Aller au contenu principal
In the absence of a provision
Droit Immobilier

In the absence of a provision

📅 Decision of 03 March 2016🔄 Updated on 11 October 2026⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 33 views📖 2 min read

In the absence of any regulatory provision setting a tariff, the First President of a Court of Appeal rightly decided that the remuneration of a provisional administrator of a co-ownership is not subject to prior verification by the court clerk as provided for in Articles 704 and 705 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Reference decision: cc • No. 15-12.129 • 2016-03-03 • View the decision →

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

The situation

In the absence of any regulatory provision setting a tariff, the First President of a Court of Appeal rightly decided that the remuneration of a provisional administrator of a co-ownership is not subject to prior verification by the court clerk as provided for in Articles 704 and 705 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points to remember

  • Strictly comply with statutory time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, instruments, correspondence)
  • Be proactive: preventive advice is always cheaper 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

Legal information

  • Number: 15-12.129
  • Court: Cour de cassation
  • Decision of: 03 March 2016

Keywords

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Practical use cases

1

High fees from court-appointed co-ownership administrator

You are a co-owner in a 12-unit building in Nice. Due to financial mismanagement, the court appointed a provisional administrator for 8 months. You now receive a bill for your share of the administrator's fees—€2,300—which seems excessive.

Practical application:

The court’s decision confirms that the administrator’s remuneration is set by the First President of the Court of Appeal and is not subject to prior verification by the court clerk. To challenge the amount, you must act within the statutory appeal period (usually 15 days from notification) and present your objections directly to the court, rather than expecting the clerk to reduce the fees. Keep all fee notifications and correspondence, and consider seeking legal advice promptly to avoid missing deadlines.

2

Landlord with multiple units faces provisional administration costs

You own 5 rental flats in a co-ownership in Lyon that was placed under provisional administration for chronic debt. The administrator’s total fees amount to €18,000, and as the largest owner, you are liable for 35% of this sum. You were not informed of the fee hearing.

Practical application:

Because the administrator’s fees are not verified by the court clerk, the amount set by the First President is immediately enforceable. You should immediately check whether you were properly notified of the hearing where the fees were fixed—failure to notify you may be a ground to appeal. Gather all co-ownership meeting minutes and correspondence, and file an appeal within the legal time limit (usually one month from the fee order) to argue the fees are disproportionate.

3

Buying a flat in a building with past administrator

You are a first-time buyer in Bordeaux considering a flat in a co-ownership that had a provisional administrator 18 months ago. The seller mentions no ongoing debts, but you discover an unresolved dispute over €9,000 in unpaid administrator fees.

Practical application:

This decision shows that administrator fees are not subject to clerk verification and can become a binding debt on all co-owners, including future ones, if not challenged in time. Request from the seller the administrator’s fee order and proof of payment, and ask the syndicate for an up-to-date statement of charges. Insist on a clause in the sale contract stating that any outstanding fees are the seller's responsibility, to avoid inheriting the debt.

Maître Cécile Zakine

About the author

Maître Cécile Zakine — Lawyer at the Alpes-Maritimes Bar, Doctor of Law. Every article in this magazine is based on the analysis of a real court decision, commented and put into perspective by Maître Zakine’s team.

Book an appointment →

Disclaimer: The analysis presented on this site is for informational purposes only and does not constitute personalised legal advice. For advice tailored to your situation, contact a qualified lawyer.

★★★★★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

★★★★★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