Reference Decision: cc • No. 18-17.334 • 2019-05-09 • View the decision →
Imagine you own a ground-floor apartment in a beautiful residence in Antibes, facing the Mediterranean. Every quarter, you receive your co-ownership charge demand and notice, like all other co-owners, a line for "lift maintenance" representing several hundred euros. But you never use this lift! You go directly to your home via the stairs. Is it normal to pay as much as your neighbour on the 5th floor who uses it daily?
This question is asked by thousands of co-owners each year in France, particularly on the French Riviera where buildings with lifts are legion. In the jurisdiction of Grasse, which includes Antibes, Valbonne and their surroundings, I have met many owners facing this apparent injustice. But how far can one challenge this distribution?
The answer came on 9 May 2019, when the Court of Cassation (the highest French judicial court) issued a ruling (decision) that radically changes the situation. It held that an equal distribution of lift charges among all lots (apartments), regardless of their floor, is contrary to the criterion of utility. In other words: if you do not benefit from it, you should not pay as much as those who do benefit. But what exactly does this change for you, as an owner, tenant, or real estate professional?
The Facts: A Story as Common as Any
The story begins in a co-ownership building (a property divided into lots owned by different owners) whose co-ownership regulations (document organising the building's life) dated from 1953. These regulations provided that lift charges (maintenance, repair, electricity costs) were distributed equally among all co-owners, regardless of their apartment's floor.
Mr Martin, owner of a ground-floor apartment in Antibes, began to find this situation unfair. He believed that, never using the lift, he should not bear the same costs as his neighbours on upper floors. In 2009, the general meeting of co-owners modified the regulations to try to correct this inequality, but the new distribution remained problematic.
Mr Martin therefore applied to the courts to challenge this distribution. The tribunal initially ruled in favour of the co-ownership, considering that the 2009 modification was valid. But Mr Martin appealed (requested a new judgment before a higher court). The court of appeal then partially ruled in favour of Mr Martin, but its decision was challenged before the Court of Cassation by the co-ownership.
The judicial twists lasted several years, with technical arguments about the validity of the regulation modifications. undefined in Grasse, I have encountered similar cases where ground-floor owners in Valbonne hesitated to initiate proceedings, fearing the costs and complexity. Mr Martin's story shows that perseverance can pay off.
The Court's Reasoning — Analysed
The magistrates (judges) of the Court of Cassation examined this case with particular attention to the criterion of utility, provided for by Article 10 of the Law of 10 July 1965 (fundamental text governing co-ownerships). This article states that co-ownership charges (expenses) must be distributed among co-owners "according to the utility that these charges present for each lot".
In plain terms, the law says: each owner must pay for what is useful to them. If an expense is of no use to you, you should not bear it to the same extent as your neighbour who fully benefits from it. The Court strongly reiterated this principle: an equal distribution of lift charges among lots located on different floors is contrary to this criterion of utility.
The judges analysed the arguments of both parties. The co-ownership argued that the 2009 modification of the regulations was valid and that it took account of floor differences. But the Court considered that this modification did not sufficiently respect the criterion of utility. It thus confirmed a jurisprudence (body of court decisions) that is evolving towards increased protection for owners of lower floors.
What few people know is that this decision does not create an absolute rule. It does not say that ground-floor owners must pay nothing for the lift. It simply says that they cannot be made to pay as much as those on the 5th floor. The distribution must be proportional to utility. For example, a 1st-floor owner who occasionally uses the lift to carry heavy shopping might have to contribute, but less than a 6th-floor owner who uses it daily.
What This Changes for You — Concretely
If you are a co-owner of a ground-floor or 1st-floor apartment in the jurisdiction of Grasse — say in Valbonne in a 1970s residence — this decision directly concerns you. Concretely, you can now challenge an equal distribution of lift charges. Imagine: in a building with 20 lots and annual lift charges of €10,000, an equal distribution would make you pay €500 per year. With a distribution proportional to utility, you might pay only €100 or even less, depending on your actual usage.
If you are a tenant, the situation is different but related. As a tenant, you often pay part of the charges via your service charges (costs recoverable by the owner). If your owner succeeds in having the co-ownership distribution modified, your charges could decrease. But be careful: this depends on your lease (tenancy agreement) and the clauses it contains. undefined, I have encountered cases where tenants in Antibes saw their charges drop after such action by their owner.
If you are a purchaser of an apartment, this decision changes how you evaluate a property. When viewing a ground-floor apartment, ask to see the co-ownership regulations and the distribution of charges. If lift charges are distributed equally, know that you will probably be able to challenge them. This can represent significant long-term savings. For a real estate professional, this decision implies better informing clients about this technical but crucial point.
If you are in this situation, you must first check your co-ownership regulations. Then, you can contact the managing agent (person or company managing the co-ownership) to request a modification. If the managing agent refuses, you may have to initiate legal proceedings, with delays of 1 to 2 years and legal fees that can vary from €1,500 to €3,000 depending on complexity. But the savings made over several years can justify this step.
Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute
- Systematically check the co-ownership regulations before buying: Request a copy and examine the distribution of charges, particularly for the lift. If it is equal for all floors, negotiate the price accordingly or plan future action.
- Propose an amicable modification at the general meeting: Before initiating judicial proceedings, present a proposal for distribution proportional to utility at the general meeting of co-owners. A majority decision can avoid conflict.
- Document your non-use of the lift: If you live on the ground floor, keep proof that you do not use the lift (witness statements, lifestyle habits). This will strengthen your argument about the absence of utility.
- Consult a specialised lawyer at the first signs of disagreement: Early consultation can help you assess your chances of success and choose the best strategy, often less costly than lengthy proceedings.
Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.
Deep Dive: Related Jurisprudence and Developments
This 2019 decision fits into a jurisprudential trend that strengthens the criterion of utility. Before it, decisions like that of the Court of Cassation of 7 July 2010 (No. 09-13.264) had already begun to challenge equal distributions for equipment whose utility varies by lot. But the 2019 ruling is particularly clear and strong on lifts.
The trend of the courts is now clear: they require a distribution proportional to actual utility. This means that for other common equipment — such as collective heating, video surveillance, or green spaces — the same reasoning could apply. If equipment does not serve everyone equally, its distribution cannot be equal.
For the future, this decision paves the way for other challenges. One can imagine owners of lots without sea views challenging their participation in maintenance costs for balconies with views, or owners of underground parking spaces challenging lighting costs for common areas they do not use. The key will always remain proof of utility — or its absence.
Recap and Next Steps
FAQ — Your Questions, Our Answers:
1. Does this decision apply to all lifts?
Yes, whether conventional lifts, PMR lifts (for persons with reduced mobility), or service lifts. The principle of utility is the same.
2. Must I pay anything if I am on the ground floor?
Perhaps a small part, if the lift serves you occasionally (for deliveries, disabled visitors). But certainly not as much as an upper-floor owner.
3. How to calculate a proportional distribution?
Several methods exist: according to the number of floors, estimated frequency of use, or a pre-established scale. An expert can help define a fair method.
4. What to do if my managing agent refuses to modify the distribution?
You can apply to the judicial tribunal, with the help of a lawyer. The 2019 decision gives you strong arguments.
5. Is this decision retroactive?
No, it does not challenge charges already paid. It applies for the future, from the moment you challenge.
Do you find yourself 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 →
