Co-ownership works lawyer Paris: authorisation, votes and disputes.

All works that affect the common parts or the outward appearance of the building require prior authorisation from the general meeting, passed by the absolute majority of Article 25 b of the Law of 10 July 1965. This includes cutting through a load-bearing wall, altering a façade, installing external air conditioning, creating a window or balcony, cutting a duct through a common part, opening onto an inner courtyard, and changing the use of a lot with a visible impact on the building. Conversely, works purely internal to the private lot (painting, flooring, an open-plan kitchen with no load-bearing partition) do not require authorisation. The line is sometimes a fine one. The Court of Cassation ruled on 19 September 2012 that the annulment of a refusal of authorisation does not amount to authorisation: a co-owner who carried out works without prior agreement must, on the association's action, restore the premises. The rule protects the building.

It all depends on the nature and scale of the works. Simple maintenance and routine upkeep of the common parts fall under the simple majority of Article 24. Improvement works, which alter items of equipment or create premises for communal use, fall under Article 25 n. Energy-saving works or works to reduce greenhouse gas emissions fall under Article 25 f. The installation of aerials, charging points or heating cost allocators falls under Article 25. The bridging mechanism of Article 25-1 allows an immediate second vote by simple majority if the project obtained at least one third of the votes of all co-owners without reaching the absolute majority. The managing agent must characterise each resolution precisely before the vote, on pain of nullity.

Yes. In the private parts, a co-owner enjoys their lot freely and may carry out the fitting-out works of their choice without authorisation, provided they comply with the co-ownership regulations and the intended use of the building. However, the line between private parts and common parts is sometimes subtle. Load-bearing walls, flues and main pipes are generally common parts even if they run through a private lot. Laying a heavy floating floor can affect regulated sound insulation. Creating a kitchen in place of a bedroom may require a hole through the façade for the mechanical ventilation, which affects the common parts. A rigorous reading of the co-ownership regulations is essential. In case of doubt, it is better to ask the managing agent for a written opinion or to seek a review from a lawyer. Proceeding without authorisation exposes the co-owner to restoration of the premises at their own cost.

When the general meeting refuses authorisation for works affecting the common parts, the co-owner has two routes. First route: an action for nullity of the refusal resolution for abuse of majority rights, within the strict two-month time limit from notification of the minutes (Article 42, paragraph 2). Abuse of majority rights presupposes that the refusal serves no common interest and only aims to harm the claimant co-owner. Second route: court authorisation under Article 30, paragraph 4, of the 1965 Law, available without a strict time limit. The judicial court checks that the project complies with the intended use of the building and does not infringe the rights of the other co-owners. The two routes can be combined. The firm often prefers court authorisation, which is more direct and less risky than nullity, which replays the refusal at the meeting. The decision is taken case by case, according to the timetable and the strength of the arguments.

Yes. Article 18 of the Law of 10 July 1965 gives the managing agent the power to have all works necessary to safeguard the building carried out on its own initiative in an emergency. The managing agent does not have to wait for a resolution of the general meeting. It must, however, inform the co-owners' council immediately and submit the accounts to the next general meeting. The Court of Cassation ruled on 6 July 2017 that the managing agent, vested with the power to preserve the building, is responsible in an emergency for having all works necessary to safeguard it carried out on its own initiative. Failing this, it is liable to the co-owners who suffer from its inaction. The Court also made clear, in its judgment of 4 January 2006, that the managing agent's own powers include acts of pure administration, without prior authorisation from the general meeting. Urgency is proved by objective evidence: structural risk, danger, infestation, aggravated water ingress.

