Owning a flat or house within a French copropriété (co-ownership) does not become administratively simple because the owner lives in Britain. The annual assemblée générale, usually called the AG, may take place in France while the British owner is at work, caring for a relative or managing a property portfolio from the United Kingdom. A proxy therefore matters. So does the way the syndic, the French co-ownership property manager, records and counts it.

The practical question is often urgent: a representative voted at the AG, the resolution passed by a narrow margin, and the owner later discovers that the mandate was incomplete, given to a prohibited person, counted beyond the statutory limit or recorded incorrectly. Brexit does not remove an owner’s voting rights. The rules come primarily from the French statute of 10 July 1965 and its implementing decree, regardless of the owner’s nationality.

This article separates a valid cross-border proxy from a challengeable one, then sets out the evidence and time limits that control a claim. The result depends on the exact mandate, the attendance sheet, the minutes, the resolution and the date on which the minutes were notified. A British owner should secure those documents before relying on an informal assurance from the syndic or an online vote summary.

Service-Public’s official guidance on a co-owners’ general meeting provides the public overview of participation and representation. The UK government’s Living in France guidance addresses the post-Brexit position of British nationals. Those sources answer different questions: residence status is one matter, while the voting governance of a privately owned French lot is governed by French co-ownership law.

I. Can a British owner in France vote by proxy at a co-ownership AGM?

A. What makes a French proxy valid when the owner lives in the UK?

A British owner of a French lot is a copropriétaire (co-owner) for the purposes of the AG. The relevant status is ownership of the lot, not French nationality, tax residence or physical presence in France. The co-owner belongs to the syndicat des copropriétaires, which is the legal body formed by all the co-owners. Despite the word “syndicat”, it is not a trade union. The syndicat is represented in day-to-day administration by the syndic and acts through resolutions adopted at the AG.

The starting rule is Article 22 of the 10 July 1965 statute. The official text states: “Tout copropriétaire peut déléguer son droit de vote à un mandataire, que ce dernier soit ou non membre du syndicat.” In practical terms, the owner may appoint a mandataire (proxy holder) who is another co-owner, a family member or another trusted person, even if that person is not a member of the syndicat. The mandate may be sent from the United Kingdom. It does not cease to be effective because the signature, address or email originates outside France.

The complete rule is set out in the current Article 22 of the French co-ownership statute. A mandataire may generally receive no more than three delegations of voting rights. There is an exception where the total number of votes held by the mandataire, including the votes of the appointing co-owners, does not exceed 10% of the votes of the syndicat. A power of attorney should therefore identify the lot, the owner, the meeting concerned and the proposed representative. The owner should also ask the syndic to confirm how many mandates the proposed representative will carry at that particular AG.

Some people cannot receive a proxy in the ordinary way. The syndic, the syndic’s spouse, civil-partnership partner or cohabiting partner, certain relatives, and the syndic’s employees and connected relatives are excluded by Article 22. The prohibition is designed to protect the independence of the meeting. A British owner who gives a blank form to the managing agent because the agent “will find somebody” risks creating precisely the dispute that the statutory safeguards are meant to prevent.

A blank proxy is not automatically void. A pouvoir en blanc is a signed voting delegation that does not name the person who will exercise it. Under the rules, it must be passed on at the beginning of the meeting through the prescribed channel, rather than distributed by the syndic to a representative of the syndic’s own choosing. Article 15-1 of the implementing decree requires the syndic who receives such a mandate to “remettre ce mandat en début de réunion au président du conseil syndical” so that a representative can be designated. The current text is available on Légifrance, Article 15-1 of the decree of 17 March 1967.

For a British owner, the safest arrangement is usually a named person rather than a blank proxy. The mandate should be legible, dated and signed; it should identify the meeting by date and address; and it should state whether the representative may vote freely or must follow written instructions on specified resolutions. The owner can attach a copy of the identity document only where reasonably necessary and should avoid sending more personal information than the syndic needs. A signed PDF may be sent by email if the syndic accepts that method, but the owner should preserve the transmission email and obtain a written acknowledgement.

The language of the mandate is a practical issue, not a nationality test. A bilingual English-French form reduces the chance that a representative misunderstands a direction such as “abstain”, “vote against” or “vote in favour”. French expressions should be explained: pourvoir or pouvoir in this context means a proxy or power of attorney, while ordre du jour means the agenda. If the owner gives detailed instructions, the instructions should be attached to the mandate and numbered by resolution. A general email saying “please protect my interests” gives little proof of what the representative was authorised to do.

