Trial judges, seised by a

Application pratique:

Under the 1970 Cour de cassation ruling, the trial judge has discretion to decide if the balcony is an 'improvement consistent with the building's purpose'. Marie should collect evidence showing the balcony enhances her flat's value without harming the building's aesthetics or structure. She should seek legal advice to present a compelling case to the syndic or, if necessary, the court, emphasising compatibility with the building's residential purpose.

Application pratique:

The 1970 decision confirms that judges have wide discretion to assess whether works like this constitute an improvement consistent with the building's purpose. Jean-Pierre must demonstrate that the alteration strengthens the building's structure or increases its overall value without disadvantaging other co-owners. He should commission a structural engineer's report and propose compensating the building for the use of common parts. Before litigation, he must exhaust all avenues with the co-owners' assembly and keep meticulous records.

Application pratique:

Although Sophie wasn't the one who did the work, as the current owner she is liable for returning common areas to their original state. The 1970 case law highlights that even improvements are subject to strict judicial scrutiny regarding consistency with the building's purpose. She should immediately check the building's rules and the purchase deed for any mention of the enclosure. She may have a claim against the seller for hidden defects, but she must not delay in responding to the co-owners' demand to avoid legal costs and potential fines.