Clause must be deemed unwritten

Practical application:

The cited case law confirms that any clause allowing a co-owner to carry out works on common parts without a vote is void. Sophie must not rely on that clause; she should stop her plans immediately. She must send a formal request to the syndic at least 21 days before the next general meeting, describing the works and seeking approval by a majority vote (Article 25 of the 1965 law). Even if the works seem minor, failure to get consent can result in a court order to remove the unit at her expense plus legal costs.

Practical application:

The clause is invalid per the 1997 ruling. As current owner, Marc is responsible for regularising the situation. He should immediately contact the syndic and request a special general meeting, proposing either retroactive approval (if other co-owners agree) or a removal plan. He should also review his purchase documents: if the seller failed to disclose that the extension lacked valid authorisation, Marc may have a claim against the seller for hidden defects (vice caché) or breach of warranty. He must keep all correspondence and consider legal advice within the two-year limitation period from discovery.

Practical application:

The case law directly states that such a clause is deemed unwritten. Chloé's veranda likely has no legal basis and could be challenged by any co-owner, leading to a court order for removal at her cost. Before signing, she must insist the seller provide a copy of the general meeting resolution that explicitly approved the veranda. She should also instruct her notaire to check for any pending disputes. Without valid approval, she should negotiate a price reduction or walk away, as litigation costs could exceed €15,000 and take over two years. This is a critical moment to pause the purchase.