Decision of a General Meeting

Reference decision: cc • No. 00-17.751 • 20 March 2002 • View the decision →

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

The situation

The decision of a general meeting of co-owners accepting, a posteriori and subject to payment of compensation, works carried out by a co-owner on common parts of which the latter had only exclusive enjoyment, is subject to the voting requirements of Article 26 of the Act of 10 July 1965.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key takeaways

Strictly observe the statutory time limits for bringing an action
Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, instruments, letters)
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

Practical use cases

Co-owner builds shed on exclusive-use garden

A co-owner in Lyon, who enjoys exclusive use of a section of the common garden, constructed a 3 m² storage shed without prior consent. The works cost €4,000 and were completed in March 2023. He now seeks retrospective approval from the general meeting to avoid demolition.

Practical application:

Under the referenced decision, such retrospective approval is subject to the voting requirements of Article 26 of the 1965 Act (double majority of union members representing at least two-thirds of votes). The co-owner must ensure the resolution passes with this majority; otherwise, the authorization is void. He should propose a compensation payment to the syndicate and gather all supporting documents before the vote.

Landlord regularises tenant's unauthorised satellite dish

A landlord in Paris, who rents out a flat, discovers that the tenant has installed a satellite dish on the balcony—a common part with exclusive enjoyment—without permission. The landlord wants to regularise the situation to avoid liability and potential fines. The dish installation cost €800 and has been in place for 6 months.

Practical application:

Because the balcony is a common part with exclusive enjoyment, any post-hoc approval must comply with Article 26's double majority. The landlord should instruct the property manager to add a resolution to the next general meeting agenda, proposing retrospective authorisation subject to payment of compensation by the tenant. If the vote fails, the landlord may need to remove the dish and claim damages from the tenant.

First-time buyer inherits unauthorised balcony enclosure

A first-time buyer in Nice purchases a flat and later realises the previous owner enclosed the balcony (a common part with exclusive enjoyment) without approval. The enclosure cost €7,000 and was done two years ago. The buyer wants to keep it to maintain property value, but the syndic demands its removal.

Practical application:

This case law establishes that any retrospective acceptance of such works requires an Article 26 vote. The buyer must request the syndic to put a resolution to the next general meeting, seeking approval with compensation. Failing the required majority, the decision is invalid, and the buyer may be forced to restore the balcony at their own expense. Engaging a lawyer early can help negotiate with the co-owners.

Decision of a General Meeting

The situation

What the law says

Key takeaways

Legal information

Source

Keywords

Practical use cases

Co-owner builds shed on exclusive-use garden

Landlord regularises tenant's unauthorised satellite dish

First-time buyer inherits unauthorised balcony enclosure

About the author

Does this affect you?

📬 Get legal updates

Consult a specialist lawyer near you

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law