There condominium resolutionas is known, is executive by law (art. 1137 cc) and binds to his respect and fulfillment all condominiumseven those who have manifested vote against.
By virtue of the obligations established by theadministratorit is up to the latter to provide forImplementation of the resolutions and enforce the condominium regulation (art. 1130 cc).
Intervention of the administrator and judicial protection
The administrator has a duty to execute the Shareholders’ Meetings without however exorbitant from his powers e without arbitrarily exercising The reasons for the condominium it represents.
In order to intervene within private properties, in the event that the single condominium prohibit the entrance or Frapponga anyway obstacle to the execution of works connected to those approved by the Assemblytherefore, will have to contact the judicial authority, with the assistance of a lawyer and after appropriate but not necessary resolution of the assembly. The procedural vehicle that can be used in such cases is that of Urgency precautionary protection pursuant to art.700 cpc
This solution complies with the two fundamental requirements of the precautionary action, namely the Fumus Boni iurisconsisting of the enforceability and bindingness of the resolution and the periculum in default, or the danger of a serious and irreparable prejudice to the enjoyment of the heating service and the system modified with the accounting and also the also economic prejudice that the condominiums would suffer from the refusal of the individual.
In any case, according to a decision of merit cannot be considered arbitrary The decision to attribute maximum caloric power to radiators who are without heat accountators, since, since the closing valves radiators are not equipped, it seems reasonable to believe that consumption is equal to the maximum calorie power of the radiator.
No condominium can therefore refuse to install the heat accounting devices in the apartment necessary to proceed with the correct distribution of heating costs. The principle was recently reiterated.
Condominium hinders accounting: the case
A condominium bought an apartment in the condominium and then proceeded to Renovation of the property, replacing some of radiators with more modern and efficient thermaloconvectorsas well as the original sets in single glass wood with new wood aluminum fixtures with highly insulating double -room thermal glass. Over time the condominium, consisting of 13 buildings each of which consisting of 22 real estate units, proceeded to a series of Refurbishment works almost total of thecentralized heating system that all buildings needed.
In particular, the condominium created the necessary works to carry out the transition to heat accounting with the application to the individual radiators of the heat divisions. The company in charge of the design and installation of the accounting system he could not install in the apartment of the aforementioned condominium I accounting devicesincompatible with the thermaloconvectors installed in the house; As a result, the Assembly asked the condominium to proceed with the detachment from the centralized systemrequest that came rejection for high costs of renovation of the plant and the charges of detachment. In the face of this situation, the condominium restarts the involuntary expenditure on the basis of its thousandths of ownership for a three -year period, while for individual consumption adopted a debit criterion that was not clear.
The condominium challenged before the justice of the peace there Shareholders’ meeting resolution in the part relating to the approval of the compliance report ordinary management and relative allocation of the heating consumption of the last three years. The condominium, having taken note that by choice of the actress it was not possible to account for the apartment, decided to charge the heating costs (voluntary share) for an amount corresponding to the Maximum caloric power of radiators.
The judge of peace rejected the owner’s questionsconsidering the calculation system adopted by the condominium correct. The question is subjected to the attention of the Court.
The decision of the Court and the distribution of expenses
The condominium can charge the costs for heating, voluntary share, for an amount corresponding to the maximum calorie power of the radiators to the condominium In the face of his refusal to the detachment from the centralized plant for theimpossible application of the criteria of accounting in your property?
The Court fully gave the condominium right.
According to the same judge, in fact, The condominium cannot refuse to proceed with the installation of the thermostatic valves and the tools suitable for accounting; This refusal in fact affects the activity of regulating and the orderly government of the common system, generating management difficulties for the administrator; For court, therefore, it is legitimate the distribution carried out on the basis of the maximum caloric power as the radiators and departors are missing in the apartment, that is, the only tools to guarantee a controlled closure of the heat sources; Consequently, for the same judge it seems reasonable to believe that consumption is equal to the maximum calorie power of the radiator.
A criterion, moreover, at the time when the distribution had been approved, was the most responding to the regulatory dictation not having the appellant – who had led to the pathological situation – offered any concrete alternative criterion able to allow an equal distribution.
