Aller au contenu principal
Decision of a co-ownership syndicate to abandon the collective hot water service in favour of individual electric water heaters
Droit Immobilier

Decision of a co-ownership syndicate to abandon the collective hot water service in favour of individual electric water heaters

📅 Décision du 09 May 2012⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 16 vues📖 2 min de lecture

The decision of a co-ownership syndicate to abandon the collective hot water service in favour of individual electric water heaters is validly adopted by the double majority of Article 26 of Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965, provided that the Court of Appeal sovereignly holds that it constitutes an improvement due to the energy savings achieved and in light of the technical difficulties and cost of restoring a dilapidated installation.

Reference decision: cc • No. 11-16.226 • 2012-05-09 • Consult the decision →

This decision provides important insight into your property law. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

The decision of a co-ownership syndicate to abandon the collective hot water service in favour of individual electric water heaters is validly adopted by the double majority of Article 26 of Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965, provided that the Court of Appeal sovereignly holds that it constitutes an improvement due to the energy savings achieved and in light of the technical difficulties and cost of restoring a dilapidated installation.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points

  • Scrupulously observe the statutory time limits for bringing an action
  • Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, deeds, correspondence)
  • Anticipate: preventive advice always costs less than litigation

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation at €45 with Maître Zakine.

📌 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

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 11-16.226
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 09 mai 2012

Mots-clés

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier
Maître Cécile Zakine

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Cécile Zakine — Avocate au Barreau des Alpes-Maritimes, Docteur en Droit. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par les équipes de Maître Zakine.

Prendre rendez-vous →

Avertissement: Les analyses présentées sur ce site sont fournies à titre informatif uniquement et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques personnalisés. Pour une consultation adaptée à votre situation, contactez un avocat.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Google Reviews

Does this affect you?

Consult Maître Zakine — lawyer, Doctor of Law. Fast, clear answer.

Book a consultation →

🔒 Confidential · No obligation

📬 Get legal updates

One legal analysis per week, straight to your inbox. Free, no spam.

🔒 1-click unsubscribe · GDPR compliant

★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide