Jurisdiction of the neighbourhood judge in co-ownership: what the judgment of 10 June 2015 changes

Imagine this: you own a flat in a development in Pessac, Gironde. You receive a call from your managing agent: the general meeting has voted for balcony works costing €15,000, which you must pay immediately. Except that, in your view, these works concern general common parts (the facade, the structure) and should have been passed by an absolute majority, not a simple majority. You challenge this, but the managing agent sues you for payment of the charges. Before which judge will you plead? And above all, can that judge annul the general meeting decision that you consider unlawful? This is exactly the question put to the Court of Cassation in its judgment of 10 June 2015 (No. 14-19.218). The answer is clear: in the absence of a dispute relating to immovable property (an action concerning ownership or possession), the neighbourhood judge has jurisdiction to hear a claim for annulment of a general meeting raised as a defence. A decision that simplifies life for co-owners… but has its limits. Let us examine it together.

The facts: a story that happens every day

Mr X, owner of a unit in a co-ownership in Pessac, receives minutes of a general meeting of 26 September 2008, then another of 14 May 2009. These meetings voted for works on the balconies of the building. Mr X considers that these balconies form part of the general common parts, not the special common parts (those serving only a few co-owners). Consequently, the decision should have been adopted by a majority of all co-owners (absolute majority under Article 26 of the 1965 Act) and not by the simple majority under Article 24. He therefore challenges the validity of these meetings and refuses to pay the corresponding calls for funds.

The managing agent then sues him for payment of the unpaid charges before the Tribunal d'instance of Bordeaux (which had jurisdiction for charge disputes up to €10,000 at the time). The neighbourhood judge, sitting within that court, is seised. In his defence, Mr X raises the annulment of the general meeting decisions. The neighbourhood judge declares himself incompetent: in his view, the annulment of a general meeting falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal de grande instance (TGI), because it is a matter of immovable property relating to ownership (an action concerning the right of ownership). Mr X appeals to the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation quashes the judgment. It recalls that the neighbourhood judge has jurisdiction to rule on claims based on the Act of 10 July 1965 (relating to the status of co-ownership), including challenges to general meeting decisions, provided that no question relating to ownership or possession is raised. In this case, the dispute concerned only the classification of the common parts (general or special) and the applicable majority, not the right of ownership itself. The neighbourhood judge therefore had jurisdiction.

The reasoning of the court — analysed

To understand the scope of this judgment, we must revisit the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction of the courts. Under French law, the Tribunal de grande instance (TGI, now the Tribunal judiciaire since 2020) has jurisdiction over all actions relating to immovable property that concern ownership (such as a claim for recovery, an action for boundary determination, or annulment of a sale) and those concerning possession (such as an action for complaint). In contrast, the Tribunal d'instance (TI, now the Tribunal de proximité) and the neighbourhood judge handle everyday disputes, including actions for payment of co-ownership charges, within their monetary jurisdiction (€10,000 at the time).

Article L. 221-4 of the Code of Judicial Organisation (former) provided that the neighbourhood judge decides civil matters for claims under €4,000, but also for claims of indeterminate value arising from the application of the co-ownership law. The question was whether this judge could, in the context of a claim for payment of charges, annul a general meeting decision. Some courts considered that annulment of a general meeting fell within the jurisdiction of the TGI because it affects immovable property (e.g., challenging the allocation of charges).

The Court of Cassation rejects this analysis. It distinguishes: "the neighbourhood court is, in the absence of a defence involving examination of a question of an immovable nature relating to ownership or possession, competent to hear a claim for annulment of a general meeting decision raised as a defence by a co-owner sued for payment of charges". In other words, if the co-owner challenges the decision on a ground that does not call into question the right of ownership itself (e.g., an error as to the majority, a failure to convene, a question of classification of common parts), the neighbourhood judge can hear it. Conversely, if the ground relied upon relates to the right of ownership (e.g., "this balcony belongs to me, the co-ownership cannot touch it"), then the TGI has sole jurisdiction.

In short, the Court of Cassation favours a pragmatic interpretation: it avoids multiplying procedural incidents (the plea of lack of jurisdiction) and allows the judge already seised to decide the whole dispute, provided that the immovable property question is not central. This is a simplifying decision, favourable to the litigant.

