Challenging general meeting resolutions, notices, majorities, electronic service, works and charges in French co-ownerships, for owners and owners’ associations.
You are facing:
- a general meeting resolution you contest
- an irregular or late notice of meeting
- works voted with an insufficient majority
- an allocation of charges you consider wrong
- a managing agent failing in its duties
The French law of 10 July 1965 and the decree of 17 March 1967 strictly govern general meetings of co-owners: notice twenty-one days in advance, majorities under Articles 24, 25 and 26 depending on the decision, minutes served on dissenting and absent owners. Any irregularity may lead to annulment, but within a very short time limit. Foreign owners of Paris apartments are often caught out by these rules.
The firm acts for individual co-owners, co-ownership councils and owners’ associations, as claimant and as defendant.
The risk: two months to act, and a final decision beyond
Article 42 of the 1965 law confines challenges to general meeting resolutions within two months of service of the minutes, and opens them only to co-owners who voted against or were absent. After that, the decision stands, however irregular, however costly. An owner who voted in favour has no remedy.
The spread of electronic service, provided for in Article 42-1 of the law and framed by the 1967 decree, complicates the calculation of the deadline: electronic service is valid only with the owner’s express consent, and its date of receipt is often disputed. The firm has published a guide on electronic service in French co-ownerships.
Have minutes just been served on you? The two-month period is running: a prompt review of the meeting’s regularity is essential.
The legal solution: identifying the defect, meeting the deadline, suing the owners’ association
Grounds for annulment are numerous: notice out of time or incomplete, item missing from the agenda, majority miscalculated or inappropriate, abuse of majority, failure to put the managing agent’s appointment out to competition, works voted without estimates. The action is brought against the owners’ association represented by the managing agent, before the civil court of the building’s location.
Beyond annulment, a co-owner may contest the allocation of charges where it departs from the co-ownership regulations or the law, seek judicial revision of an allocation key, or hold the managing agent liable for mismanagement. The firm has detailed the points foreign owners should check in its guide on acquiring French property.
How the firm assists you
The firm reviews the notice, the attendance sheet, the proxies and the minutes to identify useful irregularities, then sues the owners’ association within the two-month period, seeking where necessary the suspension of the disputed works. Conversely, it defends owners’ associations under challenge, regularising what can be regularised and showing the absence of prejudice.
It also advises co-ownership councils in preparing high-stakes meetings: major works, multi-year works plans, change of managing agent, amendments to the regulations, so that the resolutions adopted withstand challenge.
Typical matters
The situations below are illustrative scenarios drawn from the firm’s practice and anonymised.
Facade works voted under Article 24
External insulation and facade works are voted by simple majority. The firm obtains annulment of the resolution, such works falling under Article 25, and suspension of the call for funds.
Notice sent by e-mail without the owner’s consent
A co-owner never consented to electronic service and did not receive the notice. The firm obtains annulment of the meeting for want of regular notice.
Lift charges allocated to a ground-floor unit
A retailer has paid lift charges for ten years with no benefit to his unit. The firm obtains revision of the allocation and reimbursement of the undue charges within the limitation period.
Does your situation resemble one of these cases? Describe it to us promptly, the challenge period cannot be extended.
Foreign owners often meet the co-ownership rules for the first time after completion. If you are still at the acquisition stage, our page on buying property in France as a foreign buyer explains what to check in the building’s records before signing.
Everything on condominium law
Frequently Asked Questions
On what grounds can a resolution be challenged?
Irregularity in the convening of the meeting or in the notice period, absence or insufficiency of the documents that had to be annexed, a resolution adopted on a majority other than the one the law requires, a matter decided although it was not on the agenda, abuse of the majority, or a resolution contrary to the regulations of the condominium. The ground determines the outcome: an irregularity of form leads to annulment of the resolution, while abuse leads to annulment and may also give rise to damages.
How long is the time limit?
Two months from notification of the minutes, and that period is short and strictly applied. It runs only against owners who opposed the resolution or who were absent, since an owner who voted in favour cannot challenge it. Notification must itself be regular for the period to start, which is a point worth verifying when the deadline appears to have passed. Once the period has expired the resolution can no longer be challenged, even where it was irregular.
Who may bring the action?
Any owner who voted against the resolution or who was not present at the meeting, and in certain cases the syndicate itself. An owner who abstained is treated as opposing for this purpose. Where several owners are affected a joint action is usual and reduces the cost for each of them. The claim is brought against the syndicate of co-owners, represented by the syndic, rather than against the individual owners who voted in favour of the resolution.
Does the resolution apply while the case is pending?
It does. Challenging a resolution does not suspend it, so works that were voted may begin and calls for funds remain payable while the case proceeds. Suspension may be requested from the court in summary proceedings where execution would cause serious consequences that are difficult to reverse, and that application is made immediately rather than once the works have started. Owners who simply stop paying while the challenge runs expose themselves to recovery proceedings and to interest.
What if the syndic fails in its duties?
The owners may require the syndic to convene a meeting, and a court may appoint an agent to convene one where the syndic does not. The syndic is liable to the syndicate for its faults in management, and its mandate may be brought to an end by the meeting. Where the condominium is paralysed or in serious financial difficulty, a provisional administrator can be appointed by the court. Each route has its own conditions, and the least disruptive one that solves the problem is preferred.
How are the costs allocated?
The syndicate’s legal costs are in principle a common expense, but an owner who successfully challenges a resolution is normally exempted from contributing to the costs incurred in defending it, so that the winner does not end up funding the opposing case. The court may also order the losing party to contribute to the other side’s fees. That asymmetry is often decisive in the decision to litigate, because it changes the real cost of a successful challenge considerably.