For a foreign buyer purchasing an apartment in France \u2014 whether a pied-\u00e0-terre in Paris, a ski flat in the Alps, or a coastal property on the C\u00f4te d’Azur \u2014 the legal framework of copropri\u00e9t\u00e9<\/a><\/em> (co-ownership) will govern daily life in the building. Co-ownership is the default legal regime for all apartment buildings in France, imposed by the Law of 10 July 1965<\/a> (loi n\u00b0 65-557). What surprises many non-resident owners is that the French co-ownership regime is not merely a set of practical building rules. It creates a separate legal entity \u2014 the syndicat des copropri\u00e9taires<\/em> (co-ownership association) \u2014 with its own legal personality, its own budget, and the power to sue and be sued. This article examines the two areas that generate the greatest practical difficulty for foreign owners: understanding how co-ownership charges (the charges de copropri\u00e9t\u00e9<\/em>) are assessed and enforced, and navigating the procedural rules governing disputes over decisions taken by the general meeting of co-owners (the assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale<\/a><\/em>).<\/p>\n The cornerstone of the French co-ownership regime is the statutory obligation of every co-owner to contribute to the expenses of the building. Article 10 of the Law of 10 July 1965<\/a> provides that co-owners must contribute to charges relating to the conservation, maintenance and administration of the common parts (parties communes<\/em>), as well as to charges incurred by collective services and common equipment, in proportion to the relative value of each private lot (lot<\/em>) as set out in the co-ownership regulations (r\u00e8glement de copropri\u00e9t\u00e9<\/em>). The Article 14<\/a> of the same law establishes the syndicat des copropri\u00e9taires<\/em> as a legal entity whose purpose is \u00ab la conservation et l’am\u00e9lioration de l’immeuble ainsi que l’administration des parties communes \u00bb (the preservation and improvement of the building and the administration of the common parts). This is not optional: every owner of a lot in a building comprising at least two privately owned units is automatically a member of the syndicat<\/em>.<\/p>\n Each year, the general meeting of co-owners must vote a budget pr\u00e9visionnel<\/em> (preliminary budget) to cover the building’s current expenses. Article 14-1 of the Law of 10 July 1965<\/a> states that \u00ab pour faire face aux d\u00e9penses courantes de maintenance, de fonctionnement et d’administration des parties communes et \u00e9quipements communs de l’immeuble, le syndicat des copropri\u00e9taires vote, chaque ann\u00e9e, un budget pr\u00e9visionnel \u00bb \u2014 to meet the current maintenance, operation and administration expenses of the common parts and equipment, the co-ownership association votes a preliminary budget each year. Co-owners must then pay quarterly provisions equal to one quarter of the budget, unless the general meeting decides on a different payment schedule. The obligation to pay is automatic and attaches to the lot: a new buyer inherits the debt of the previous owner under Article 20 of the Law of 10 July 1965<\/a>, which allows the syndicat<\/em> to form an opposition<\/em> (a lien) on the sale price of a lot to recover unpaid charges owed by the seller.<\/p>\n The scope of this lien was examined by the Cour de cassation in Cass. 3e civ., 11 July 2024, no. 23-11.700<\/a> (Publi\u00e9 au Bulletin). The Court held that payment made by the notary to the syndicat<\/em> following an opposition formed on the sale price of a lot does not constitute an acquiescement<\/em> (acquiescence) by the seller co-owner. As the Court stated, \u00ab le paiement effectu\u00e9 par le notaire, en l’absence de contestation judiciaire form\u00e9e par le copropri\u00e9taire vendeur, en cons\u00e9quence de l’opposition faite par le syndicat des copropri\u00e9taires, ne peut caract\u00e9riser un acquiescement, cette opposition n’\u00e9tant ni une demande en justice ni un jugement \u00bb \u2014 the payment made by the notary, in the absence of any judicial challenge by the selling co-owner, as a result of the opposition lodged by the co-ownership association, cannot constitute an acquiescence, since such an opposition is neither a legal claim nor a judgment. For a foreign seller, this means that leaving the country after a sale and failing to notify a French address for service does not extinguish liability for unpaid charges: the notary is legally bound to retain the corresponding sum and pay it to the syndicat<\/em>.