What this changes for you — concretely

For co-owners: if you are sued for payment of charges, you can now challenge the validity of the general meeting before the same judge, without having to bring proceedings before another court. Example: in Bordeaux, a co-owner on Rue Sainte-Catherine challenges a decision passed by a simple majority when the works concerned general common parts. He can raise this nullity before the neighbourhood judge, who can annul it if well-founded. However, be careful: if your challenge concerns a question of ownership (e.g., "this wall is party wall, not common"), the neighbourhood judge must declare himself incompetent and refer the case to the Tribunal judiciaire.

For managing agents and councils of co-ownership: this decision encourages you to be extremely rigorous in drafting notices and resolutions. An error as to the majority can lead to the annulment of the decision by the neighbourhood judge, and thus the co-owner's refusal to pay. undefined, I have come across cases where managing agents classified general common parts as special common parts to facilitate the vote, which was sanctioned.

For real estate professionals: this case law stabilises co-ownership litigation. It reminds us that the neighbourhood judge (now the judge of the Tribunal de proximité) is the natural judge for charge disputes, and can decide questions of validity of general meetings, subject to the absence of a question relating to ownership. This reduces the risks of lis pendens and dual proceedings.

In practice, if you are a co-owner in Pessac or Bordeaux and you receive a summons for payment of charges, do not delay in consulting a lawyer. The time limits for filing submissions are short, and a poorly formulated challenge may cause you to lose your defences.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Check the classification of common parts before the general meeting: ask the managing agent to specify whether the works concern general common parts (all co-owners) or special common parts (certain units). If in doubt, insist on a vote by the double majority under Article 26 (majority of votes of all co-owners).
• Keep all documents: notices, minutes, annexes. In case of a challenge, these documents will be decisive to prove an irregularity (failure to convene, error in counting votes, etc.).
• Do not stop paying charges without legal advice: if you challenge a decision, you must continue to pay the uncontested charges (the provisions for current charges). Only the specific amount relating to the contested decision may be suspended, at your own risk.
• Act quickly: an action challenging a general meeting must be brought within two months of notification of the minutes (time limit under Article 42 of the 1965 Act). After this time, the decision is final, except for a breach of public policy (e.g., failure to convene).

Further reading: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a line of cases favourable to the jurisdiction of the neighbourhood judge. For example, a judgment of the Court of Cassation of 8 October 2009 (No. 08-18.534) had already held that the neighbourhood judge could rule on a claim for payment of charges even if the co-owner raised a plea of nullity of the general meeting, provided that the nullity did not rest on a question of ownership. The 2015 judgment confirms and clarifies this position.

However, be careful: if the co-owner relies on a ground relating to possession (e.g., "I have always enjoyed this balcony as an exclusive owner"), the neighbourhood judge must declare himself incompetent. This is recalled by a judgment of the Court of Cassation of 3 July 2013 (No. 12-20.970). The line is sometimes fine: a specialised lawyer will know how to characterise your ground to avoid a referral.

Since the 2020 reform (2018-2022 programming law), the Tribunal judiciaire has absorbed the competences of the TGI and the TI. But the logic remains: the Tribunal de proximité (formerly the neighbourhood judge) remains competent for charge disputes under €10,000, and can hear challenges to general meetings if they are incidental and do not concern the substance of the right of ownership.

Key points to remember

• Which judge has jurisdiction for a challenge to a general meeting? The Tribunal de proximité (formerly the neighbourhood judge) if the challenge is raised as a defence to an action for payment of charges, provided that no question relating to ownership or possession is involved.
• What to do if the managing agent sues me for payment of charges? You can challenge the general meeting before the same judge, but you must do so quickly (in your first submissions).
• What are the risks if I lose? You will have to pay the charges, the procedural costs (Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure) and possibly damages for abusive resistance.
• Can I challenge a general meeting after two months? No, unless the decision is tainted by absolute nullity (e.g., failure to convene a co-owner).
• Do I have to pay charges during the proceedings? Yes, unless you obtain a suspension by way of interim relief, which is rare. It is better to provision the sums to avoid surcharges.

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

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 →