Aller au contenu principal
The Conventional Co-ownership Regulations
Droit Immobilier

The Conventional Co-ownership Regulations

📅 Décision du 30 October 1984⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 11 vues📖 2 min de lecture

The conventional co-ownership regulations provided for by Article 8 of the 1965 Act freely determine the use of both private and common portions. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal legally justified its decision prohibiting a co-owner from commercially exploiting his unit, noting that the amended co-ownership regulations stipulate that only another unit, distinct from the unit in dispute, is designated for commercial use, which excludes such use for the unit in dispute defined by the regulations as a garage.

Reference decision: cc • No. 83-13.728 • 1984-10-30 • Consult the decision →

This decision sheds important light on your property law. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

The conventional co-ownership regulations provided for by Article 8 of the 1965 Act freely determine the use of both private and common portions. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal legally justified its decision prohibiting a co-owner from commercially exploiting his unit, noting that the amended co-ownership regulations stipulate that only another unit, distinct from the unit in dispute, is designated for commercial use, which excludes such use for the unit in dispute defined by the regulations as a garage.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Points to remember

  • Scrupulously respect legal time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (deeds, acts, 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: 83-13.728
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 30 octobre 1984

Mots-clés

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Garage Café Plan Halted by Co-ownership Rules

In a residential building in Nice, a co-owner converts his 20 sqm garage into a small café with outdoor seating, investing €15,000. The other co-owners object, citing the co-ownership regulations that restrict commercial use to a designated ground-floor shop.

Application pratique:

The Court of Cassation confirmed that co-ownership regulations can limit the use of private portions. His garage is defined exclusively as a garage, so commercial exploitation is prohibited. He must cease operations immediately and restore the garage to its original condition to avoid daily penalty fees of €100 under a potential court order. He should also consult a lawyer to negotiate with the co-owners' association for a possible regulation amendment.

2

Therapy Practice in Lyon Flat Blocked by Rules

A first-time buyer in Lyon is about to purchase a 50 sqm flat with a garage for €220,000, planning to use the garage as a home office for her psychology practice. Just before signing, she discovers the co-ownership regulations only permit residential use.

Application pratique:

This decision underscores that violating use clauses can lead to legal prohibition. She must immediately request a copy of the règlement de copropriété from the seller and verify if any unit is designated for professional activity. If not, she should either abandon the purchase or seek a conditional sale agreement that allows her to obtain co-owners' approval for a garage conversion, bearing in mind that such approval is not guaranteed and may cost €5,000–€10,000 in legal and administrative fees.

3

Paris Landlord Blocked from Leasing to a Company

A landlord in Paris owns a 30 sqm ground-floor unit, currently residential, but wants to Lease it to a start-up for €1,500/month. The co-ownership regulations stipulate that commercial use is forbidden except in a specific unit across the hall, which is already occupied.

Application pratique:

Following the Court of Cassation’s logic, attempting to lease for commercial purposes can be immediately halted by other co-owners through a court injunction. He must check the exact wording of the règlement; if his unit is not unequivocally designated for commercial use, he cannot proceed. He should either keep the unit residential or propose a vote at the next annual general meeting to amend the regulations, a process requiring a double majority (Article 26) and likely costing €3,000–€5,000 in notary and lawyer fees.

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