Combien coute une consultation avec Maitre Zakine ?

La premiere consultation est de 30 minutes en visio pour 45 euros. Des forfaits sont proposes pour les procedures completes.

Comment prendre rendez-vous ?

Vous pouvez prendre rendez-vous directement en ligne sur Calendly ou contacter le cabinet par email.

Jurisprudence immobilière : analyse et conseils pratiques

Décision de référence : cc • N° 71-01.916 • 1972-05-30 • Consulter la décision →

Cette décision apporte un éclairage important sur votre droit immobilier. Voici ce qu'elle change pour vous.

La situation

LES CONSIDERATIONS DE PERSONNES SONT ETRANGERES A LA NOTION DE JOUISSANCE D'UN LOT DANS UNE COPROPRIETE.

Ce que dit la loi

Cette décision confirme les principes fondamentaux du droit de la propriété.

Points à retenir

Respectez scrupuleusement les délais légaux de recours
Conservez tous vos documents justificatifs (titres, actes, courriers)
Anticipez : un conseil préventif coûte toujours moins cher qu'un litige

Pour une analyse de votre situation : consultation 30 min à 45€ avec Maître Zakine.

📌 Cet article vous concerne ? Maître Cécile Zakine, avocate en droit immobilier et foncier, Docteur en droit, intervient dans toute la France.
→ Prendre RDV pour une consultation droit du travail | → Tous nos articles juridiques

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Prendre RDV pour une consultation droit du travail | → Browse all our legal articles

📌 这与您的情况相关吗？ 塞西尔·扎基内律师专注于法国房地产和土地法，在全法执业。
→ Prendre RDV pour une consultation droit du travail | → 浏览所有法律文章

Cas d'usage pratiques

Co-owner denied use of garden lot by vote

In Nice, a co-owner holding a ground-floor flat with an attached garden lot is told by the syndic that a neighbour, who sits on the conseil syndical, has been allowed exclusive use of a shared courtyard area overlapping her lot, allegedly because of her 'good relationship' with the managing agent. She has owned the flat for six years and pays roughly €1,800 a year in service charges.

Application pratique:

This 1972 Cour de cassation ruling holds that the right to enjoy (jouissance) a lot in a co-ownership scheme is attached to the lot itself, not to who the person is — personal considerations are irrelevant to that right. She should request the co-ownership regulations (règlement de copropriété) and the relevant general meeting minutes in writing, and formally challenge any decision granting preferential use based on personal favour rather than the lot's defined rights. If the syndic does not correct this within the legal notice period, she should consult a lawyer to contest the general meeting resolution within the two-month challenge period under Article 42 of the 1965 law.

Landlord refuses tenant's exclusive parking space access

A landlord in Lyon rents out an apartment that includes a numbered parking space as an accessory lot, but later tells the tenant that another resident, a personal friend of the landlord, will also be using that same space on alternate days. The tenant has paid an extra €60 per month specifically for exclusive use of this parking lot for the past year.

Application pratique:

Per this landmark decision, enjoyment of a co-ownership lot (here, the parking space) is tied to the lot's legal designation, not to personal arrangements between individuals. The tenant, through the landlord as lot owner, can invoke the co-ownership regulations to demand exclusive use be restored, since no personal favour can override the lot's defined rights. The landlord should write a formal letter to the syndic citing the règlement de copropriété and, if unresolved within one month, escalate to the conseil syndical or seek a court injunction (référé) to stop the unauthorised shared use.

First-time buyer discovers restricted terrace access

A first-time buyer purchasing a €210,000 flat in Bordeaux with a private terrace lot discovers after signing the compromis de vente that the previous owner had informally let a relative from another building use the terrace for storage, based on a personal arrangement with the former syndic president.

Application pratique:

This case law confirms that such personal arrangements have no legal weight — the right to the terrace lot belongs strictly to its registered owner, regardless of who previously administered the building. Before finalising the sale (acte authentique), the buyer should ask the notaire to confirm in writing that no third-party usage rights are registered against the lot, and request removal of any informal items left by the relative. If access issues persist after the sale, the buyer can send a mise en demeure to the occupant and, if needed, apply for an expulsion order, since no personal favour can create a lasting right over the lot.

Jurisprudence immobilière : analyse et conseils pratiques

La situation

Ce que dit la loi

Points à retenir

Informations juridiques

Source

Mots-clés

Cas d'usage pratiques

Co-owner denied use of garden lot by vote

Landlord refuses tenant's exclusive parking space access

First-time buyer discovers restricted terrace access

À propos de l'auteur

Does this affect you?

📬 Get legal updates

Consultez un avocat spécialisé près de chez vous

🎯 Sur le même sujet

Articles similaires en Immobilier

Servitude de passage : droits et recours des propriétaires

Droit de la propriété : cadre légal et solutions

Jurisprudence immobilière : analyse et conseils pratiques

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law