Droit Immobilier

Action by a Co-ownership Association

📅 Décision du 15 June 1988⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 3 vues📖 2 min de lecture

An action by a co-ownership association seeking the removal of a ventilation duct installed without authorisation by a co-owner on a building façade, which aims not to end an appropriation of common parts but to enforce the co-ownership regulations, is subject to the ten-year limitation period established by Article 42, paragraph 1, of the Law of 10 July 1965.

Reference decision: cc • N° 86-19.030 • 1988-06-15 • View the decision →

This decision sheds important light on your property law. Here is how it affects you.

The situation

An action by a co-ownership association seeking the removal of a ventilation duct installed without authorisation by a co-owner on a building façade, which aims not to end an appropriation of common parts but to enforce the co-ownership regulations, is subject to the ten-year limitation period established by Article 42, paragraph 1, of the Law of 10 July 1965.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points

  • Strictly observe the statutory time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (deeds, official documents, correspondence)
  • Be proactive: preventive advice is always cheaper 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: 86-19.030
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 15 juin 1988

Mots-clés

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Unapproved HVAC unit on common wall after 9 years

A co-owner in Marseille installed an outdoor air-conditioning unit on a common façade wall in 2015 without syndicat approval. In 2024, the new property manager sent a formal notice demanding removal, citing a breach of the co-ownership regulations. The unit has been clearly visible from the street since installation.

Application pratique:

Under this case law, actions to enforce co-ownership regulations are subject to a 10-year limitation period, not the standard 30-year period for property rights. Since the installation occurred only 9 years ago, the syndicat can still legally compel removal. The co-owner should promptly request retroactive authorisation from the syndicat général or negotiate a settlement, as failing to act could lead to costly litigation and a court order for removal at their own expense.

2

Buying a flat with an unauthorised roof window

A first-time buyer in Nice is considering purchasing a top-floor apartment where the current owner installed a Velux window on the communal sloping roof in 2016 without permission. The seller claims 'it’s been there for years, so nothing to worry about.' The buyer’s notaire has raised concerns about potential liability.

Application pratique:

The Court of Cassation decision confirms that syndicats can enforce removal of unauthorised works on common parts under the 10-year prescription. With only 2 years left before the limitation period expires (assuming the syndicat knew from installation), the buyer faces a real risk of being forced to remove the window and restore the roof. To protect themselves, the buyer must demand that the seller obtain a formal ratifying vote from the syndicat before completion, or negotiate a significant price reduction to cover future removal and repair costs.

3

Tenant’s satellite dish forces landlord action

A landlord owns a rented flat in Paris. In 2018, a tenant installed a satellite dish on the building’s front façade without written consent, and the landlord did nothing. The tenant has now vacated, but in 2024 the syndicat is threatening legal action to remove the dish and repair the façade, holding the landlord responsible.

Application pratique:

Because the syndicat’s enforcement action targets the flat owner and is based on the règlement de copropriété, the 10-year limitation period means the syndicat is well within time to demand removal. The landlord must immediately remove the dish and repair any damage; delaying could result in a court order and additional legal costs. To prevent recurrence, future leases should explicitly forbid any alteration to common parts and state that the tenant bears all costs of unauthorised modifications.

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 — 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