<\/p>\n Understanding the distinction between the syndicat principal<\/em> (principal co-ownership association) and a syndicat secondaire<\/em> (secondary co-ownership association) is also critical for foreign buyers of properties in large multi-building developments. In Cass. 3e civ., 9 July 2026, no. 24-21.792<\/a> (Publi\u00e9 au Bulletin), the Cour de cassation clarified the limits of a secondary syndicat’s authority to recover charges. A secondary syndicat’s purpose, under Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Law of 10 July 1965<\/a>, is limited to \u00ab assurer la gestion, l’entretien et l’am\u00e9lioration interne d’un des b\u00e2timents de l’immeuble qui en comprend plusieurs \u00bb \u2014 ensuring the internal management, maintenance and improvement of one of the buildings within a multi-building complex. The Court held that only a decision of the general meeting of the principal syndicat<\/em> can authorise a secondary syndicat<\/em> to recover charges owed to the principal syndicat<\/em>. An administrator appointed by the court to wind up the secondary syndicat<\/em> \u00ab n’a pas qualit\u00e9 pour agir \u00e0 leur encontre en paiement des dites charges, d\u00e8s lors qu’il ne saurait exercer les pouvoirs qui lui ont \u00e9t\u00e9 confi\u00e9s hors du champ de sa mission, laquelle ne peut exc\u00e9der l’objet du syndicat secondaire \u00bb \u2014 does not have standing to seek payment of those charges, since he cannot exercise the powers conferred on him outside the scope of his mission, which cannot exceed the object of the secondary syndicat. For a foreign buyer purchasing in a r\u00e9sidence-services<\/em> or a large multi-building complex, this ruling could determine whether the entity demanding payment actually has the authority to do so.<\/p>\n The syndicat des copropri\u00e9taires<\/em> is equipped with a powerful collection tool: the accelerated procedure for recovery of unpaid charges. Article 19-2 of the Law of 10 July 1965<\/a> provides that, if a co-owner fails to pay a provision when due and remains in default thirty days after a formal notice (mise en demeure<\/em>), all other unpaid provisions \u2014 including those not yet due \u2014 become immediately payable, as do any arrears from previous financial years after approval of the accounts. The president of the tribunal judiciaire<\/em>, ruling under the accelerated procedure on the merits (proc\u00e9dure acc\u00e9l\u00e9r\u00e9e au fond<\/em>), may then order payment after verifying that the general meeting has approved the preliminary budget, the works, or the annual accounts, and that the co-owner is in default.<\/p>\n This procedure is rapid and leaves limited room for a recalcitrant co-owner to delay enforcement. However, its effectiveness depends on strict compliance with the statutory preconditions. In Cass. 3e civ., 20 November 2025, no. 23-23.315<\/a> (Publi\u00e9 au Bulletin), the Cour de cassation provided important guidance on the scope of the Article 19-2 procedure. The Court held that \u00ab si le syndicat des copropri\u00e9taires est recevable \u00e0 agir sur le fondement de l’article 19-2 de la loi du 10 juillet 1965 en paiement d’une provision due au titre de l’article 14-1 ou du I de l’article 14-2, des provisions non encore \u00e9chues devenues exigibles, ainsi que des arri\u00e9r\u00e9s de charges des exercices pr\u00e9c\u00e9dents approuv\u00e9s par l’assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, il ne l’est pas pour agir en paiement des sommes restant dues au titre d’exercices pr\u00e9c\u00e9dents, pour lesquels les comptes du syndicat n’ont pas encore \u00e9t\u00e9 approuv\u00e9s \u00bb \u2014 while the co-ownership association may bring an action under Article 19-2 for payment of a provision due under Article 14-1 or 14-2, for provisions not yet due that have become payable, and for arrears of charges from previous financial years whose accounts have been approved by the general meeting, it may not bring such an action for sums remaining due from previous financial years whose accounts have not yet been approved.<\/p>\n This means the syndicat<\/em> may only use the accelerated procedure for arrears from past years if the annual accounts for those years have actually been approved by the general meeting. For a co-owner \u2014 especially a non-resident who may not have attended the meeting \u2014 this can be a critical procedural defence: if the accounts for the disputed years have not been approved, the accelerated collection mechanism is unavailable and the syndicat<\/em> must pursue a standard action on the merits.<\/p>\n The obligation on French courts to examine the evidence properly was reaffirmed in Cass. 3e civ., 27 February 2025, no. 23-17.561<\/a>, where the Cour de cassation quashed a decision that had ordered a co-owner to pay over 34,000 euros in charges and additional sums without examining the payment receipts the co-owner had submitted. The Court applied Article 455 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/a>, which requires that every judgment be reasoned. The practical lesson for a foreign co-owner is that every payment must be meticulously documented and that a court’s failure to examine evidence of payment can form a valid ground of appeal to the Cour de cassation.<\/p>\n The assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des copropri\u00e9taires<\/em> is the supreme decision-making body of the co-ownership. It votes on budgets, works, the appointment and removal of the managing agent (syndic<\/em>), modifications to the co-ownership regulations, and a wide range of other matters. The voting rules are graduated: ordinary decisions require a simple majority of co-owners present or represented (Article 24); certain decisions, including the appointment of the syndic<\/em>, require a majority of all co-owners (Article 25); and the most significant decisions \u2014 including the alienation of common parts or modifications to the building’s destination \u2014 require a double majority of co-owners representing at least two-thirds of the votes (Article 26).