The high cost of a works resolution is not enough, on its own, to justify annulment. A legal irregularity or an abuse must be established. Several routes are available. First route: nullity for wrong majority, if the resolution was passed under Article 24 when it fell under Article 25 b or Article 26. Second route: nullity for lack of prior information, if the quotes or plans were not attached to the agenda. Third route: abuse of majority rights, if the resolution serves no common interest and benefits only some co-owners. The time limit for acting is two months from notification of the minutes (Article 42, paragraph 2). The action is brought by writ of summons before the judicial court of the place where the building is located. The firm examines the strength of the grounds in advance before starting proceedings, which can prove costly if unsuccessful. One measure with immediate effect is the automatic suspension of the execution of the works during the Article 42 period (except in an emergency).

Article 14, paragraph 4, of the Law of 10 July 1965 establishes liability as of right of the co-owners' association for damage caused to co-owners or third parties by a construction defect or a lack of maintenance of the common parts. The Court of Cassation held on 12 September 2012 that this liability arises towards a co-owner where the court of appeal finds that the damage originates in a defect of the common parts and does not establish fault by the victims or by a third party. The Court also ruled, in its judgment of 17 December 2015, that the co-owners' association is liable as of right for construction defects of the building, even those predating its submission to the co-ownership regime. The rule is protective: the victim co-owner does not have to prove fault by the association, only that the damage originates in the common parts. The association can be exonerated only by showing the exclusive fault of the victim or of a third party.

Yes, where the nuisance goes beyond the normal inconvenience of a building site in an urban setting. The theory of abnormal neighbourhood disturbance makes it possible to obtain compensation. The burden of proof lies on the claimant. It is built through a report by a court bailiff (commissaire de justice), neighbours' statements, medical certificates where health is affected, certified acoustic measurements, a log of incidents (dust, noise, smells, access restrictions), and letters exchanged with the managing agent and the project owner. The abnormal nature is assessed case by case, according to the duration of the works, the intensity of the nuisance, compliance with working hours (in principle 8:00 to 19:00 on weekdays in Paris), prior information given to occupants and the protective measures taken (dust sheeting, safety airlock, timetable communicated). The action is brought against the contractor, the project owner and, where appropriate, the co-owners' association. The time limit for acting is five years from knowledge of the disturbance. The firm often prefers an amicable route before issuing a writ where the works are still under way.

It all depends on the nature of the works. General co-ownership charges are in principle borne by the landlord. However, Article 23 of the Decree of 26 August 1987 lists exhaustively the charges recoverable from the tenant (routine upkeep, minor repairs, certain minor supplies). Improvement works or structural works remain the landlord's responsibility. On the other hand, the landlord can deduct for tax purposes the works carried out on the common parts in proportion to their share, under the regime of charges deductible from property income. Works voted at the general meeting give rise to a call for funds payable in proportion to each share. This call cannot be recovered from the tenant. The landlord must therefore plan cash flow. For major works, the general meeting can decide on a collective loan spread over several years. The firm advises landlord co-owners on how the co-ownership rules, the residential lease and taxation fit together, in order to optimise the works strategy.

The works fund, introduced by the ALUR Act of 24 March 2014 and codified in Article 14-2 of the Law of 10 July 1965, is mandatory for all co-ownerships wholly or partly intended for residential use. It is fed by an annual contribution of at least 5% of the provisional budget, voted by the general meeting. The fund is intended to finance works not included in the provisional budget: façade renovation, compliance upgrades, structural works, common equipment. The fund belongs to the association. It cannot be refunded to a co-owner who sells their lot, except under a special clause in the deed of sale. The managing agent holds this fund in a separate bank account. The draft multi-year works plan, provided for by the Climate and Resilience Act of 22 August 2021, requires co-ownerships to present a multi-year plan to the general meeting for buildings more than 15 years old. The works fund primarily finances the works listed in this plan. An under-funded fund exposes the co-ownership to exceptional calls for funds in the event of major urgent works, which can put some co-owners in difficulty.

