Aller au contenu principal
Decision of a co-ownership syndicate to abandon the collective hot water service in favour of individual electric water heaters
Droit Immobilier

Decision of a co-ownership syndicate to abandon the collective hot water service in favour of individual electric water heaters

📅 Decision of 09 May 2012⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 23 views📖 2 min read

The decision of a co-ownership syndicate to abandon the collective hot water service in favour of individual electric water heaters is validly adopted by the double majority of Article 26 of Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965, provided that the Court of Appeal sovereignly holds that it constitutes an improvement due to the energy savings achieved and in light of the technical difficulties and cost of restoring a dilapidated installation.

Reference decision: cc • No. 11-16.226 • 2012-05-09 • Consult the decision →

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

The situation

The decision of a co-ownership syndicate to abandon the collective hot water service in favour of individual electric water heaters is validly adopted by the double majority of Article 26 of Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965, provided that the Court of Appeal sovereignly holds that it constitutes an improvement due to the energy savings achieved and in light of the technical difficulties and cost of restoring a dilapidated installation.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points

  • Scrupulously observe the statutory time limits for bringing an action
  • Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, deeds, correspondence)
  • Anticipate: preventive 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

Legal information

  • Number: 11-16.226
  • Court: Cour de cassation
  • Decision of: 09 May 2012

Keywords

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier
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