<\/p>\n For a co-owner who wishes to challenge a decision taken at a general meeting, the procedural framework is strict and unforgiving. Article 42, paragraph 2, of the Law of 10 July 1965<\/a> provides that \u00ab les actions en contestation des d\u00e9cisions des assembl\u00e9es g\u00e9n\u00e9rales doivent, \u00e0 peine de d\u00e9ch\u00e9ance, \u00eatre introduites par les copropri\u00e9taires opposants ou d\u00e9faillants dans un d\u00e9lai de deux mois \u00e0 compter de la notification du proc\u00e8s-verbal d’assembl\u00e9e, sans ses annexes \u00bb \u2014 actions contesting decisions of general meetings must, on pain of forfeiture, be brought by co-owners who opposed the decision or were absent within two months of notification of the minutes of the meeting, without its annexes. The syndic<\/em> has one month from the date of the meeting to notify the minutes to absent co-owners. If a co-owner was present or represented at the meeting and voted in favour of the contested resolution, they are barred from challenging it.<\/p>\n The Cour de cassation has drawn a clear distinction between an action contesting a general meeting resolution and other types of claims. In Cass. 3e civ., 2 July 2026, no. 24-22.686<\/a>, a co-owner developer brought an action for damages against the syndicat<\/em> five years after a resolution had been adopted, alleging that the resolution authorised the transfer of part of its private lot to the municipality without compensation. The lower court declared the action time-barred, holding that the two-month forfeiture period of Article 42 applied. The Cour de cassation quashed that decision, holding that \u00ab l’action en responsabilit\u00e9 engag\u00e9e par un copropri\u00e9taire \u00e0 l’encontre du syndicat des copropri\u00e9taires \u00e0 raison de la faute commise par celui-ci lors du vote d’une d\u00e9cision d’assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des copropri\u00e9taires, ne constitue pas une action en contestation d’une telle d\u00e9cision au sens de l’article 42, alin\u00e9a 2, de la loi du 10 juillet 1965 \u00bb \u2014 an action for damages brought by a co-owner against the co-ownership association based on a fault committed by the latter during the voting of a general meeting resolution does not constitute an action contesting such a resolution within the meaning of Article 42, paragraph 2. The applicable limitation period is the five-year prescription of Article 2224 of the Civil Code<\/a>, not the two-month forfeiture of Article 42.<\/p>\n This distinction is vital for foreign owners who may discover a prejudicial resolution only long after the two-month window has closed. While the resolution itself becomes unassailable, a separate claim for damages based on fault committed during the decision-making process may remain open for up to five years.<\/p>\n The effectiveness of a co-owner’s challenge also depends on the validity of the meeting’s convocation and composition. In Cass. 3e civ., 18 June 2026, no. 24-19.231<\/a> (Publi\u00e9 au Bulletin), the Cour de cassation addressed a critical question: what happens when the syndic<\/em> who convened the meeting had been appointed by a previous general meeting that was subsequently annulled? The Court held that \u00ab le syndic \u00e9tant d\u00e9pourvu du pouvoir de convoquer l’assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale par l’effet r\u00e9troactif de l’annulation de l’assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale qui l’a d\u00e9sign\u00e9, la convocation \u00e0 une assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale qu’il a d\u00e9livr\u00e9e et l’assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale ainsi convoqu\u00e9e sont susceptibles d’\u00eatre annul\u00e9es \u00e0 la demande d’un copropri\u00e9taire agissant dans le d\u00e9lai de deux mois pr\u00e9cit\u00e9, sans qu’il soit tenu de justifier d’un grief ou d’une faute du syndic \u00bb \u2014 the syndic<\/em> being deprived of the power to convene the general meeting by the retroactive effect of the annulment of the general meeting that appointed him, the convocation he issued and the meeting convened as a result are subject to annulment at the request of a co-owner acting within the two-month period, without the co-owner being required to prove prejudice or fault by the syndic<\/em>. For a foreign owner contesting a meeting, this means that challenging the appointment of the syndic<\/em> at a prior meeting can have cascading effects on all subsequent meetings he convened \u2014 a powerful procedural lever.