Ownership can also be divided between people. That is not the same problem as an ordinary proxy. Article 23 provides that co-owners in indivision, meaning shared ownership without a divided physical portion, are represented by a common representative unless they agree otherwise. It also states, in relation to usufruit (the right to use property and receive its benefits) and nue-propriété (bare ownership, with the right to recover full ownership later), that “En cas d’usufruit, les intéressés sont, à défaut d’accord, représentés par le nu-propriétaire.” The full provision is available in Article 23 of the statute on Légifrance. The British usufructuary and bare owner should first establish who represents the interest in the lot, then address any additional proxy.

A British owner should distinguish four separate questions before the AG begins. First, was the person legally entitled to act for the lot? Secondly, did the written mandate actually authorise that person? Thirdly, did the person remain within the limit on delegations and avoid the prohibited categories? Fourthly, did the syndic and the meeting record the mandate correctly? A fault at any one of those stages can become important, especially when the resolution was passed by a small number of votes.

Residence abroad creates evidence problems. A British owner may communicate through a UK email address, use a signature platform or send a scanned document while travelling. None of those facts by themselves proves invalidity. The question is whether the document can be attributed to the owner and whether its terms can be understood. The owner should keep the original signed file, the email headers or delivery report, the covering message, any later confirmation and the exact version of the agenda circulated by the syndic.

It is also wise to send the mandate early. The statutory right to be represented does not necessarily solve a last-minute delivery dispute. A proxy arriving after the meeting has opened may be rejected or may create a factual contest about when it was received. The owner should ask for the syndic’s preferred channel and cut-off time in writing, without treating a private deadline imposed by the syndic as a substitute for the legal rules. If the syndic refuses to accept a properly prepared mandate, the owner should preserve the refusal and consider obtaining a French lawyer’s immediate written intervention.

This voting question should be kept separate from the allocation of ordinary charges between a usufructuary and a bare owner. That related dispute is addressed in our guide to French co-ownership charges after Brexit. The two issues may arise in the same file, but an incorrect invoice does not by itself prove that a proxy was invalid, and a defective proxy does not decide who ultimately bears a charge.

B. Which vote, majority and attendance-sheet errors matter?

The existence of a proxy does not itself decide whether a resolution passes. The vote must be counted under the majority applicable to that resolution. Article 24 provides the ordinary rule: “Les décisions de l’assemblée générale sont prises à la majorité des voix exprimées des copropriétaires présents, représentés ou ayant voté par correspondance, s’il n’en est autrement ordonné par la loi.” The current Article 24 includes the resolutions that commonly concern maintenance and the ordinary administration of a building.

That wording matters for an absent British owner. A valid proxy makes the owner represented for the meeting; it does not turn the owner into a physically present participant. The votes are included in the relevant calculation, subject to the statutory rules. A proxy cannot repair a resolution that required another majority, and a calculation cannot validate a proxy that the law or the mandate does not allow.

Some decisions require the majority of the votes of all co-owners rather than only the votes expressed by those present or represented. Article 25 lists matters decided by that higher threshold, including the appointment or removal of the syndic and certain works or delegations. The current Article 25 should be checked against the date of the meeting because the applicable version can matter. Where the proposal reaches at least one third of all votes but not the Article 25 majority, Article 25-1 may allow an immediate second vote at the Article 24 majority. That mechanism is described in Article 25-1.

A proxy dispute becomes especially significant for a decision under Article 26, which uses a double threshold involving the members of the syndicat and at least two-thirds of the votes. The current Article 26 covers matters such as certain acquisitions, dispositions and changes affecting common areas. The label placed beside a resolution in the minutes is not enough: the owner or adviser must check the resolution’s legal subject, the votes available, the votes cast and the majority actually applied.

The first document to obtain is the feuille de présence, the attendance sheet. Article 14 of the decree says: “Il est tenu une feuille de présence, pouvant comporter plusieurs feuillets, qui indique les nom et domicile de chaque copropriétaire ou associé”. The current Article 14 of the decree of 17 March 1967 requires the record to distinguish a co-owner who is physically present, represented, taking part by videoconference or another electronic means, and voting by correspondence. Where the co-owner is represented, it should identify the proxy holder and the votes available.

