention the decision relating to the works. The court annuls the meeting, but the works are maintained. The condominium owner will have to pay his share, unless he initiates a new specific procedure against the works decision. Additional cost: several thousand euros in lawyer's fees and court costs.

If you are in this situation, you must absolutely have your submissions drafted by a lawyer specialised in real estate law, who knows these subtleties. A simple template found on the internet is not enough. Deadline to act: 2 months from the notification of the minutes of the meeting (Article 42 of the Law of 10 July 1965).

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Tip no. 1: Draft your submissions precisely. Do not hesitate to list each decision you challenge, even if they seem to flow logically from the annulment of the meeting. Use phrases like "seek the annulment of the general meeting of ... and, consequently, the annulment of the following decisions: ...".
• Tip no. 2: Check the operative part of your submissions before serving them. The operative part is the final part where your claims appear. Read it again carefully. If in doubt, ask your lawyer to check it.
• Tip no. 3: Do not rely on logic. Even if the annulment of a decision is the logical consequence of the annulment of the meeting, the judge cannot pronounce it if it is not requested. Be cautious.
• Tip no. 4: Consult a lawyer lawyer at the first signs of conflict. An experienced lawyer in condominium law will save you from procedural errors that could cost you dearly. In Lodève or Lunel, Maître Zakine regularly handles this type of litigation.

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

Further insights: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a consistent line of case law from the French Supreme Court on the strict application of Article 954 of the Code of Civil Procedure. One can cite a judgment of 9 July 2009 (No. 08-16.305) in which the Court held that a claim for annulment of a general meeting did not automatically entail that of the decisions taken, if those decisions were not expressly mentioned in the operative part. The trend is therefore towards procedural rigour. What few people know is that this requirement also applies to counterclaims: if the condominium owners' association wishes to obtain damages for abusive proceedings, it must mention this in the operative part of its submissions.

For the future, it is likely that the French Supreme Court will maintain this line, because it guarantees a proper administration of justice: each party knows exactly what is being claimed, and the judge can rule with full knowledge of the facts. Condominium owners must therefore integrate this constraint into their litigation strategy.

Frequently asked questions

Can I challenge a single decision of a general meeting without challenging the meeting itself? Yes, it is possible. You must then request the annulment of that decision only, giving reasons for your claim (irregularity of vote, abuse of majority, etc.).

What if I have already served poorly drafted submissions? You can modify them before the judge rules, subject to respecting the adversarial principle (communicate the new submissions to the other party). Consult your lawyer quickly.

What is the deadline to challenge a general meeting? The deadline is two months from the notification of the minutes of the meeting (Article 42 of the Law of 10 July 1965). After this deadline, you are time-barred.

How much does a procedure for annulment of a general meeting cost? Lawyer's fees vary depending on complexity. Expect between €1,500 and €5,000 for a first instance procedure, plus court costs (stamp duty, service, etc.). A preliminary 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) allows an assessment of feasibility and chances of success.

Does this decision apply to other challenges in condominium matters? Yes, the principle is general: any claim must be formulated in the operative part of the submissions. This applies to challenges to general meeting decisions, but also to actions for payment of charges, etc.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of procedure — and often much more. Book an appointment →