Aller au contenu principal
The judgment which, by way of interpretation
Droit Immobilier

The judgment which, by way of interpretation

📅 Decision of 26 October 1983🔄 Updated on 17 October 2026⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 27 views📖 2 min read

The judgment which, by a necessary interpretation, excluding any distortion of the ambiguous terms of a co-ownership regulation that grants the owners of shops the right to connect to the building's collective heating, holds that the option becomes irrevocable once exercised upon completion of the building, rightly decides that a co-owner who has chosen to connect his premises to the heating cannot, by giving up use of that common equipment, be exempted from contributing to the charges it generates.

Reference decision: Cass. • No. 81-16.768 • 26 October 1983 • View decision →

This decision sheds important light on your property law. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

The judgment which, by a necessary interpretation, excluding any distortion of the ambiguous terms of a co-ownership regulation that grants the owners of shops the right to connect to the building's collective heating, holds that the option becomes irrevocable once exercised upon completion of the building, rightly decides that a co-owner who has chosen to connect his premises to the heating cannot, by giving up use of that common equipment, be exempted from contributing to the charges it generates.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points

  • Strictly respect the statutory time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (deeds, instruments, 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: 81-16.768
  • Court: Cour de cassation
  • Decision of: 26 October 1983

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