The Decision of the General Meeting

Application pratique:

Under the 1970 Court of Cassation ruling, the AGM's decision to authorise occupation of common parts in exchange for a fee constitutes a contract between the syndicate and the co-owner. Marie can object to the revocation as a unilateral breach of contract. She should formally remind the syndic (property manager) that the authorisation cannot be withdrawn without her agreement or a court order, and seek to negotiate a settlement or, if necessary, challenge the new AGM resolution within the two-month appeal period.

Application pratique:

The case law confirms that authorising a co-owner to occupy common parts for a fee creates a contractual relationship. As a contract, it typically binds the individual co-owner, not the lot, unless expressly stated otherwise. Julien should check the original AGM resolution and agreement for any clause on transferability. If it is personal, he must request a new authorisation from the next AGM, potentially offering the same terms. He should act before completion to avoid losing the use and may negotiate with the seller to support his request.

Application pratique:

The 1970 ruling establishes that such an AGM authorisation paired with an indemnity is a binding contract. Mrs. Chen should ensure the AGM resolution is drafted as a formal, fixed-term contract with clear conditions, including renewal terms, rather than a simple tolerance. This contractual nature prevents the syndicate from arbitrarily terminating the arrangement and provides legal stability. She must keep the written agreement and the AGM minutes, and pay the indemnity punctually to avoid breach arguments. Consulting a lawyer to draft the contract is advisable to safeguard her investment.