Secondary Union: Does the Main Union Retain the Right to Take Legal Action?

Imagine: you live in a large co-ownership in Sotteville-lès-Rouen, with several buildings. Some residents decide to create a secondary union to manage their specific issues. But one day, an incident affects the common parts of the whole. Who can take legal action? The main union or the secondary union? This may seem like a technical question, but it has very concrete consequences for your rights.

The Court of Cassation, in a judgment of 11 May 2000 (No. 98-17.268), gave a clear answer: the main union retains the right to take legal action to defend interests relating to the entire co-ownership. In other words, the creation of a secondary union does not remove the main union's capacity to sue (act before a court) regarding the entire community.

But what does this mean concretely for you, as an owner or co-owner? This article breaks down the decision, explains the practical implications, and gives you advice to avoid disputes.

The Facts: A Story Like Any Other

Mr. X, an owner in Sotteville-lès-Rouen, lives in a co-ownership consisting of several buildings. A secondary union was formed to manage the specific interests of a group of co-owners. An incident occurs (e.g., water damage) that affects the common parts of the whole. The secondary union, believing the action concerns its members, initiates proceedings against the insurance company. But the court declares it inadmissible, ruling that only the main union could act for the collective interests.

The main union, on the other hand, had also brought an action, but the same court declared it inadmissible on the grounds that the secondary union was competent. Result: a judicial imbroglio, with no one able to obtain redress. The co-owners are left without a solution.

The Court of Cassation, seised of the matter, rules: the main union has standing to sue (capacity to take legal action) to defend the interests of the entire co-ownership. The secondary union can only act for its own specific interests. In this case, as the incident affected the common parts, it was the main union that should have acted. The judgment quashes (annuls) the lower court's decision.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Court of Cassation relies on the articles of the Law of 10 July 1965 on co-ownership, in particular Article 15 which sets out the rules on the capacity of unions to take legal action. This article provides that the main union has standing to take legal action to defend the collective interests of the co-owners. The creation of a secondary union, provided for by Article 27 of the same law, does not alter this rule: the secondary union is only competent for matters that exclusively concern the co-owners who are members of that sub-group.

In other words, the Court recalls a hierarchy: the main union remains the representative of the co-ownership as a whole. The secondary union is an emanation, a local management tool, but it cannot encroach on the prerogatives of the main union. The lower courts erred by setting the two unions against each other. The Court of Cassation corrects this: it is not a matter of alternative, but of a division of powers.

What few people know is that this decision is part of consistent case law: the Court of Cassation ensures that the creation of secondary unions does not fragment the co-ownership to the point of paralysing the defence of common interests. In short, the judges have a unitary view of co-ownership. Thus, even if you have a secondary union, the main union retains all its powers to take legal action on matters of general interest.

What This Changes for You — Concretely

If you are a co-owner in a development with a secondary union, you should know that the main union can initiate legal action without the secondary union being able to oppose it. For example, if your roof (common part) leaks, it is the main union that must act against the roofing company or the insurer. The secondary union cannot, on its own, launch proceedings for this type of incident.

For a landlord owner in Barentin, this means that if a tenant suffers harm due to a lack of maintenance of the common parts, it is the main union that must be sued (summoned to court), not the secondary union. However, be careful: if the dispute only concerns private parts or specific equipment in one building (such as a stairwell specific to one block), the secondary union can act.

undefined, I have come across cases where co-owners, thinking they were doing the right thing, approached the wrong union. Result: the proceedings were declared inadmissible, leading to months of delay and unnecessary costs. Advice: before taking legal action, check with your lawyer which union is competent. Sometimes, it is possible to act jointly (both unions) to be certain of avoiding a strike-out.

Time limits? In co-ownership matters, actions must often be brought within 5 years from the harmful event (standard limitation period). But for hidden defects or progressive disorders, the time limits may vary. Do not wait.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Check the co-ownership regulations: They specify the respective powers of the main union and secondary unions. Ensure the attributions are clear.
• Consult a lawyer before acting: A simple analysis (30 minutes) can tell you which union is competent for your dispute. It costs less than an inadmissible proceeding.
• Convene the general meeting: The managing agent must obtain authorisation from the general meeting to take legal action (except in emergencies). Check that this authorisation has been given to the correct union.
• Document the evidence: Photos, letters, expert reports. Without evidence, an action is doomed to fail. Keep everything.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This 2000 decision is part of a consistent line of authority. Already, in a judgment of 9 November 1993 (No. 90-20.123), the Court of Cassation held that the main union alone retains standing to take legal action to defend collective interests, even if a secondary union has been formed. The trend is therefore stable: no reversal is expected.

More recently, the Court clarified (Civ. 3e, 15 March 2018, No. 17-10.542) that a secondary union cannot take legal action for general common charges, even if they mainly concern members of the secondary union. The boundary is therefore clear.

For the future, it is likely that the courts will continue to protect the unity of the co-ownership. In the event of a conflict between unions, the main union prevails on matters of general interest.

Checklist Before Taking Action

• What is the subject of the dispute? General or specific common parts?
• Which union is competent according to the regulations? Consult the co-ownership regulations.
• Does the managing agent have authorisation from the general meeting? Check the minutes.
• What is the limitation period? Generally 5 years, but check.
• Do I have all the evidence? Gather the documents.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →