Co-ownership lawyer in Paris: meetings, charges, works, syndic.

The managing agent is appointed by the general meeting by the absolute majority of Article 25 (c) of the Law of 10 July 1965. Its powers are defined by Article 18. It administers the building, carries out the decisions of the general meeting, collects the charges, keeps the accounts and the archives, represents the association in court and ensures that the co-ownership regulations are applied. It convenes the general meeting, prepares the agenda with the co-owners' council, drafts the minutes and notifies them to opposing and absent co-owners. The Court of Cassation clarified on 27 April 2017 that it always acts in the name and on behalf of the association, not in its own name. This rule protects the managing agent against suppliers and shapes the defence when they try to sue it directly. The managing agent is not a company officer: it holds a mandate in the common interest, revocable at any time in the forms required by law.

Removal of the managing agent follows the same rules as its appointment: the absolute majority of Article 25 (c), with the possibility of a second vote by simple majority under Article 25-1 if the proposal obtained at least one third of the votes of all co-owners. Removal requires a question properly placed on the agenda. For serious grounds (management fault, breach of contractual obligations, loss of confidence), removal is valid without notice or compensation. For less serious grounds, the removed managing agent may claim the balance of its end-of-mandate fees. The case law assesses the grounds strictly: keeping evidence of the failings (formal notice letters, observations of the co-owners' council, erroneous accounts) is essential. Where no serious ground is established, the removal may be challenged by the managing agent and lead to its reinstatement or to damages.

Article 10 of the Law of 10 July 1965 distinguishes two categories. General charges (administration, maintenance, preservation of the common parts) are shared among all co-owners according to their co-ownership shares (tantièmes). Special charges (collective services and shared equipment: lift, collective heating, caretaker) are apportioned according to the objective usefulness these services have for each lot. The co-ownership regulations set the apportionment scale. Any incorrect allocation between general and special charges weakens the association's claim and may justify challenging the statement. The landlord co-owner alone remains liable for the charges to the association; the landlord can then re-invoice part of them to the tenant within the list set by the Decree of 26 August 1987. Wrong apportionment by the managing agent makes it liable, as the Court of Cassation recalled on 12 April 2018.

The strict time limit is two months from notification of the minutes, under Article 42, paragraph 2, of the Law of 10 July 1965. This provision is a matter of public policy and the sanction is forfeiture: once the time limit has passed, the action is inadmissible, whatever the merits of the complaint. Notification must be made by the managing agent within one month of the meeting, by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. The time limit runs from the day after the first presentation of the letter. If notification is irregular, or if the managing agent cannot prove it was sent, time does not run and the action remains open within the ordinary five-year limitation period. Only opposing or absent co-owners have standing to sue. See the dedicated page on challenging a general meeting.

No, a co-owner cannot refuse to pay charges, even when challenging a general meeting decision or the managing agent's performance. Charges fall due once properly called under the resolutions adopted at the general meeting. The only way to block payment is to obtain annulment of the decision concerned, and even then: until the decision is annulled, it remains enforceable. Failing payment within thirty days of a formal notice, Article 19-2 makes the whole forecast budget immediately payable and opens the accelerated procedure on the merits to the association. The recalcitrant co-owner is exposed to an order to pay in full, interest, an award of costs under Article 700 and enforcement of the statutory lien of Article 19-1. The defence requires a rigorous challenge to the statement rather than a refusal to pay. To go further on this litigation, see the page on recovering charges.

Yes. Article 14 of the Law of 10 July 1965 provides that the co-owners' association is liable for damage caused to co-owners or third parties by a construction defect or a failure to maintain the common parts. Liability arises provided the defect or failure, the damage and the causal link are proved. The Court of Cassation recalled on 10 April 2025 that the victim bears the burden of proof: the court of appeal must establish the existence of a construction defect or a failure to maintain that caused the damage, and cannot rely on a presumption. The association then has subrogated recourse against builders or suppliers. This action can be combined with an action against the managing agent personally if a management fault is shown (failure to carry out scheduled maintenance, failure to take out insurance, culpable delays).

No. The common parts belong jointly to all co-owners, in proportion to their co-ownership shares. Any appropriation (extending a terrace, closing off a walkway, opening a door onto a common part) is unlawful without the express authorisation of the general meeting or court authorisation. The association has an action for restoration, which became a five-year action under Ordinance No. 2019-1101 of 30 October 2019, aligned with the ordinary limitation period. Before that reform, the action was ten-year. The action lies against the person who made the appropriation and against that person's successor, continuing disturbance not extinguishing the limitation period. Proof relies on the co-ownership regulations, the descriptive statement of division, plans, photographs and expert assessment. There are two ways to authorise an appropriation: a vote at the general meeting by the majority of Article 26 (amendment of the regulations), or court authorisation under Article 30, paragraph 4, if the project is an improvement and was refused at the general meeting.

The co-owners' council is defined by Article 21 of the Law of 10 July 1965. It is made up of members elected by the general meeting from among the co-owners, their spouses, civil partners (PACS) or successors in title. Its task is to assist the managing agent and to oversee its management. It gives its opinion on the questions on the agenda, examines the accounts, checks the supporting documents, may be consulted on any subject of collective interest and reports anomalies. Since the ALUR Law of 24 March 2014, the council may receive a delegation from the general meeting to authorise certain expenditure within a budget previously voted. The council has no decision-making power of its own: only the general meeting can adopt or reject resolutions. Its vigilance can prevent disputes, but it does not relieve a co-owner wishing to challenge a decision of the need to bring a personal action within the time limit of Article 42. The council can be a key player in preventing disputes.

