In the complex world of condominium law, the management of common spaces represents one of the main sources of conflict between condominiums. A recent ruling from the Court of Paola, n. 805 of 22 October 2024, addressed a significant case on the subject, clarifying the limits of condominium resolutions relating to the exclusive use of common areas.
At the center of the dispute were two resolutions, one from 2000 and one from 2016, which had authorized a condominium owner to use part of the condominium courtyard for parking a car and installing an awning.
The affair, which has lasted for years, has raised a crucial question: to what extent can the condominium assembly decide in favor of a single condominium owner, to the detriment of others, the exclusive use of the common areas?
The ruling not only declared the resolutions in question null and void, but also established the validity of subsequent meeting minutes, without the president’s signature, opening a reflection on regulatory practices and limits.
Advertisement – Advertising
The case: when parking becomes a reason for condominium dispute
The case examined by the Court of Paola represents an emblematic example of the difficulties that can arise in the management of the common parts of a condominium. The controversy originated from two assembly resolutions adopted in 2000 and 2016.
The first resolution, with the favorable vote of the actor, authorized a condominium owner toexclusive use of a portion of the condominium courtyard as parkingmotivating it as a temporary concession and as a courtesy.
The second resolution, however, approved despite the actor himself voting against, allowed the same condominium owner to install a sunshade over the space used for parking.
These concessions, although described as temporary, have produced long-lasting effects, effectively transforming a common part of the condominium into a space for exclusive use. This situation has aroused the discontent of some condominiums, who have raised doubts about the legitimacy of the decisions adopted by the condominium assembly, considering them to be in contrast with the principle of equal use of the common areas provided for by the art. 1117 of the Civil Code.
The plaintiff, in addition to contesting the validity of the two resolutions, requested recognition of the validity of a subsequent resolution, dated 2017, aimed at restoring the common use of the space. However, this resolution lacked the signature of the president of the assembly, a circumstance which fueled further tensions and doubts about its legitimacy.
Advertisement – Advertising
Common spaces, exclusive concessions and the limits of the law
The dispute revolves around fundamental principles of condominium law, in particular those that regulate the use and management of the common areas. The art. 1117 of the Civil Code establishes that the common parts of a building are intended for the collective use and enjoyment of condominiums, according to a principle of equality. This means that no condominium owner can be arbitrarily excluded from using these spaces, unless decisions are adopted unanimously or in accordance with specific regulations.
The Court of Paola recalled various jurisprudential guidelines to clarify the distinction between null and voidable condominium resolutions. According to consolidated jurisprudence (Cass. Sez. Un. n. 4806/2005), resolutions are void which:
- They affect individual rights over common things or services;
- They contravene public order regulations;
- They concern objects not within the competence of the assembly.
In this case, the exclusive concession of a part of the condominium courtyard for parking, without unanimity, was considered a violation of the collective right to use the common spaces, rendering the 2000 resolution null and void. A similar assessment was applied to the resolution of 2016 for the installation of the awning, considered an unauthorized limitation on common use.
Regarding the 2017 resolution, the Court referred to another jurisprudential principle (Cass. Ordinance no. 27163/2017), which establishes that the president’s failure to sign the minutes of the meeting does not in itself lead to the annulment of the decision. This failure to sign does not affect the validity of the resolution, but only its probative value, unless explicitly required by internal regulations.
Advertisement – Advertising
The Court’s decision
The Court of Paola, with sentence no. 805 of 22 October 2024, accepted the submitted request by the plaintiff, declaring the nullity of the meeting resolutions of 2000 and 2016. These resolutions, according to the judge, violated the principle of equal use of the common areas enshrined in the art. 1117 of the Civil Code.
The exclusive concession of a space in the condominium courtyard for parking and the authorization to install an awning were deemed to be detrimental to the rights of other condominium owners, since they attributed an exclusive advantage to a single participant in the condominium.
Furthermore, the Court confirmed the validity of the 2017 resolution, which aimed to remedy the situation, despite lacking the signature of the president of the assembly. The decision was based on the orientation of the Court of Cassation, according to which the lack of this signature does not constitute a reason for the nullity or annulment of the resolution, but only affects the probative value of the report.
This clarification reiterated the importance of distinguishing between formal and substantial defects in condominium resolutions.
Finally, the Court sentenced the defendant to pay the legal costs, underlining the need to strictly respect collective rights in condominium contexts to avoid conflicts and prolonged disputes.
Advertisement – Advertising
How to avoid conflicts over common spaces
The ruling of the Court of Paola offers important food for thought for condominium administrators, condominium owners and professionals in the sector. Firstly, it reiterates that assembly decisions relating to the common areas must respect the principle of equality between condominiums. The granting of exclusive use, unless unanimous, is not permitted and may lead to the nullity of the resolutions.
For condominium administrators, this represents a reminder of the need to pay particular attention in drafting minutes and adopting resolutions regarding shared spaces. Ensuring transparency and compliance with the rules can avoid disputes and maintain a climate of collaboration between condominium owners.
Furthermore, the ruling clarifies that formal defects, such as the absence of a signature on the minutes of the meeting, are not necessarily sufficient to invalidate the validity of the resolutions. This aspect is crucial to avoid procedural details becoming pretexts for disputes, as long as the content of the decisions respects the rights of all participants in the condominium.
Finally, the decision highlights how the common areas are a collective asset that cannot be privatized without unanimous consent. Condominiums, before accepting similar concessions, should consult a legal expert to evaluate the legal consequences and ensure that each decision is in line with the regulations.