For an absent British owner, compare the attendance sheet with the mandate itself. Look for the correct lot and owner, the name and address of the mandataire, the date of the mandate, the meeting date, the signature, the number of delegated votes and the method of participation. A missing address may be a record error, but it is not automatically decisive in every dispute. A different representative, an unexplained replacement, a proxy held by the syndic or an impossible vote count is more serious and calls for a full document review.

The minutes are the procès-verbal, the formal record of the AG’s decisions. Article 17 requires that “Le procès-verbal comporte, sous l’intitulé de chaque question inscrite à l’ordre du jour, le résultat du vote.” The current Article 17 of the implementing decree also requires the minutes to identify opponents and abstentions, mention any reservations made by opposing co-owners about the regularity of decisions, and annex the attendance sheet. If an owner’s representative raised an objection during the meeting, its wording and its treatment should be checked carefully.

A cross-border owner should not confuse a discrepancy in the minutes with proof that a proxy was invalid. The minutes may contain a clerical error that did not affect the vote, or they may conceal a genuine failure to identify the person who voted. The analysis should reproduce the count resolution by resolution. Record the total votes of the syndicat, the owner’s tantièmes (the voting shares assigned to the lot), the votes held by the representative, each vote for and against, abstentions, unrepresented votes and the statutory majority. Then recalculate the result after removing the disputed proxy. This creates a factual basis for the legal argument.

Correspondence voting is a separate route. Article 14-1 states that a postal voting form is not counted when the co-owner or the co-owner’s representative is present at the meeting. A British owner who sends both a proxy and a correspondence form should therefore give clear instructions about which route is intended. The exact current rule is in Article 14-1 of the decree. The owner should retain proof of when the syndic received the form, because a date dispute can affect whether it should have been counted.

French courts assess the mandate’s actual wording. In the Cour de cassation’s third civil chamber decision of 10 September 2020, Pourvoi n° 19-19.445, the court considered the interpretation of a power naming the president of the meeting and the instructions attached to the vote. The decision also explains that, for a works resolution, documents about the location and nature of the proposed works could be joined to the notice of the meeting. The useful lesson is methodological: read the complete document, the agenda and the minutes together rather than extracting a single sentence from the proxy.

The recent decision of the Cour d’appel de Caen, first civil chamber, 9 September 2025, RG n° 23/00274, illustrates the other side of the analysis. The court repeated the serious consequence attached to an irregular mandate but found, on the evidence before it, that the powers in question and the attendance records did not establish a breach. Its reasoning notes that “les pouvoirs en blanc ne sont pas interdits” while examining how they had been handled. The decision supports a careful challenge: identify the specific rule breached and attach the document proving the breach.

In short, the key error is not simply that the British owner did not attend. The key error is that the person counted as representing the owner lacked authority, exceeded the permitted mandate rules, belonged to a prohibited category, departed from the written mandate in a legally relevant way, or was recorded in a manner that distorted the voting process. A close result makes the arithmetic important, but the legal question can remain material even when the syndic argues that one vote would not have changed the outcome.

II. How can a British owner challenge an invalid AGM proxy vote?

A. What evidence and two-month deadline apply?

The challenge usually starts with classification. Under Article 42 of the 10 July 1965 statute, the action contesting an AG decision is subject to a strict time limit for opposing or absent co-owners. The official wording provides that such actions “doivent, à peine de déchéance, être introduites” within the statutory period. The complete current provision is available in Article 42 of the co-ownership statute. In ordinary cases, the period is two months from notification of the minutes, without the annexes, to the relevant co-owner. The notification date must be proved, not guessed from the date printed on the minutes.

An absent British owner should record the day on which the notification was actually received, the delivery method, the address used by the syndic and the document received. Keep the envelope, postal tracking, email metadata, portal download record and the minutes. If notification was sent to an old address or to an address that the syndic knew was no longer used, that may create a separate procedural question, but it should not be treated as an automatic extension. The limitation issue is technical and should be reviewed promptly by counsel in France.

Standing also matters. A person who was present and voted in favour may face a difficulty challenging the same resolution, whereas an absent or opposing co-owner falls within the usual Article 42 route. A British owner whose proxy was rejected may be recorded as absent; an owner whose proxy was improperly counted may have to explain why the representation was not legally effective. The correct characterisation depends on the attendance sheet, the vote and the alleged defect.

There is an important authority on who may challenge a proxy. In its decision of 7 December 2022, the third civil chamber of the Cour de cassation held, in Pourvoi n° 21-23.915, that “Tout copropriétaire est recevable à contester la régularité du mandat donné en vue d’une assemblée générale.” The ruling is directly relevant to a British owner who is told that the mandate belongs only to the person who gave it or that nobody else can question it. It does not eliminate the need to satisfy the procedural conditions for contesting the resolution, but it confirms that regularity of the mandate can be placed before the court.