The competent court is the judicial court of the place where the building is located, under Article 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Paris, territorial jurisdiction lies with the Paris judicial court, and subject-matter jurisdiction is given to the 8th civil chamber, which groups the sections specialised in co-ownership, residential leases and commercial leases. The procedure is the written procedure with mandatory representation by a lawyer. The writ of summons is served on the co-owners' association, in the person of its acting managing agent. The pre-trial judge, sitting alone, can rule on inadmissibility objections (Article 789, 6° of the Code of Civil Procedure), notably the time bar of Article 42. At the end of the pre-trial phase, the case is referred to the trial hearing. Hearing delays vary between 12 and 24 months depending on the court's backlog. The judgment may be appealed to the Paris Court of Appeal within one month.

No, in principle. The managing agent's contract, drawn up in accordance with the model contract set by Decree No. 2015-342 of 26 March 2015, is deemed exhaustive: only the services listed can be remunerated. Any service outside the contract must be the subject of a prior quote accepted by the general meeting or by the co-owners' council acting under delegation. The disputed fees are frequently those linked to so-called special tasks: additional general meetings, handling of insurance claims, recovery proceedings, supervision of works. Abusive practices are sanctioned by nullity of the charge and refund of the sums received. The dispute may take the form of recovery proceedings by the managing agent (which must then show compliance with the contract) or an action by the association for repayment of sums not due. Rigour in reading the contract is essential for the co-owners' council, which must check each invoice before approving it.

No, the minutes of the general meeting are drafted by the managing agent, as agent of the association, and signed by the chair, the secretary and the scrutineers (Article 17 of the Decree of 17 March 1967). The commissaire de justice (formerly huissier) cannot take the managing agent's place in drafting the minutes. However, the commissaire de justice may attend the general meeting as a neutral witness, record any material incident or formal irregularity in a report, and then issue copies of the findings usable in court. This presence is useful when a general meeting is contentious, when there is a risk of votes being challenged or when the make-up of the meeting's officers (chair, secretary and scrutineers) is problematic. The report does not replace the minutes but may shed light on them or contradict them. For a particularly sensitive general meeting, the firm systematically recommends the presence of a commissaire de justice, whose cost is generally borne by the association.

The general meeting is held on the date, at the place and at the time set by the notice. It begins with the appointment of the chair, the secretary and the scrutineers (generally the managing agent as secretary, unless the regulations provide otherwise). The attendance sheet is drawn up and signed. Each resolution on the agenda is examined separately: presentation, debate, vote. Voting may be by show of hands, by roll call or by secret ballot depending on the regulations. Votes are counted according to the co-ownership shares. Under each resolution, the minutes record the result of the vote and the names of those opposed, abstaining and absent. At the end, the minutes are signed at the meeting or within eight days. Their drafting and the regularity of the vote count are the two most contentious points: an error on the majority, a missing entry or an incomplete attendance sheet can support an action for nullity within the strict time limit of Article 42.

The Law of 10 July 1965 distinguishes several majorities. Article 24 sets out the simple majority (majority of the votes cast by those present, represented or voting by post): day-to-day management, approval of the accounts, forecast budget, works necessary for preservation. Article 25 requires the absolute majority (majority of the votes of all co-owners): appointment and removal of the managing agent and of the co-owners' council, authorisation of works affecting the common parts, energy-saving works, installation of electric charging points. Article 25-1 introduces a fallback: if the proposal obtained at least one third of the votes of all co-owners without reaching the absolute majority, an immediate second vote by simple majority is possible. Article 26 requires the double majority (a majority of co-owners representing two thirds of the votes): acts of acquisition of real property, amendments to the co-ownership regulations on the use of common parts, abolition of the caretaker's post. Checking the applicable majority is one of the main grounds for challenging general meetings.

Several routes are open. First, removal by the absolute majority of Article 25 (c), with the fallback of Article 25-1, at a general meeting whose agenda expressly mentions removal. Second, an action in contractual or tort liability, to obtain compensation for the loss caused by the fault (poor bookkeeping, failure to notify, error in apportioning charges, failure to open the separate account). The Court of Cassation confirmed on 12 April 2018 that wrong allocation of charges between a co-owner and the association engages the managing agent's liability. Third, a joint action to annul decisions adopted in breach of procedure (Article 42, within the two-month period), with a request that the managing agent bear the cost of the new general meeting. Evidence is essential: formal notice letters, statements from the co-owners' council, disputed accounts, accounting expert report. A well-prepared action can lead to removal and compensation.

Yes. The 1965 Law does not distinguish according to whether the co-owner occupies the lot or lets it. The landlord co-owner keeps all prerogatives: the right to vote at the general meeting, to challenge resolutions, to ask for removal of the managing agent, to bring a liability claim against the association or the managing agent, and to act for restoration of the common parts. Towards the association, the landlord co-owner alone remains liable for the charges, which can then be re-invoiced to the tenant within the exhaustive list set by the Decree of 26 August 1987 (recoverable charges). The tenant has no standing to sue the association or the managing agent; the tenant acts only against the landlord on the basis of the lease. Disputes between landlord and tenant about charges are distinct from co-ownership litigation and fall to the protection litigation judge. This distinction has practical consequences: the landlord bears the economic risk of the statement and has every interest in checking the regularity of the general meeting.