[et_pb_section fb_built=\u00a0\u00bb1″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_row column_structure=\u00a0\u00bb1_2,1_2″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_column type=\u00a0\u00bb1_2″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_text _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Contesting a general meeting of co-owners is a complex legal procedure which falls within a legal framework strictly defined by the law of 10 July 1965 and its implementing decree of 17 March 1967.<\/p>\n
This approach, far from being trivial, requires a thorough understanding of the legal mechanisms and particular attention to the various procedural aspects which guarantee its validity.<\/p>\n
Mastering these elements is crucial for any co-owner considering challenge a general meeting decision<\/a>.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=\u00a0\u00bb1_2″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_image src=\u00a0\u00bbhttps:\/\/www.cecile-zakine.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/asemblee-generale-nice-scaled.jpg\u00a0\u00bb alt=\u00a0\u00bbassembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale nice\u00a0\u00bb title_text=\u00a0\u00bbassembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale nice\u00a0\u00bb _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][\/et_pb_image][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_column type=\u00a0\u00bb4_4″ _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb][et_pb_button button_url=\u00a0\u00bbhttps:\/\/calendly.com\/maitre-zakine\u00a0\u00bb button_text=\u00a0\u00bb1ere Consultation : 30Minutes 45\u20ac\u00a0\u00bb button_alignment=\u00a0\u00bbcenter\u00a0\u00bb _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.23″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bb_initial\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb button_text_color__hover_enabled=\u00a0\u00bbon|desktop\u00a0\u00bb][\/et_pb_button][et_pb_text _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb4.27.4″ _module_preset=\u00a0\u00bbdefault\u00a0\u00bb global_colors_info=\u00a0\u00bb{}\u00a0\u00bb]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The time limits for contesting constitute a fundamental element of the procedure which must be fully understood.<\/p>\n The legislation sets a mandatory deadline of two months from the notification of the report to initiate an action to contest it (article 42 of the 1965 Law).<\/p>\n This time provision applies identically to all co-owners, whether they were absent from the meeting or expressed their opposition during the vote.<\/p>\n It is essential to emphasize that the expiry of this period results in the inadmissibility of any subsequent action, except in exceptional cases falling within the scope of absolute nullity, in particular when the contested decision undermines public policy or the fundamental principles of the co-ownership law<\/a>.<\/p>\n Case law has recognized as cases of absolute nullity decisions infringing the right of ownership or those modifying the destination of the property without the required unanimity.<\/p>\n The regularity of the convocation constitutes an essential pillar of the validity of the decisions taken at the general meeting.<\/a>.<\/p>\n Article 9 of the decree of March 17, 1967 establishes a precise framework concerning the terms of convocation.<\/p>\n The notice must include a comprehensive and detailed agenda, presenting in a clear and unequivocal manner each point submitted to the vote of the co-owners.<\/p>\n This requirement for precision also extends to practical information such as the date, time and location of the meeting.<\/p>\n A particularly crucial aspect concerns the supporting documents which must accompany the summons.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n These documents must enable co-owners to exercise their voting rights with full knowledge of the facts.<\/p>\n These include in particular the detailed forecast budget, comparative estimates for the planned work, contracts subject to approval, as well as any relevant technical or financial documents.<\/p>\n Failure to comply with these obligations, whether due to a delay in sending, incomplete documentation or inaccuracy<\/a> in the agenda, constitutes a serious reason for dispute or even cancellation if the deadlines for convening are not respected.<\/p>\n Compliance with majority rules is a crucial aspect of the validity of decisions. Each type of resolution requires a specific majority, whether it is the simple majority of Article 24, the absolute majority of Article 25, or the double majority of Article 26 of the 1965 Act.<\/p>\n The adoption of a resolution with an inadequate majority constitutes a substantial defect justifying annulment.<\/p>\n For example, a decision concerning improvement works adopted by a simple majority when it required an absolute majority will be liable to be annulled.<\/p>\n The question of the distribution of charges between co-owners constitutes a frequent reason for dispute.