Where it sovereignly finds

Application pratique:

The Court of Cassation ruling confirms that if removal does not impair the building's intended use or enjoyment of private areas, a double majority is sufficient. The objecting co-owner must provide concrete evidence (e.g., security issues, maintenance decline) to prove impairment; otherwise, the decision stands. They have two months from notification to challenge the resolution at the tribunal judiciaire.

Application pratique:

The ruling clarifies that only a double majority under Article 26 (majority of all co-owners representing at least two-thirds of the votes, or failing that, a simple majority in a second vote) is needed, as long as the removal does not impair the building's use or private enjoyment. The landlord should prepare a dossier showing the service is not essential (e.g., alternative security measures, maintenance contracts) to persuade fellow owners and secure the required majorities.

Application pratique:

Under the case law, the resolution is valid without unanimity if the removal does not harm the building's intended residential purpose or the use of private flats. The buyer should check the AGM minutes for proper procedure and assess whether the removal truly impairs their enjoyment (e.g., no mail collection, no package handling). If they think it does, they must gather evidence and act within two months to contest the decision; otherwise, they should accept the change and explore alternative solutions, like hiring a private service.