General Meeting with a Single Scrutineer: Validity Confirmed by the Court of Cassation

You receive the notice for the general meeting of your co-ownership property in Sophia-Antipolis. The regulations state that two scrutineers must be appointed. However, on the day, only one is present. The meeting goes ahead, votes are counted. But a co-owner challenges the validity of the meeting. Question: is a meeting with a single scrutineer valid? This decision of the Court of Cassation clearly answers yes, under conditions.

What exactly does the judgment of 30 September 2015 say? It quashes an appeal judgment that had annulled a general meeting on the grounds that the co-ownership regulations required two scrutineers. The High Court recalls that no law imposes a minimum number of scrutineers. Therefore, if the impossibility of appointing a second is proven (for example, lack of volunteers), the meeting remains valid.

Concretely, this means that co-ownerships should not fear systematic nullity when only one scrutineer is appointed, provided that it is demonstrated that the search for a second was in vain. This decision is a welcome legal certainty for managing agents and co-owners.

The facts: a story that happens every day

Mr. X, owner of a flat in Sophia-Antipolis, is summoned to the general meeting of his residence. The co-ownership regulations provide for the appointment of two scrutineers. But at the meeting, only one co-owner accepts this role. The managing agent tries to find a second volunteer, in vain. The meeting is therefore held with a single scrutineer.

Mr. X challenges the validity of the meeting before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Grasse. He argues that non-compliance with the co-ownership regulations renders all decisions void. The managing agent, for his part, maintains that the lack of a volunteer justifies this situation and that no legal text requires two scrutineers.

The court rules in favour of Mr. X: the meeting is annulled. The managing agent appeals. The Court of Appeal affirms the judgment. The managing agent then appeals to the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation quashes the appeal judgment and remands the case. The story continues: the final decision will depend on proof of the impossibility of appointing a second scrutineer.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

The Court of Cassation relies on the absence of a legal obligation to appoint one or more scrutineers. Indeed, the Law of 10 July 1965 on co-ownership (Article 15) and the Decree of 17 March 1967 (Article 8) do not set any minimum number of scrutineers. They only provide that the meeting appoints a scrutineer. The question is therefore whether the co-ownership regulations can impose a stricter rule.

The Court answers yes, but non-compliance is not sanctioned by automatic nullity if the impossibility of appointing a second is demonstrated. In other words, the contractual stipulation (the regulations) must be respected, but an external cause (lack of volunteer) may justify the deviation.

What few people know is that the Court of Cassation applies a proportionality test: nullity is only incurred if the irregularity has affected the rights of co-owners or the proper conduct of the vote. Here, a single scrutineer sufficed to ensure the regularity of the ballot. The decision is therefore a confirmation of the liberal case law regarding the nullity of general meetings.

What this changes for you — concretely

For co-owners in Mandelieu or elsewhere, this decision means that you cannot automatically invoke the nullity of the meeting for lack of scrutineers. If you are in this situation, you must prove that the irregularity caused you harm (for example, a skewed vote).

For managing agents, this is a relief: you can organise the meeting even if only one scrutineer volunteers, provided that the attempt to find a second is recorded in writing (mention in the minutes, statement by the managing agent). For example, in a co-ownership of 30 units in Sophia-Antipolis, if no one volunteers, the managing agent can validly proceed with a single scrutineer.

For purchasers of a unit in a co-ownership, check the regulations: some clauses require two scrutineers. But know that non-compliance is not fatal. In case of dispute, you will need to demonstrate a procedural defect that influenced the vote.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Prepare the meeting in advance: the managing agent must, from the notice, call on co-owners to volunteer as scrutineers. Clearly mention the need for two scrutineers in the agenda.
• Record the impossibility in writing: if only one scrutineer is available, have this noted in the minutes of the meeting. Add a note from the managing agent specifying the steps taken to find a second (posting, reminders).
• Comply with the regulations as much as possible: even if the law does not require it, the regulations are binding between co-owners. Try to find a second scrutineer, even if it means proposing an absentee co-owner who has given a proxy.
• In case of challenge, prove the absence of harm: if a co-owner attacks the validity, demonstrate that the vote proceeded normally (number of votes, absence of fraud). Nullity is not automatic.

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

Further reading: related case law and developments

The trend of the courts is to limit nullities of general meetings for procedural defects. An earlier decision of the Court of Cassation (Civ. 3e, 12 March 2014, No. 13-10.987) had already held that the failure to appoint a scrutineer did not entail nullity if the vote had not been disrupted.

Conversely, some Courts of Appeal, such as that of Aix-en-Provence, had annulled meetings for lack of a scrutineer, considering that the regulations must be strictly applied. The Court of Cassation put an end to this divergence in 2015. Henceforth, nullity is exceptional.

For the future, the practice of video conference meetings (permitted since 2020) could raise the question of a remote scrutineer. But for now, the solution remains the same: a single scrutineer suffices if the impossibility of finding a second is established.

What you absolutely need to remember

FAQ:

1. Is a general meeting with a single scrutineer valid? Yes, if the impossibility of appointing a second is proven. The law does not impose a minimum number.
2. What if the regulations require two scrutineers? You must try to find two. If unsuccessful, the meeting remains valid, but proof of the attempt must be provided.
3. Can I challenge a meeting held with a single scrutineer? Yes, but you must demonstrate harm (for example, an irregular vote). Nullity is not automatic.
4. What are the time limits for challenging? You have two months from notification of the minutes to take legal action.
5. How much does a lawyer cost for this type of dispute? A consultation of €45 with Maître Zakine can guide you. Full proceedings cost between €1,500 and €3,000.

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