<\/p>\n This distribution must scrupulously respect the criteria established by the co-ownership regulations<\/a> and the legal principles of distribution.<\/p>\n Any change in the distribution of charges requires the unanimity of the co-owners, in accordance with article 11 of the 1965 law.<\/p>\n Particular attention must be paid to special charges, in particular those relating to common equipment for restricted use, which must be distributed according to utility criteria.<\/p>\n The financial management of the co-ownership is subject to strict supervision.<\/p>\n The trustee may not incur expenses exceeding the forecast budget voted on at the general meeting without prior authorization.<\/p>\n Any excess not justified by the emergency may constitute grounds for dispute.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Similarly, the creation of new charges or the modification of the distribution key of existing charges requires specific majorities, failure to comply with which results in the nullity of the decision.<\/p>\n Preparing the appeal file requires a rigorous methodology.<\/p>\n It is imperative to gather all relevant supporting documents, including not only the minutes of the contested meeting and its notification, but also any document attesting to the alleged irregularities.<\/p>\n The retention of correspondence exchanged with the trustee, previous notifications, and accounting documents may prove decisive in supporting the dispute.<\/p>\n The action for contestation must be brought before the judicial court<\/a> territorially competent, that is to say that of the location of the building.<\/p>\n The This procedure requires the services of a lawyer, and it is strongly recommended to call upon a specialist in co-ownership law.<\/a>.<\/p>\n The summons must be served on the trustee<\/a>, who represents the condominium association, and must set out in a precise and detailed manner the legal and factual grounds justifying the request for cancellation.<\/p>\n The cancellation of a general meeting decision can have significant repercussions on the management of the co-ownership.<\/p>\n It results in the retroactive disappearance of the annulled decision and may require the convening of a new meeting to rule again on the points concerned.<\/p>\n Executions already carried out may also be challenged, raising complex questions of liability and redress.<\/p>\n The law provides for certain provisions protecting the rights of third parties in good faith who have contracted with the condominium association on the basis of decisions subsequently annulled.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n This protection aims to preserve the legal security of transactions while guaranteeing the legitimate rights of co-owners.<\/p>\n Contesting a general meeting of co-owners is a demanding legal procedure which requires careful preparation and perfect mastery of the technical and legal aspects.<\/p>\n The success of this process depends on the ability to accurately identify irregularities, gather the necessary evidence and present a solid legal argument within the time limits.<\/p>\n Support from a specialized legal professional often appears to be a determining factor in the success of the procedure.<\/p>\n The vigilance of the co-owners and their active involvement in the condominium life<\/a> remain the best guarantors of compliance with the rules and the preservation of their rights.<\/p>\n The Zakine firm, established on the C\u00f4te d'Azur, has built a solid reputation in the field of co-ownership law, working on the Mediterranean arc from Antibes to Nice<\/a>, passing through Cannes and Grasse.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n With in-depth expertise developed over the years, the firm supports both co-ownership syndicates and individual co-owners or trustee firms in the management of their disputes and legal issues.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ma\u00eetre Zakine and his team stand out for their personalized approach to each case<\/a>, offering rigorous monitoring of procedures while favoring, where possible, amicable solutions.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The firm intervenes in particular in disputes relating to co-ownership charges, works, general meetings<\/a> contested, as well as in recovery and day-to-day management issues.<\/p>\n <\/p>\nThe two-month deadline to contest<\/h2>\n
Requirements for convening: grounds for requesting cancellation of the general meeting<\/h2>\n
The Legal Basis of the Dispute<\/h2>\n
The question of voting majorities in general meetings<\/h3>\n
Distribution of charges: serious grounds for dispute<\/h3>\n
Budget control: a very frequent reason for dispute<\/h3>\n
Implementation of the litigation procedure<\/h2>\n
The constitution of the file by the co-owner<\/h3>\n
The introduction of legal action before the Judicial Court of Grasse or Nice<\/h3>\n
The effects of the protest<\/h2>\n
The consequences of cancellation<\/h3>\n
Protection of third parties<\/h3>\n
Conclusion and practical recommendations from Cabinet Zakine to co-owners<\/h2>\n