The evidence file should be assembled in a disciplined order:

• the title deed or recent ownership certificate for the French lot, with the lot number and ownership structure;
• the notice of the AG, its agenda, proposed resolutions and attachments;
• the signed proxy, any bilingual version, the covering email and proof of delivery;
• the attendance sheet, the minutes and every annex concerning mandates or correspondence votes;
• the written instructions sent to the representative and any message reporting how the vote was cast;
• the syndic’s reply, including refusal, replacement of a representative or explanation of a blank mandate;
• a resolution-by-resolution table recalculating the votes and the applicable majority; and
• proof of notification of the minutes and the date on which the two-month period is said to begin.

Documents created in Britain can be useful even when they are not French. An email from a UK adviser, a bank statement showing a signature date, a video-call record, a courier receipt or a contemporaneous message to the chosen representative may establish what the owner intended. They should be presented with a short explanation of the date, the sender and the connection to the French meeting. If a document is in English, the court may require a French translation. A sworn or court-accepted translation may be needed for the decisive documents, particularly the mandate and written voting instructions.

Do not edit the original PDF before giving it to an adviser. Preserve its metadata and make a working copy for annotation. If the document was signed electronically, save the signature certificate or audit trail. If it was signed by hand and scanned, keep both the original paper and the scan if possible. If the owner disputes the signature, say so clearly and obtain advice before making an allegation of forgery. The point is to show the court what document existed when the mandate was used.

The owner should also ask the syndic for the complete relevant file without waiting for a dispute to become formal. Request the attendance sheet, the mandate as recorded, the minutes and the voting breakdown for each challenged resolution. The syndic may resist releasing a document or may send only a summary. Preserve that response. A lawyer can decide whether a formal request or a court application for production is appropriate. A request should not be allowed to consume the two-month period.

Article 43 protects the mandatory nature of many co-ownership rules. It states that clauses contrary to the listed provisions of the statute and the implementing decree are treated as unwritten. The current Article 43 is relevant where a regulation of co-ownership attempts to remove a statutory voting right or to authorise a prohibited mandate. A private rule may organise practical communication, but it cannot simply neutralise a mandatory safeguard.

At this stage, separate a legal defect from a complaint about management quality. “The proxy holder was not helpful” is not the same as “the proxy holder was not authorised.” “The English translation was poor” is not the same as “the written instruction was contradicted.” “The vote was close” is not the same as “the majority was miscalculated.” The court will need a chain from a concrete rule, to a concrete document, to a concrete effect on the decision or the validity of the meeting.

B. Should you seek an annulment, interim protection or a new vote?

The normal judicial route is an action before the tribunal judiciaire, the French civil court with jurisdiction for the building. The defendant is generally the syndicat des copropriétaires, represented by the syndic, rather than the individual neighbour who held the proxy. The precise parties, court, form of summons and need for an avocat (lawyer) must be checked for the building and the relief sought. A British owner should not send proceedings to a UK court on the assumption that the owner’s residence determines jurisdiction.

The claim should identify the AG by date, the challenged resolution or resolutions, the proxy defect and the relief requested. If the evidence supports it, the owner may ask for annulment of the relevant resolution or, where the irregularity affects the constitution or voting of the meeting, annulment of the AG more broadly. The scope is not a menu that can be selected without analysis. It depends on the nature of the defect, the terms of Article 22, the records and the court’s assessment.

The Cour de cassation’s decision in Pourvoi n° 21-23.915 is important because it prevents a premature refusal to examine the mandate. It does not mean that every disagreement about a proxy leads automatically to an annulment. The claimant still has to prove the mandate used, the rule said to have been breached and the procedural admissibility of the claim. A court may reject a challenge where the alleged error is not established, where the document was validly handled or where the claimant’s procedural position does not meet Article 42.

Where the disputed resolution authorises urgent works, a sale of common property, a major call for funds or a step that may be difficult to reverse, ask promptly about interim protection. An urgent application is not a substitute for the action on the merits and does not automatically suspend a resolution. The appropriate relief can depend on urgency, the evidence of a serious irregularity, the risk of irreversible harm and the procedural posture. The owner should tell counsel immediately if the syndic has already signed a contract, issued a call for payment or instructed a contractor.