No. The managing agent cannot impose a contractor on the co-ownership. It must present several comparative quotes before any vote on works of a significant amount. This competitive tendering guarantees transparency and allows co-owners to choose with full knowledge. The quotes must be attached to the agenda or made available at the managing agent's office before the general meeting. A failure to seek competing quotes can justify annulment of the resolution passed. The law requires a minimum threshold, set by the general meeting, above which competitive tendering is mandatory. A managing agent who imposed its own contractor without competition would incur contractual liability towards the association. The co-owners' council plays a key role: it examines the quotes, may propose others, gives a reasoned opinion and flags any conflicts of interest. Once the works resolution is passed, the managing agent performs the contract in accordance with the specification voted. Any unjustified overrun can lead to a corrective call for funds subject to a new vote.

The competent court is the judicial court of the place where the building is located, under Article 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile). In Paris, territorial jurisdiction lies with the judicial court of Paris, and subject-matter jurisdiction is given to the 8th civil chamber, which groups the divisions specialising in co-ownership and leases. Representation by a lawyer is mandatory. The procedure is written, with pre-trial case management conducted by a single judge, who can rule on objections to admissibility (Article 789, 6°, of the Code of Civil Procedure). At the end of case management, the case is sent to the trial hearing. Hearing delays vary between 12 and 24 months depending on the court's workload. The judgment can be appealed to the Paris court of appeal within one month of service. An appeal to the Court of Cassation against the appeal judgment is open within two months. For urgent applications (suspension of emergency or ongoing works), jurisdiction lies with the urgent applications judge of the judicial court, who rules within a few weeks. The firm regularly pleads before these chambers.

Yes, in principle. Once the authorisation for works has been voted by the required majority and the period for challenge has expired (the two months of Article 42, paragraph 2), the decision is final. The co-owner can carry out the works as voted. The general meeting cannot later withdraw this authorisation unless the beneficiary co-owner agrees. However, the authorisation ceases to have effect if the co-owner does not carry out the works within the period set by the resolution or within a reasonable time. If the works carried out differ substantially from those authorised (scale, materials, appearance), the association can bring an action for demolition and restoration. Keeping the authorisation therefore requires strict compliance with the conditions voted. If the project changes, the co-owner must seek a new authorisation at the next general meeting. Proof that the works carried out are in order rests with the co-owner: dated photographs, invoices, and a declaration certifying completion and compliance of the works sent to the town hall where applicable.

Article 30 of the Law of 10 July 1965 governs two distinct mechanisms. The first paragraph allows the general meeting, ruling by the majority of Article 25, to decide on any improvement: transformation of items of equipment, addition of new elements, fitting out or creation of communal premises, provided the decision complies with the intended use of the building. The article also sets the allocation of the cost of the works and of compensation, in proportion to the benefits each co-owner derives. The fourth paragraph, more contentious, allows court authorisation of works refused by the general meeting under Article 25 b. Where the general meeting refuses the authorisation provided for in Article 25 b, any co-owner or group of co-owners may be authorised by the judicial court to carry out, on the conditions set by the court, any improvement works referred to in paragraph 1 above. (our translation) The court checks that the project complies with the intended use of the building and does not infringe the rights of the other co-owners. It may impose technical, financial and aesthetic conditions. This route is useful where the general meeting blocks a useful project without a clearly established abuse.

The strict time limit is two months from notification of the minutes of the general meeting, under Article 42, paragraph 2, of the Law of 10 July 1965. The period is not a clear-days period: it runs from the day after the first presentation of the registered letter. The sanction is forfeiture: once this period has passed, the action is inadmissible, whatever the merits of the complaint. Only opposing or absent co-owners can act. An opposing co-owner is one who voted against the resolution; an absent co-owner is one who neither attended nor was represented at the general meeting. The managing agent must notify the minutes to opposing and absent co-owners by registered letter within one month of the general meeting. Proof of notification rests on the association (Cass. 3e civ., 17 December 2015, No. 14-24.630). If notification is irregular or not proved, the period does not run and the action remains open within the ordinary five-year limitation period. The exact calculation of the period is crucial. The firm systematically brings forward service of the writ of summons to avoid any risk of time bar through a miscalculation.