In a French condominium, a missed deadline is a final decision: two months of inaction are enough to make an irregular general meeting unchallengeable. Symmetrically, a resolution adopted by a majority lower than the one the law requires is liable to be annulled, and the difficulty almost never lies in counting the votes, it lies in characterising the decision. The real argument starts after the count. Three calculation bases coexist and are constantly confused, two bridging mechanisms sometimes rescue a lost vote, and a recent decree has upended the starting point of the time limit for challenging. Six points allow managing agents, works councils and owners to make their meetings and their challenges secure.
Three calculation bases, three radically different effects of abstention
Article 24 is calculated on the votes actually cast by owners present, represented or voting by post: abstentions and absences are neutral, they drop out of the calculation. Absent or present, the outcome differs radically. Article 25, by contrast, is calculated on the totality of the votes of the association, so that abstention there is equivalent to a negative vote and absenteeism alone is enough to defeat the resolution. Article 26 adds a double cumulative condition, of heads and of shares, where abstention weighs unfavourably on both limbs. The dividing line between article 24 and article 25 is drawn by the dominant purpose of the decision, not by adding up its effects: the Court of Cassation has held that waterproofing repair works fall under article 24, even though they produce an energy saving, since their main purpose is to remedy the defects found (Cass. 3e civ., 3 July 2025, no. 23-21.429).
The bridges of articles 25-1 and 26-1: effective instruments, badly handled
Where the article 25 majority is not reached but the proposal has obtained at least a third of the votes of all the owners, article 25-1 requires an immediate second vote, at the same meeting, by the more accessible majority of article 24. The equivalent mechanism of article 26-1 operates where the double majority of article 26 is not reached but approval by half of those present, representing at least a third of the votes, has been obtained: the second vote is then held, immediately, by the majority of article 25, and not of article 24, a frequent error that vitiates the resolution. No bridge, in any event, can pass the mandatory locks of article 26: the meeting cannot, by any majority whatever, impose on an owner a change in the use of his private parts, such a resolution being void even if passed unanimously by those present.
Three mandatory corrections distort the arithmetic of the count
Where an owner holds a share greater than half of the common parts, his votes are reduced, under article 22, I, to the sum of the votes of all the other owners, a rule that applies to every majority and alters the calculation of the one third thresholds in the bridging mechanisms. The threshold moves, and vigilance must follow. A proxy holder, moreover, cannot hold more than three proxies, unless the total of the votes he holds himself and those of his principals does not exceed 10 per cent of the votes of the association; the managing agent, his relatives and his employees can neither hold a proxy nor chair the meeting. Finally, the postal voting form must be received at the latest three clear days before the meeting, and if the resolution is amended during the meeting, a postal voter who voted in favour is treated as a defaulting owner, which, under article 25, turns him into a de facto negative vote and can defeat a resolution that a last minute amendment should, on the face of it, have strengthened.
The two month time limit is a forfeiture period that forgives nothing
The two month period for challenging a decision of the general meeting, open only to owners who voted against or were absent, is not suspended, is not extended and is interrupted only by proceedings on the merits. For postal notification, the Court of Cassation has held that the period runs from the day after the first presentation of the registered letter, whether or not the item was collected, a solution held compatible with article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (Cass. 3e civ., 16 April 2026, no. 24-18.842). An owner who was not convened and who was not properly sent the notification of the minutes either has his action governed not by the two month period but by the ordinary five year limitation of article 42, first paragraph, a point often overlooked that can save an action believed to be out of time.
The decree of 22 December 2025 reversed the principle: electronic notification becomes the rule
Decree no. 2025-1292 of 22 December 2025, applicable since 25 December 2025, makes the electronic route the principle and the postal route the exception, on the express request of the owner. The time limit for challenging then starts not from the date of sending but from the day after the transmission, by the qualified trust service provider, of the electronic notice informing the addressee of the dispatch, a starting point technically distinct from that of postal notification, to be documented precisely. A mere delivery note is not enough. The result is an entirely new ground of challenge: where the minutes have been notified electronically despite a request to keep the postal route, the two month period simply does not run, and the action remains open within the ordinary five year period.
An expired time limit cannot be recovered, but it can sometimes be circumvented by characterising the action correctly
The two month period applies to an action to annul a decision of the general meeting; it does not apply to an action to have a clause of the condominium rules deemed unwritten, which is not subject to limitation. For the practitioner the consequence is decisive: a defective clause in the rules, discovered after the period for challenging the decision that adopted it has expired, can often still be attacked if the action is characterised as one to have it deemed unwritten, provided it has been identified as such before the wrong action is brought, the litigation strategy being decided on the first reading of the minutes and of the condominium rules.
The firm has published a full practical guide on time limits and majority thresholds in condominium law, setting out the architecture of the majorities of articles 24, 25 and 26, the bridging mechanisms, the counting of votes, the timetable of the general meeting and the applicable limitation periods. It is available free on registration. For assistance on a property matter, see our real estate law page, and those on challenging a condominium general meeting, on latent defects in a property purchase and on buying property in France as a non resident.
Frequently asked questions
Does an abstention count as a vote against?
It depends on the majority applicable. Under article 24 the count is made on the votes actually cast, so an abstention is neutral. Under article 25 the count is made on all the votes of the association, so an abstention has the same effect as a vote against, and so does an absence. Under article 26, where a double condition of heads and shares applies, an abstention weighs unfavourably on both limbs.
What is the bridging mechanism of article 25-1?
Where a resolution fails to reach the article 25 majority but has obtained at least a third of the votes of all the owners, a second vote must be taken immediately, at the same meeting, by the majority of article 24. The equivalent mechanism of article 26-1 leads to a second vote by the majority of article 25, not of article 24, and confusing the two vitiates the resolution.
When does the two month period for challenging a general meeting start?
For postal notification, on the day after the first presentation of the registered letter, whether or not it was collected (Cass. 3e civ., 16 April 2026, no. 24-18.842). For electronic notification, on the day after the qualified trust service provider transmits the electronic notice informing the addressee of the dispatch.
Can an owner who was never convened still challenge the decisions?
Yes. An owner who was not convened and was not properly sent notification of the minutes is not subject to the two month period; his action falls under the ordinary five year limitation of article 42, first paragraph. The same applies where the minutes were notified electronically despite a request to keep the postal route.
Is there any way round an expired challenge period?
Not for the annulment of a decision, but an action to have a clause of the condominium rules deemed unwritten is not subject to limitation. A defective clause discovered after the period has run can therefore often still be attacked, provided the action is characterised correctly from the outset.