A re-vote can sometimes resolve the practical dispute, but it does not erase a limitation period or automatically waive a claim. A proposed new AG should state the disputed point clearly, circulate the correct documents and use a fresh mandate process. The British owner should not accept a promise that “we will correct it next year” where the two-month period is running. If the owner wishes to settle, the agreement should record the resolutions affected, the new vote, costs, payments made and the treatment of any claim.

In a cross-border case, communication design is part of legal risk control. Ask the syndic to send notices and minutes to the exact address recorded for the owner, confirm the time zone for any remote meeting, and identify whether the meeting will use videoconference, audioconference or written voting. A proxy should name a representative who can attend at the French time and who understands that the mandat is a legal instruction, not an informal favour. If the owner wants to speak directly, obtain the meeting link and test access before the day of the AG.

Remote participation must not be confused with a proxy. The owner may participate through an authorised electronic method if the meeting arrangements permit it; alternatively, the owner may be represented. The attendance sheet must show which route was used. If the system failed and the owner could not express a vote, the technical incident should be reflected in the minutes under Article 17. Save screenshots, connection logs and messages sent during the meeting. Those records may be more useful than a later recollection that the owner “could not get in”.

Written instructions require equal care. A British owner may direct the representative to vote against an extraordinary budget, in favour of routine maintenance and to abstain on a resolution with incomplete quotations. Number those instructions using the exact resolution titles and attach the agenda page. After the AG, ask the representative to confirm how each vote was cast. If the representative ignored a clear instruction, that may create a dispute between owner and representative, but the effect on the validity of the AG will depend on the mandate, the evidence and whether the defect concerns the meeting’s statutory regularity.

Calculations deserve a separate review. An owner should identify the lot’s quote-part, the voting shares attached to it, and any rule reducing the votes of a co-owner who holds more than half of the common parts. Then list every mandate held by the representative. Check whether the ten-per-cent exception was applied to the total votes rather than merely counting the number of forms. Finally, test the correct majority: ordinary expressed votes, all co-owners’ votes, a second-vote mechanism or the Article 26 double threshold. A table with the original and corrected totals lets a lawyer focus on the legal issue instead of reconstructing arithmetic from prose.

There is no legal advantage in exaggerating a defect. A missing signature, an address typo, a late email and an excluded representative do not have identical consequences. The most persuasive letter to the syndic identifies each defect separately, attaches the supporting page and states the action requested: correction of a record, disclosure of the mandate, withdrawal of a resolution, or agreement to convene a new AG. If the syndic denies the problem, the letter and denial become part of the evidence file.

For a British owner, the commercial consequences can be substantial. An invalidly adopted works resolution may lead to a demand for payment, a contractor entering the property, a refinancing difficulty or a dispute when the lot is later sold. A challenge may also affect a tenant, an insurer or a lender, but those relationships do not change the Article 42 deadline. Tell the adviser about every connected contract and payment, while keeping the co-ownership challenge distinct from property purchase advice, which follows a separate process.

The central decision is therefore tactical and timed. If the proxy is plainly prohibited and the notification has just arrived, preserve the file and obtain a French procedural review immediately. If the facts are uncertain, request the missing records while preparing the claim rather than waiting passively. If the resolution has no immediate effect and the evidence is weak, a negotiated re-vote may be proportionate. In every case, record the date first, then investigate the mandate, the attendance sheet, the minutes and the count.

Conclusion

A British owner living in the United Kingdom can normally vote at a French co-ownership AGM through a properly prepared proxy. The key safeguards are the owner’s authority to delegate, the identity and eligibility of the representative, the limit on mandates, the handling of a blank power, the attendance sheet, the minutes and the correct majority for each resolution. Article 22 gives the right; Articles 14, 15-1, 17 and 22–26 of the statutory framework explain how it must be recorded and counted.

When a proxy appears invalid, the owner should obtain the full AG file, recalculate the vote, preserve cross-border evidence and verify the date of notification. Article 42 can impose a two-month deadline, while the Cour de cassation’s Pourvoi n° 21-23.915 confirms that the regularity of a mandate can be challenged. A focused file is stronger than a general complaint about an unfair meeting, and early French advice is particularly important where works, payments or a new meeting are already in motion.

Need a quick opinion on your case

Arrange a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm.

We can review the proxy, the attendance sheet, the minutes and the notification deadline.

Call 06 46 60 58 22 or use the contact form for Kohen Avocats.