You can attend the general meeting by videoconference, audioconference or any other electronic means of communication, and vote by correspondence, pursuant to Article 17-1 A of the Law of 10 July 1965. Remote participation requires that the arrangements be set out in the co-ownership regulations or, failing that, that the general meeting has determined the technical means and media by the majority required under Article 25, in accordance with Article 13-1 of the Decree of 17 March 1967, with correspondence voting having been further specified by Decree No. 2020-1676 of 17 December 2020.

The three modes of remote participation

Videoconference and audioconference allow you to attend the session in real time, take part in discussions and vote resolution by resolution. The technical means used must guarantee the identification of the participant and the continuous transmission of the proceedings.

Correspondence voting is exercised using the official form set by the order of 2 July 2020, enclosed with the notice of meeting. You tick, for each resolution, a vote in favour, against, or an abstention. The form must reach the managing agent (syndic) no later than three clear days before the meeting is held. A sensitive point: when a resolution is amended during the session, a co-owner who voted in favour by correspondence on the initial proposal is deemed absent for that resolution. Your vote disappears from the tally, which can change the outcome of a close vote.

Proxy representation remains available and can be combined with the other methods. A proxy holder may not receive more than three vote delegations, unless the total number of votes they hold, including their own, does not exceed ten percent of the votes of the syndicate of co-owners.

Conditions to check before the meeting

First, check that the notice of meeting, served at least twenty-one days before the meeting, states the connection arrangements and the technical link, as well as the correspondence voting form. The absence of these elements constitutes an irregularity in the notice of meeting.

Next, verify that the expense linked to the system has been properly dealt with: the costs of installing and operating remote participation facilities constitute building charges, subject to a decision of the general meeting. A managing agent may not invoice you individually for access to videoconferencing outside this framework.

Finally, make sure your identity and your status as co-owner, or as proxy holder, are recorded by the managing agent before the session opens. The minutes must state which co-owners participated remotely, which voted by correspondence, and above all, any technical incidents that prevented a co-owner from making their vote known. This record is your main piece of evidence.

Technical incidents and their consequences

A dropped connection, a non-functioning link, or a system whose sound does not allow you to follow the discussions deprives you of your right to vote. React during the session: immediately send a written message to the managing agent and the chair of the meeting requesting a suspension, and insist that the incident be recorded in the minutes. Confirm by registered letter in the following days.

Being deprived of the right to participate and vote is a classic ground for annulling decisions adopted during the incident. The court assesses whether the irregularity could have affected the outcome of the vote, which is why precise minutes and a usable vote count are so important.

Challenging a meeting held remotely

The most common grounds for challenge are: holding a meeting exclusively by remote means without a prior decision of the general meeting on the technical means to be used; the absence of a correspondence voting form enclosed with the notice of meeting; the managing agent’s refusal to implement a system that was nonetheless approved by vote; irregularities in the count of correspondence votes; and a co-owner’s inability to express their views before the vote.

An action to annul decisions is brought before the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) of the location of the building, within two months of notification of the minutes, pursuant to Article 42, paragraph 2, of the Law of 10 July 1965. This is a time-bar (forfeiture period): after two months, the decision becomes unchallengeable, even if it is tainted by a serious irregularity. The challenge is open to co-owners who voted against or were absent; a co-owner who voted in favour of a resolution cannot challenge it.

Check that the notification of the minutes was properly carried out, whether by registered letter or by electronic notification to which you expressly consented. An irregular notification does not start the time limit running, which may reopen your right of appeal.

For any co-ownership matter, Cécile Zakine, Attorney advises you and defends your interests (Grasse Judicial Court, Nice Judicial Court, Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal). Prompt consultation.

On the same topic: managing agent refuses works · challenging charges · general meeting vote against my wishes · neighbourhood disturbances · call for funds · all our co-ownership case files