A recent sentence of the Court of Genoa, n. 2784/2024, established an important principle for management of expenses in condominiumsdeclaring null a resolution that attributed the costs of renovating the balconies only to some owners.
The case arises from a dispute in which a condominium owner challenged the decision of the assembly which, by majority, had established that the costs for the renovation of balconies of the east façade were the exclusive responsibility of its owner. However, the court clarified that because the balconies in question were partially recessed and contributed to the aesthetics of the building, the costs had to be shared among all condominium residents, as required by law.
When can a resolution be annulled? What are the rules to follow in the distribution of common expenses?
Let’s find out together what the Court established and what implications it has for condominiums.
Advertisement – Advertising
Description of the case: a resolution contested in detail
The case in question concerns a dispute that arose within a condominium in Genoa, where the condominium assembly, with a resolution approved on 3 July 2019, had established that the costs for the renovation of the facade balconies est should be entirely borne by the individual owners of those balconies. This decision took up what had already been established by a previous resolution of 2 April 2005, never challenged, which provided for the individual charge for the renovation of the balconies.
A condominium owner, considering the an unjust decision that is harmful to one’s rightsdecided to challenge it.
The main argument raised by the plaintiff was that the balconies of the east facade, being partially recessed and with a portion visible to the outside, contributed to the overall aesthetics of the building, qualifying as a common part according to the art. 1117 of the Civil Code.
Article no. 1117
Common parts of the buildingThey are the object of common property of the owners of the individual real estate units of the building, even if they have the right to periodic enjoyment and if the contrary is not indicated by the title:
1) all parts of the building necessary for common use, such as the ground on which the building stands, the foundations, the main walls, the pillars and load-bearing beams, the roofs and flat roofs, the stairs, the entrance doors entrance, vestibules, passageways, porticoes, courtyards and facades;
2) the areas intended for parking as well as the rooms for shared services, such as the concierge, including the doorman’s accommodation, the laundry, the drying rooms and the attics intended, due to their structural and functional characteristics, for common use;
3) works, installations, artefacts of any kind intended for common use, such as lifts, wells, cisterns, water and sewage systems, centralized distribution and transmission systems for gas, for electricity, for heating and air conditioning, for radio and television reception and for access to any other type of information flow, including by satellite or cable, and the related connections up to the branch point to the control rooms individual ownership of individual condominiums, or, in the case of unitary systems, up to the point of user, except as provided by sector regulations regarding public networks.
Consequently, the costs for the renovation should not have borne only the owners of the individual balconies, but should have been shared proportionally among all the condominiums, since the aesthetic and architectural function was a benefit for the entire building.
The condominium’s defense, on the contrary, argued that these balconies, being largely recessed and non-decorative, could not be considered common parts. Furthermore, he underlined that the contested resolution had been approved by majority and was based on a principle already consolidated over time, taken from the 2005 resolution.
The case therefore arose from the conflict between the principle of cost sharing based on the aesthetics and structural function of the balconies compared to a criterion that attributed the costs only to those directly involved.
Advertisement – Advertising
Legal principles recalled: what does the law say?
The basis of the decision of the Court of Genoa is the principle established by Civil Code in article 1117which regulates the nature of the common parts of a building. This rule establishes that the parts of the building intended for common use or which contribute to the aesthetics of the building, such as facades and decorative coverings, must be considered condominium property and, consequently, the costs for their maintenance must be shared. among all condominiums in proportion to thousandths of ownership.
