{"id":2114854,"date":"2026-09-01T17:08:36","date_gmt":"2026-09-01T15:08:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/2026\/09\/01\/british-owner-france-coproperty-proxy-invalid-agm-vote-challenge\/"},"modified":"2026-09-01T17:08:36","modified_gmt":"2026-09-01T15:08:36","slug":"british-owner-france-coproperty-proxy-invalid-agm-vote-challenge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/01\/british-owner-france-coproperty-proxy-invalid-agm-vote-challenge\/","title":{"rendered":"Can a British Owner in France Challenge a Co-Ownership AGM Vote Made with an Invalid Proxy?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Owning a flat or house within a French copropri\u00e9t\u00e9<\/a><\/em> (co-ownership) does not become administratively simple because the owner lives in Britain. The annual assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale<\/a><\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s voting rights. The rules come primarily from the French statute of 10 July 1965 and its implementing decree, regardless of the owner\u2019s nationality.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Service-Public\u2019s official guidance on a co-owners\u2019 general meeting<\/a> provides the public overview of participation and representation. The UK government\u2019s Living in France guidance<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

I. Can a British owner in France vote by proxy at a co-ownership AGM?<\/h2>\n

A. What makes a French proxy valid when the owner lives in the UK?<\/h3>\n

A British owner of a French lot is a copropri\u00e9taire<\/em> (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 copropri\u00e9taires<\/em>, which is the legal body formed by all the co-owners. Despite the word \u201csyndicat\u201d, 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.<\/p>\n

The starting rule is Article 22 of the 10 July 1965 statute. The official text states: \u201cTout copropri\u00e9taire peut d\u00e9l\u00e9guer son droit de vote \u00e0 un mandataire, que ce dernier soit ou non membre du syndicat.\u201d In practical terms, the owner may appoint a mandataire<\/em> (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.<\/p>\n

The complete rule is set out in the current Article 22 of the French co-ownership statute<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n

Some people cannot receive a proxy in the ordinary way. The syndic, the syndic\u2019s spouse, civil-partnership partner or cohabiting partner, certain relatives, and the syndic\u2019s 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 \u201cwill find somebody\u201d risks creating precisely the dispute that the statutory safeguards are meant to prevent.<\/p>\n

A blank proxy is not automatically void. A pouvoir en blanc<\/em> 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\u2019s own choosing. Article 15-1 of the implementing decree requires the syndic who receives such a mandate to \u201cremettre ce mandat en d\u00e9but de r\u00e9union au pr\u00e9sident du conseil syndical\u201d so that a representative can be designated. The current text is available on L\u00e9gifrance, Article 15-1 of the decree of 17 March 1967<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cabstain\u201d, \u201cvote against\u201d or \u201cvote in favour\u201d. French expressions should be explained: pourvoir<\/em> or pouvoir<\/em> in this context means a proxy or power of attorney, while ordre du jour<\/em> 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 \u201cplease protect my interests\u201d gives little proof of what the representative was authorised to do.<\/p>\n

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<\/em>, 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<\/em> (the right to use property and receive its benefits) and nue-propri\u00e9t\u00e9<\/em> (bare ownership, with the right to recover full ownership later), that \u201cEn cas d’usufruit, les int\u00e9ress\u00e9s sont, \u00e0 d\u00e9faut d’accord, repr\u00e9sent\u00e9s par le nu-propri\u00e9taire.\u201d The full provision is available in Article 23 of the statute on L\u00e9gifrance<\/a>. The British usufructuary and bare owner should first establish who represents the interest in the lot, then address any additional proxy.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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\u2019s immediate written intervention.<\/p>\n

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<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n

B. Which vote, majority and attendance-sheet errors matter?<\/h3>\n

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: \u201cLes d\u00e9cisions de l’assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale sont prises \u00e0 la majorit\u00e9 des voix exprim\u00e9es des copropri\u00e9taires pr\u00e9sents, repr\u00e9sent\u00e9s ou ayant vot\u00e9 par correspondance, s’il n’en est autrement ordonn\u00e9 par la loi.\u201d The current Article 24<\/a> includes the resolutions that commonly concern maintenance and the ordinary administration of a building.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> 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>.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> 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\u2019s legal subject, the votes available, the votes cast and the majority actually applied.<\/p>\n

The first document to obtain is the feuille de pr\u00e9sence<\/em>, the attendance sheet. Article 14 of the decree says: \u201cIl est tenu une feuille de pr\u00e9sence, pouvant comporter plusieurs feuillets, qui indique les nom et domicile de chaque copropri\u00e9taire ou associ\u00e9\u201d. The current Article 14 of the decree of 17 March 1967<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The minutes are the proc\u00e8s-verbal<\/em>, the formal record of the AG\u2019s decisions. Article 17 requires that \u201cLe proc\u00e8s-verbal comporte, sous l’intitul\u00e9 de chaque question inscrite \u00e0 l’ordre du jour, le r\u00e9sultat du vote.\u201d The current Article 17 of the implementing decree<\/a> 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\u2019s representative raised an objection during the meeting, its wording and its treatment should be checked carefully.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s tanti\u00e8mes<\/em> (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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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<\/a>. The owner should retain proof of when the syndic received the form, because a date dispute can affect whether it should have been counted.<\/p>\n

French courts assess the mandate\u2019s actual wording. In the Cour de cassation\u2019s third civil chamber decision of 10 September 2020, Pourvoi n\u00b0 19-19.445<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n

The recent decision of the Cour d\u2019appel de Caen, first civil chamber, 9 September 2025, RG n\u00b0 23\/00274<\/a>, 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 \u201cles pouvoirs en blanc ne sont pas interdits\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

II. How can a British owner challenge an invalid AGM proxy vote?<\/h2>\n

A. What evidence and two-month deadline apply?<\/h3>\n

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 \u201cdoivent, \u00e0 peine de d\u00e9ch\u00e9ance, \u00eatre introduites\u201d within the statutory period. The complete current provision is available in Article 42 of the co-ownership statute<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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\u00b0 21-23.915<\/a>, that \u201cTout copropri\u00e9taire est recevable \u00e0 contester la r\u00e9gularit\u00e9 du mandat donn\u00e9 en vue d’une assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

The evidence file should be assembled in a disciplined order:<\/p>\n