Decision of a General Meeting

Application pratique:

Under the referenced decision, such retrospective approval is subject to the voting requirements of Article 26 of the 1965 Act (double majority of union members representing at least two-thirds of votes). The co-owner must ensure the resolution passes with this majority; otherwise, the authorization is void. He should propose a compensation payment to the syndicate and gather all supporting documents before the vote.

Application pratique:

Because the balcony is a common part with exclusive enjoyment, any post-hoc approval must comply with Article 26's double majority. The landlord should instruct the property manager to add a resolution to the next general meeting agenda, proposing retrospective authorisation subject to payment of compensation by the tenant. If the vote fails, the landlord may need to remove the dish and claim damages from the tenant.

Application pratique:

This case law establishes that any retrospective acceptance of such works requires an Article 26 vote. The buyer must request the syndic to put a resolution to the next general meeting, seeking approval with compensation. Failing the required majority, the decision is invalid, and the buyer may be forced to restore the balcony at their own expense. Engaging a lawyer early can help negotiate with the co-owners.