<\/p>\n The composition of the general meeting must also be strictly compliant. In Cass. 3e civ., 13 June 2024, no. 22-17.764<\/a>, the Cour de cassation applied Article 22 of the Law of 10 July 1965, which provides that \u00ab chaque copropri\u00e9taire dispose d’un nombre de voix correspondant \u00e0 sa quote-part dans les parties communes \u00bb (each co-owner has a number of votes corresponding to their share in the common parts) and that a co-owner may delegate their vote. The Court quashed a decision that had failed to verify whether the persons listed on the attendance sheet actually had standing to vote, holding that \u00ab l’irr\u00e9gularit\u00e9 affectant la composition d’une assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale entra\u00eene sa nullit\u00e9 sans qu’il soit n\u00e9cessaire de justifier d’un grief \u00bb \u2014 an irregularity affecting the composition of a general meeting entails its nullity without any need to prove prejudice. This principle applies even if the resolution would have passed regardless of the irregular votes.<\/p>\n Beyond challenging specific meeting resolutions, co-owners may need to bring or defend liability claims against the syndicat<\/em> or the syndic<\/em> (managing agent). The procedural landscape is governed by both the Law of 10 July 1965 and the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the interaction between the two can create traps for unwary litigants.<\/p>\n The rules on presenting claims on appeal are particularly strict. In Cass. 3e civ., 16 October 2025, no. 24-10.606<\/a> (Publi\u00e9 au Bulletin), a co-owner who had initially sought the annulment of an entire general meeting later \u2014 in her second set of appeal submissions \u2014 scaled back her claim to seek the annulment of only certain resolutions. The Cour de cassation applied Articles 565 and 910-4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that while a claim for partial annulment tends towards the same end as a claim for total annulment (and is therefore not a new claim under Article 565), it is nevertheless inadmissible on appeal if not presented in the appellant’s first written submissions. The Court stated that \u00ab la demande en annulation de plusieurs r\u00e9solutions d’une assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, si elle tend aux m\u00eames fins que la demande en annulation de l’assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale en son ensemble, n’est recevable devant la cour d’appel que si elle a \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e par la partie qui la forme dans ses premi\u00e8res conclusions sur le fond \u00bb \u2014 a claim for the annulment of several resolutions of a general meeting, although it tends towards the same ends as a claim for the annulment of the entire meeting, is only admissible before the court of appeal if it was presented by the party making it in their first submissions on the merits.<\/p>\n This is a procedural trap that can be fatal. A foreign owner represented by counsel unfamiliar with the specialised co-ownership procedure must ensure that every alternative or subsidiary claim is formulated in the very first set of appeal conclusions. Failing to do so means the claim is lost, regardless of its merits. For non-residents, the practical difficulty is compounded by the need to instruct French counsel promptly \u2014 the two-month deadline for contesting resolutions and the tight procedural timelines on appeal leave no margin for delay caused by time zone differences or the holiday calendar.<\/p>\n A further layer of protection for co-owners lies in the formal requirements applicable to the general meeting itself. The Law of 10 July 1965<\/a> and its implementing Decree of 17 March 1967<\/a> (d\u00e9cret n\u00b0 67-223) set out detailed rules on the convocation of meetings, the documentation that must accompany the notice, the majority thresholds for each category of decision, and the content of the minutes. A resolution adopted in breach of these rules is null, and the Cour de cassation has consistently held, as confirmed in the 13 June 2024 and 18 June 2026 decisions cited above, that the co-owner challenging the resolution need not prove specific prejudice.<\/p>\n Owners who find themselves in dispute should also be aware of the role of the conseil syndical<\/em> (co-ownership council), an elected body of co-owners that assists and oversees the syndic<\/em>. While the conseil syndical<\/em> does not have the power to bring legal proceedings in its own name, its members can provide valuable intelligence about the building’s management and can sometimes mediate disputes before they escalate into litigation.<\/p>\n For foreign investors who hold their French property through a soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile immobili\u00e8re<\/em> (SCI<\/a>), the same co-ownership rules apply. The SCI is treated as a co-owner and is liable for charges in the same way as an individual \u2014 a specialist French real estate lawyer<\/a> can advise on the specific implications of holding co-ownership lots through a corporate structure, particularly when the SCI is registered outside France and service of process within the short statutory deadlines becomes logistically challenging.<\/p>\nI. Understanding Co-Ownership Charges in French Law<\/h2>\n
A. The Legal Framework: What the Loi du 10 juillet 1965 Requires<\/h3>\n
B. Recovering Unpaid Charges: The Accelerated Procedure Under Article 19-2<\/h3>\n
II. Challenging Co-Ownership Decisions and Disputes<\/h2>\n
A. Contesting General Meeting Resolutions: The Two-Month Deadline<\/h3>\n
B. Liability Actions and Procedural Pitfalls<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n