The density of urban development in Monaco makes co-ownership almost unavoidable, with all the advantages but also the disadvantages that this entails for its occupants, particularly when they wish to carry out work in their private areas.
Some co-owners are surprised to see their plans to build a pergola or install a jacuzzi on the terrace or the roof of their property, or to change the layout of the internal partitions in their flat, rejected without fully understanding how these works are likely to affect the co-ownership.
Since 2022, legislative changes have made it easier to vote on projects at general meetings, but co-owners wishing to carry out works still need to take precautions as soon as the project is presented at the general meeting. At this stage, the assistance of an advisor will enable them to ensure that their project is adopted, and in any event to take appropriate action in the event of a negative vote.
Legislative changes to facilitate decision-making at general meetings
As a reminder, Law no. 1.531 of 29 July 2022 made substantial changes to the provisions of Law no. 1.329 of 8 January 2007 on condominium ownership of built-up properties, in order to resolve the difficulties and obstacles encountered in the administration of condominiums and to make it easier to vote on projects at general meetings.
Certain majority rules have been relaxed to make it easier to carry out certain works. For example, co-owners wishing to carry out raising, scouring or building work to create new private premises no longer need to convince the whole co-ownership but only a majority of co-owners representing at least two-thirds of the votes of the co-owners present or represented.
As in the past, for works of lesser importance - such as works or installations affecting the common areas or the external appearance of the building, and in keeping with its intended purpose - only a majority of the co-owners present or represented will be required.
Flexible rules have also been introduced for very small co-ownerships where the building is divided between two co-owners, dispensing with the need to convene general meetings in the absence of a professional Syndic. In addition, it was specified that decisions requiring a majority of the votes cast by the co-owners present or represented, as well as the appointment of the Syndic, could be taken by the co-owner holding more than half the votes.
Despite these changes, the presentation of a works project at a general meeting still requires the highest level of attention and must be anticipated.
Preparing the ground before the general meeting
When a co-owner wishes to carry out works requiring the agreement of the co-owners, it is essential to anticipate the general meeting and not simply submit a rough draft to the vote of the co-owners.
Co-owners may be tempted to oppose a works project simply for fear of future nuisance. It is therefore important to reassure the co-ownership council, in advance of the general meeting, about the content and intensity of the work to be carried out, and the absence of any impact on the building's solidity, with the help of the prospective architect and a consultant.
This educational work will enable the Co-ownership Council to take an informed position and support the applicant co-owner, who will be able to commit to the duration of the works, their safety, and the possible allocation of financial compensation to the syndicate of co-owners to compensate for the inconvenience caused by the works undertaken.
Preparing the project to be put to the vote will make it possible to avoid deadlock situations which, while they may in some cases be resolved after the event, risk delaying the project and generating additional costs for the co-owner concerned. It will also help to prevent these issues from becoming conflictual and straining relations between co-owners.
How to resolve a conflict
If the co-ownership union council - which may have been put off by work previously undertaken - is reluctant to agree to the work, and if the syndic is unable to calm the situation, it may be useful to alert them to the consequences of an abusive refusal.
It is not uncommon for projects to be blocked - without valid reason - to the detriment of a co-owner or, worse still, to the detriment of the collective interest of the co-ownership.
While the freedom to vote is fundamental and inherent in any majority voting system, its abuse must be punished.
Classically, abuse of the majority will be characterised - and therefore punished - when it indicates, without valid reason, an aim other than the collective interest and more specifically:
- an intention to harm or damage the interests of a co-owner,
- or fraudulent practices
- or the pursuit of an illegitimate goal contrary to the interests of the co-ownership.
Recourse to the courts will therefore sometimes be unavoidable in conflict situations that sometimes reveal animosities that go beyond the legal sphere. To restore the rights of a co-owner who is upset, the role of the Syndic and the Lawyer will be decisive in resolving deadlock situations, and it is only as a last resort that the Lawyer will have no choice but to advise his client to bring the case before the competent courts.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