Article no. 1117
Common parts of the buildingThey are the object of common property of the owners of the individual real estate units of the building, even if they have the right to periodic enjoyment and if the contrary is not indicated by the title:
1) all parts of the building necessary for common use, such as the ground on which the building stands, the foundations, the main walls, the pillars and load-bearing beams, the roofs and flat roofs, the stairs, the entrance doors entrance, vestibules, passageways, porticoes, courtyards and facades;
2) the areas intended for parking as well as the rooms for shared services, such as the concierge, including the doorman’s accommodation, the laundry, the drying rooms and the attics intended, due to their structural and functional characteristics, for common use;
3) works, installations, artefacts of any kind intended for common use, such as lifts, wells, cisterns, water and sewage systems, centralized distribution and transmission systems for gas, for electricity, for heating and air conditioning, for radio and television reception and for access to any other type of information flow, including by satellite or cable, and the related connections up to the branch point to the control rooms individual ownership of individual condominiums, or, in the case of unitary systems, up to the point of user, except as provided by sector regulations regarding public networks.
Another fundamental legal principle cited in the ruling is article 1123 of the Civil Code, which regulates the distribution of condominium expenses.
It establishes that:
- The costs for the conservation and maintenance of the common areas must be borne by all condominiums, in proportion to their respective ownership shares.
- However, if the use or benefit of a part of the building is limited only to some condominiums, the related expenses must be borne exclusively by them.
In the specific case, the Court also recalled the consolidated orientation of the Court of Cassation (sentences no. 6624/2012 and no. 21641/2017), which established that partially recessed balconies, when visible from the outside and capable of influence the aesthetics of the building, should be considered common parts, with costs to be shared between all condominiums.
Finally, a key principle mentioned is that established by the United Sections ruling of the Supreme Court no. 9839/2001, according to which a meeting resolution that modifies the criteria for allocating expenses established by law or by the condominium regulations can only be valid if approved unanimously, not by a simple majority as occurred in the case examined.
Advertisement – Advertising
The decision of the Genoa court: nullity of the condominium resolution
The Court of Genoa, after having analyzed the arguments of both parties and the documentation presented, declared the condominium resolution null and void of 3 July 2019. The decision is based on the fact that the resolution, approved by a majority, had modified the criteria for allocating expenses for the renovation of balconies, contravening the principles established by the Civil Code and consolidated jurisprudence.
The technical consultancy office (CTU) carried out during the trial confirmed that the balconies of the east facade, the subject of the dispute, were mostly recessed with a small overhanging portion of approximately 30 cm. This conformation, although simple from an architectural point of view, contributed to the general aesthetic appearance of the building, making the balconies an integral part of the facade and, therefore, to be considered common parts pursuant to article 1117 of the civil code
The judge also underlined that the contested resolution had violated the principle expressed by the United Sections of the Court of Cassation (sentence no. 9839/2001), which establishes that the modification of the criteria for allocating expenses provided for by law can only take place with the unanimity of the condominiums, and not with a majority decision.
By virtue of these considerations, the Court therefore declared the resolution null and void, condemning the condominium to pay legal expenses, including those for the official technical consultancy (CTU) and for the mediation activity previously attempted without success.
Advertisement – Advertising
Implications for condominiums: what changes after this ruling?
The ruling of the Court of Genoa offers clear and important indications for the management of condominium expenses, with significant implications for administrators and property owners.
- Expense Breakdown: Clarity on Recessed Balconies
The decision reiterates that partially recessed balconies visible from the outside must be considered an integral part of the building’s façade. Consequently, the costs for their maintenance or renovation must be divided among all condominiums based on the thousandths of ownership and not only borne by the individual owners of the balconies. - Condominium resolutions: when are they void?
A crucial point clarified by the Court is that condominium resolutions that modify the legal criteria for the distribution of expenses established by the Civil Code or by the regulation can only be approved unanimously. Any decision taken by majority that alters these fundamental principles is to be considered null and void, as occurred in the case examined. - Role of office technical consultancy (CTU)
The ruling underlines the importance of the role of the CTU in condominium disputes. The expert opinion had a decisive weight in the decision, highlighting the aesthetic function of the balconies and their influence on the appearance of the building.
This ruling represents a warning for condominiums: respecting shared rules and legal provisions is essential to guarantee fairness and prevent disputes.
