Aller au contenu principal
Droit Immobilier

When a works authorisation decision

📅 Décision du 06 February 2025⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 6 vues📖 2 min de lecture

When a works authorisation decision relates to both the general common parts and the special common parts, this decision must be adopted by the general meeting of the co-owners of the general common parts

Reference decision: cc • N° 23-18.586 • 2025-02-06 • Consult the decision →

This decision provides important insight into your property law. Here is what it means for you.

The situation

When a works authorisation decision relates to both the general common parts and the special common parts, this decision must be adopted by the general meeting of the co-owners of the general common parts

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points to remember

  • Strictly comply with the statutory time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, deeds, correspondence)
  • Anticipate: preventive legal 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: 23-18.586
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 06 février 2025

Mots-clés

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Intercom upgrade in Lyon apartment building

In a 20-unit apartment building in Lyon, the ground-floor commercial unit owner proposes upgrading the intercom system, which connects the main entrance (general common part) and the stairwell serving only floors 1-3 (special common part). The quote is for €12,000, and the vote was held only at the general meeting of all co-owners.

Application pratique:

The Court of Cassation ruled that when works affect both general and special common parts, the decision must be taken by the general meeting of the general common parts’ co-owners. Since the intercom system includes special common parts (the stairwell), the vote must explicitly include the co-owners of those areas. The current decision is voidable; the syndic should call a new general meeting with proper agenda and majority rules. Affected co-owners can challenge the resolution within two months.

2

Balcony refurbishment in Nice coastal residence

A syndic in Nice plans to refurbish the facade of a 1950s seafront residence, including the external render (general common parts) and 15 individual balconies (special common parts for the exclusive use of specific apartments). The total cost is €85,000, but only the co-owners of those 15 apartments voted in a special meeting, believing they alone were concerned.

Application pratique:

According to the legal principle, since the works encompass both general common parts (facade) and special common parts (balconies), the authorisation must come from the general meeting of all co-owners. The decision by only the balcony owners is invalid. The syndic must convene a full general meeting, include the item on the agenda with detailed cost breakdown, and obtain approval by the appropriate majority. Any interested party should ensure the minutes of the initial meeting are annulled if necessary.

3

Lift replacement in mixed-use Paris building

A landlord owning three residential flats and one commercial unit in a Parisian Haussmann building wants to replace the old lift, which serves all residential floors (general common parts) and provides direct access to the commercial unit's basement storage (a special common part). The quotation is €48,000, and the vote was held during the general meeting, but some commercial co-owners argue the basement is not a general common part.

Application pratique:

The Court of Cassation clarifies that when a works authorisation relates to both general and special common parts, the decision must be adopted by the general meeting of co-owners of the general common parts. Here, the lift replacement involves both types; thus, the general meeting's vote is valid. The commercial co-owners' objection about the basement being special does not invalidate the process because the general meeting is the appropriate body. To avoid disputes, the syndic should clearly define the common parts in the meeting notice and ensure all affected parties are convened.

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

Articles similaires en Immobilier

Voir tout →

Jurisprudence immobilière

Il résulte des articles 2394 et 2412 du code civil que l'hypothèque n'a lieu que dans les cas et suivant les formes autorisées par la loi et que si celui qui a obtenu un jugement en sa faveur bénéficie d'une hypothèque judiciaire, il n'est pas dispensé de procéder à l'inscription de celle-ci dans les conditions de l'article 2426 du même code. C'est donc à bon droit qu'une cour d'appel a retenu qu'aucun texte ne le prévoyant, la publication d'un commandement valant saisie immobilière n'est pas assimilable à une inscription d'hypothèque sur l'immeuble saisi et que, par conséquent, la créance détenue ne peut être admise qu'à titre chirographaire

11 sept. 2026Lire →

Jurisprudence immobilière : analyse et conseils pratiques

UNE COUR D'APPEL PEUT, EN APPLICATION DE L'ARTICLE 161 DE LA LOI DU 13 JUILLET 1967, PRONONCER LA LIQUIDATION DES BIENS D'UN ASSOCIE DE SOCIETES DE CONSTRUCTION, DES LORS QU'ELLE CONSTATE QUE, FONDATEUR ET DIRIGEANT DE CES SOCIETES, IL A REVENDU AVEC DE SUBSTANTIELS BENEFICES LES PARTS SOCIALES LUI DONNANT DROIT A DES APPARTEMENTS, ET QU'AINSI IL S'EST LIVRE A DES OPERATIONS DE CONSTRUCTION DANS UN BUT LUCRATIF.

11 sept. 2026Lire →

Encourt la cassation l'arrêt qui, pour

Encourt la cassation l'arrêt qui, pour décider qu'un mandant n'est pas lié par la transaction conclue par son mandataire après révocation du mandat, énonce qu'il appartenait au tiers contractant de s'assurer que le mandataire tenait bien du mandant le pouvoir de transiger tout en constatant que ce tiers n'était pas informé de la révocation du mandat.

11 sept. 2026Lire →

Explorez plus d'analyses juridiques en droit immobilier

Tous les articles Immobilier
★★★★★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