Since 11 April 2024, electronic notification is no longer a simple option offered to the managing agent: it has become the principle. Article 38 of Act no. 2024-322 of 9 April 2024, known as the Habitat degrade Act, reversed the logic of article 42-1 of the Act of 10 July 1965: yesterday the express agreement of the owner was the condition of electronic notification; today only an express opt out preserves the postal route. Decree no. 2025-1292 of 22 December 2025, in force since 25 December, sets out the procedural architecture. Here, form prevails over substance. That reversal moves the risk: the agent who notified electronically without prior agreement used to be the one committing the irregularity; it is now the agent who notifies without an email address properly communicated, neglects the mandatory information, or ignores a request to keep the postal route, who is exposed. Here are the six points that decide, in practice, whether your notifications are valid.
1. The principle is reversed, but the individual option remains
As drafted by the Act of 24 March 2014, article 42-1 allowed electronic notification subject to the express agreement of the owners: failing agreement, the notification could not be relied on and the period it purported to start did not run. Article 38 of Act no. 2024-322 of 9 April 2024 removed that condition and rewrote the text in three paragraphs: the principle of electronic notification, the right of the owner to request the postal route at any time and by any means, and the duty of the agent to inform him of that option. Silence from the agent is not a waiver by the owner. The regularity of an electronic notification therefore does not follow from the quality of the technical process alone: it presupposes that the owner was put in a position to exercise his option, and that he did not exercise it the other way.
2. Only two processes are allowed, and ordinary email never qualifies
The new article 64 of the Decree of 17 March 1967, from article 14 of Decree no. 2025-1292, opens the electronic route to only two exhaustively listed processes: the electronic registered letter of articles R. 53 to R. 53-4 of the Post and Electronic Communications Code, or a process operated by a qualified trust service provider within the meaning of Regulation (EU) no. 910/2014, known as eIDAS. A simple email is not enough. Both routes benefit from the presumption of integrity, dispatch and receipt attached by article 43(2) of the eIDAS Regulation to data transmitted by a qualified service, a presumption the agent loses if he uses a non qualified process. The consequence has to be stated without qualification: an ordinary email, even with a read receipt, is not a notification. Decree no. 2015-1325 of 21 October 2015 had already made a first breach in the monopoly of the registered letter, but made it conditional on the express agreement of the owner, a caution that kept dematerialisation residual for a decade, until the Act of 9 April 2024 put an end to it.
3. The email address remains the weak point of the scheme
Article 65 of the Decree, as amended, validates a notification only if it is made to the last email address communicated by the owner for that purpose, and not one picked up incidentally on registering for the extranet or in a management exchange. Consent is asked for, it is not inferred. The Third Civil Chamber has long held that notifications are validly made to the last address properly notified to the agent, who is not required to look for another (Cass. 3e civ., 28 March 2019, no. 18-12.579). The GRECCO, in its recommendation no. 19 of 1 July 2026, advises using only addresses obtained through the formal route of article 65. Failing a properly notified address, the electronic principle cannot apply and the registered letter remains the only safe method. The difficulty is greater for recent owners: article 6 of the Decree, on notification of transfers, still makes transmission of the buyer address subject to his express agreement, so that the agent may find himself, for a new owner, with no properly notified address at all. The newcomer then falls outside the scheme.
4. The period runs from availability, not from reading
The last paragraph of article 64 fixes the start of the period at the day after the qualified provider transmits the electronic notice informing the addressee of the dispatch, and not at the opening of the message. The Third Civil Chamber recently recalled that an unread mailbox should not produce more effect than an uncollected registered item (Cass. 3e civ., 16 April 2026, no. 24-18.842, reported). Article 64-6 requires the notice to state the subject of the dispatch and a download link available for at least twenty one days. Yet the qualified provider is required to keep the deposit receipt and the proof of transmission for only one year, far less than the five year limitation of article 42, first paragraph: the prudent agent therefore archives his own evidence.
5. The postal exception stays generous, but must be traceable
Article 64-1 provides that, by way of exception, notifications are validly made by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt where an owner asks to receive them by post. That request may be made at any time and by any means establishing with certainty the date it was received; it takes effect on the day after the eighth day following its receipt by the agent, or on the same day if it is made at a general meeting, in which case it must be recorded in the minutes. A point often overlooked: articles 20 and 21 of the Decree created no tariff line for keeping the postal route in annexe 2 of the standard managing agent contract, so that charging it individually to the owner is, as things stand, without basis. The agent pays and the owner does not reimburse.
6. The sanction is not symbolic: five years of reopened challenge
An irregular convening notice makes the general meeting void, not non existent (Cass. 3e civ., 13 November 2013, no. 12-12.084, reported), the burden of proving regularity lying on the association. For the minutes, the sanction for an irregular notification is not nullity but the non running of the two month forfeiture period of article 42, second paragraph: the owner then acts as though the minutes had never been notified to him, throughout the five year limitation of article 42, first paragraph (Cass. 3e civ., 28 January 2015, no. 13-23.552, reported). The same rigour affects debt recovery: the Third Civil Chamber has held that article 19-2 of the 1965 Act requires proof, for each period claimed, of a properly notified prior formal demand (Cass. 3e civ., 15 January 2026, no. 23-23.534, reported).
The firm has published a practical guide on electronic notification in condominiums, setting out the full architecture of Decree no. 2025-1292, the practitioner checklist and how to handle the interim period between the entry into force of the Act and that of the Decree. It is worth having before the next general meeting season, to make convening notices, formal demands and notification of minutes secure. 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
Can a managing agent send a convening notice by ordinary email?
No. Article 64 of the Decree of 17 March 1967 allows only two processes: the electronic registered letter of articles R. 53 to R. 53-4 of the Post and Electronic Communications Code, or a process operated by a qualified trust service provider under the eIDAS Regulation. An ordinary email, even with a read receipt, is not a notification, and the agent loses the presumption of dispatch and receipt.
Does an owner still have to consent to electronic notification?
Not since 11 April 2024: electronic notification is the principle. But the owner may ask at any time and by any means to receive notifications by post, and the agent has a duty to inform him of that option. The notification is also valid only if it is sent to the last email address the owner communicated for that purpose.
When does an electronic notification start the time running?
On the day after the qualified provider transmits the electronic notice informing the addressee of the dispatch, not when the message is opened. The notice must state the subject and carry a download link available for at least twenty one days.
How does an owner go back to postal notification?
By a request made at any time and by any means establishing with certainty the date of receipt. It takes effect on the day after the eighth day following receipt by the agent, or on the same day if made at a general meeting and recorded in the minutes. There is currently no tariff line allowing the agent to charge the owner for it.
What happens if the minutes are notified irregularly?
The notification is not annulled, but the two month forfeiture period of article 42, second paragraph, does not run. The owner is in the same position as if the minutes had never been notified and may act throughout the five year limitation of article 42, first paragraph.