The provisions of a regulation of

Application pratique:

The 1975 Supreme Court ruling states that when a co-ownership regulation lists conditions for authorising a liberal profession, the general meeting may only enforce those listed conditions. They cannot add new restrictions. Dr. Martin can challenge this decision, arguing that the time restrictions are invalid. He should gather written evidence of the meeting's decision and consult a lawyer to send a formal notice, possibly leading to court to annul the restriction.

Application pratique:

This case law confirms that the general meeting cannot impose further restrictions beyond the regulation's conditions. Sophie should read the regulation carefully: as long as her architecture work meets the stated conditions (no hazardous materials, no excessive client visits), she can exercise her profession. She shouldn't rely on the agent's claim; instead, she can request a copy of the regulation from the seller and, if necessary, get legal advice. She can proceed confidently, knowing the meeting cannot arbitrarily block her if she complies.

Application pratique:

The Supreme Court ruling makes it clear: if the regulation lists conditions for authorising a liberal profession, the meeting cannot impose extra restrictions. Here, the regulation only specifies insurance, hours, and no flammable storage. The meeting's objection based on profession type is invalid. Mr. Dupont should inform the syndic (property manager) of the court decision and request the authorisation be granted. If refused, he can take legal action to force the co-ownership to comply, potentially seeking damages for lost rent.