Aller au contenu principal
The condominium regulations may
Droit-immobilier

The condominium regulations may

📅 Decision of 01 April 1987🔄 Updated on 5 October 2026⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 21 views📖 2 min read

The condominium regulations may charge only certain co-owners with the maintenance expenses of a part of the building or those of maintenance and operation of an equipment item; consequently, a judgment is liable to be set aside if it annuls clauses in the condominium regulations exempting a co-owner from contributing to the remuneration of the concierge of the entire property and the service staff, whereas those regulations provide that this unit, used as a supermarket, shall be served by a fully autonomous security and maintenance service.

Reference decision: cc • No. 85-18.044 • 1987-04-01 • View decision →

This decision provides important clarification on your property law. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

The condominium regulations may charge only certain co-owners with the maintenance expenses of a part of the building or those of maintenance and operation of an equipment item; consequently, a judgment is liable to be set aside if it annuls clauses in the condominium regulations exempting a co-owner from contributing to the remuneration of the concierge of the entire property and the service staff, whereas those regulations provide that this unit, used as a supermarket, shall be served by a fully autonomous security and maintenance service.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points to remember

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation at €45 with Maître Zakine.

Legal information

  • Number: 85-18.044
  • Court: Cour de cassation
  • Decision of: 01 April 1987

Keywords

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Practical use cases

1

Supermarket owner exempt from concierge fees

In a condominium in Lyon, the supermarket unit on the ground floor has its own autonomous security and cleaning service. The condominium regulations exempt this unit from paying the common concierge and service staff costs, but other co-owners challenge this exemption in court.

Practical application:

This case law confirms that condominium regulations can validly exempt certain units from specific common expenses if those units have independent services. The supermarket owner should keep the regulations and evidence of the autonomous service. If sued, they can rely on this decision to uphold the exemption. Other co-owners should review the regulations before purchasing; if they disagree, they must challenge the clause within the legal timeframe.

2

Co-owner disputes unequal maintenance charges

A co-owner in a Parisian apartment building with a rooftop garden used only by the top-floor units refuses to pay for its maintenance, arguing it's unfair. The condominium regulations charge only the top-floor owners for this garden's upkeep.

Practical application:

This case law supports clauses that allocate specific costs to only certain co-owners based on use or benefit. The co-owner must pay as per the regulations, but can request a modification of the regulations by a two-thirds majority vote. Before buying, always check the condominium regulations for such specific expense allocations. If the clause is clear and legal, it is enforceable.

3

First-time buyer surprised by unequal charges

A first-time buyer in Marseille purchases a ground-floor apartment with a small garden. The condominium regulations assign all garden maintenance costs solely to the ground-floor units, which the buyer discovers only after moving in.

Practical application:

This decision confirms that such unequal charge allocations are valid if clearly stated in the regulations. The buyer should have reviewed the regulations before purchase; now, they must pay. To avoid this, always ask for the condominium regulations and a statement of past charges during the pre-purchase due diligence. If the clause was not disclosed, the buyer may have a claim against the seller for lack of information.

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