The Court of Monza, with ruling no. 1734 of 12 June 2024, established that the convening of a condominium meeting must comply exclusively with the procedures established by law.
This ruling reaffirmed that the condominium administrator must follow specific procedures and rigorous to ensure the validity of the call and decisions taken at the meeting. The aim is to avoid disputes and misunderstandings that may arise from irregular calls.
But what are the correct ways to call a meeting? And what happens if they are not followed?
Advertisement – Advertising
The valid methods for the call
The ruling of the Court of Monza reaffirmed the importance of respecting the methods of convening the condominium meeting provided for by art. 66 of the implementing provisions of the Civil Code.
According to the law, the summons must be sent through registered mail with return receipt, PEC (Certified Electronic Mail), fax or direct hand deliveryaccompanied by a receipt certifying delivery.
Any other method, such as sending via regular email, SMS, WhatsApp or simply inserting the notice into the mailboxis not considered valid. This is because these tools, although widespread and practical, do not offer the same guarantees of traceability and certainty of receipt provided by the methods recognized by law.
The 2012 reform introduced an important change compared to the past. Before this change, in fact, it was sufficient for the convocation to take place in such a way that the condominium owner was aware of it, for example by posting in the atrium or by oral communication. With the new regulation, the written and certified form was preferred to minimize the risk of disputes and ensure that all condominium owners are effectively made aware of the meetings.
The obligation to use tools such as registered mail or certified email arises from the need to ensure that the communication not only reaches its destination, but that it is also documentable, avoiding doubts about the actual receipt or timing.
For example, in the case of an ordinary email, there is no obligation for the recipient to regularly check their email inbox, while in the case of PEC, its use imposes a responsibility for constant control, making it a reliable legal tool.
Furthermore, the fax and the hand delivery are considered suitable methods, provided that the transmission or delivery can be proven, through a return receipt or signature of receipt.
If these rules are not respected, the meeting will be flawed and the resolutions will be voidable, as highlighted by the specific case discussed in the ruling. Compliance with the procedures provided by law is therefore essential to ensure that the decisions of the condominium meeting are valid and not contestable.
Advertisement – Advertising
The burden of proof: who must demonstrate the correct convocation
A fundamental aspect addressed in the ruling of the Monza Court concerns theburden of proof. In the event of a dispute over the lack of or incorrect convocation, it is up to the condominium administrator to demonstrate that the convocation was carried out correctly, following the procedures established by law. It is not the condominium owner who has to prove that he did not receive the summons.
This principle is essential to protect condominiums and ensure that the administrator adheres to precise and transparent rules. In fact, if a condominium owner raises a dispute, it is the administrator who must present the necessary documentation to demonstrate that the notice of convocation was sent and received within the expected times and methods, for example with return receipts for registered letters or with PEC receipts.
The ruling clarifies that simply sending the notice via ordinary email or depositing the notice in the mailbox is not sufficient. These means are not considered valid because they do not guarantee with certainty that the recipient has actually received the summons. For this reason, it is essential that the administrator keeps track of the sending and receipt of official communications through the channels recognized by law.
Advertisement – Advertising
The case: a valid challenge
The specific case that led to the ruling of the Court of Monza involved the owner of two real estate units within a condominium. The owner contested the validity of the resolutions taken during the condominium meetings of January 31, 2022 and of the July 31, 2022requesting its cancellation due to failure to comply with the convening procedures established by theart. 66 of the implementing provisions of the Civil Code and from theart. 6 of the condominium regulations.
The owner of the two properties highlighted that the summons had been sent via regular email and that a notice had been placed on his mailbox. However, he did not receive the emails because they were sent to his regular email address, which he rarely checked.
His objection was based precisely on the fact that these instruments did not comply with the formal procedures required by law.
The Court of Monza upheld the challenge, annulling the assembly resolutions for violation of the rules on convocation. The decision was based on the fact that the convocation via ordinary e-mail and notice in the mailbox did not guarantee the certainty of receipt and, therefore, did not comply with the provisions of the law.
This ruling is a clear example of how failure to comply with the convocation procedures can invalidate assembly decisions, with significant consequences for condominium management.
