Unlawful clause in a regulation

Application pratique:

Under the Cassation Court ruling (1987), such a discriminatory clause is unlawful unless justified by the building's specific purpose. Jean should first request a copy of the règlement de copropriété from the syndic (property manager) and identify the problematic clause. He must then propose a resolution at the next general meeting to annul the clause, citing the case law. If the majority refuses, he can take the matter to the tribunal judiciaire within 10 years of the clause being applied against him, seeking its nullity and possibly damages for obstruction.

Application pratique:

The 1987 decision confirms that parking restrictions must be objectively linked to the building's physical or functional purpose; otherwise, they are void. Sarah should instruct her notaire to formally challenge the clause before the sale, requesting its suppression as a condition of purchase. If the seller or syndic resists, she can refuse to sign until the clause is struck or seek a court declaratory judgment that the clause is null. She should also check if other co-owners have successfully ignored the rule, as this strengthens her position.

Application pratique:

The Cassation Court's decision renders this restriction invalid if not justified by the building's layout or safety—merely favouring a category of co-owner is not enough. Monsieur Benoit should gather evidence (photos, witness statements) showing that residential use is not physically distinct and that enforcement is arbitrary. He should send a formal mise en demeure to the syndic, demanding removal of the clause and compensation for loss of use. If ignored, he can petition the tribunal judiciaire to declare the clause null and void retroactively, claiming damages calculated at the monthly rental value of a comparable parking space in the area (approx. €200–€300/month).