Drain column and partial condominium
The presumption of communion provided for by art. 1117 of the Civil Code for sewage drainage systems operates with reference to the part of the system that collects the water coming from the apartments and which is suitable for collective use and enjoyment, with the exclusion of the pipes which, branching off from the condominium column, exclusively serve individually owned real estate units.
The presumption of community is no longer valid when the property, due to its structural and functional characteristics, is intended exclusively for the use or enjoyment of a single real estate unit, or when the original owner has expressly attributed it to exclusive use. In these situations it emerges that the property has its own autonomy and independence and is not linked by a service function to the entire building (Trib. Verona 13 December 2024, n. 2835).
The things, services and systems necessary for the existence and use of the real estate units of only one part of the building belong only to the owners of these units and not to the owners of the real estate units of the other part, with respect to which the relationship of relevance which is the necessary prerequisite of the right of communion is missing. Consequently, the costs of maintenance and conservation of things and systems that serve only part of the building, forming the object of a separate condominium, must be borne only by the owners of the real estate units in this part, according to the general principle of the art. 1123 of the Civil Code, paragraph 3, pursuant to which when a building has multiple staircases, courtyards, flat roofs, works or systems intended to serve a part of the entire building, the costs relating to their maintenance are borne by the group of condominiums that benefit from them (Cass. Civ., section II, 25 October 2018, n. 27058).
Replacement of a waste pipe and criterion for dividing expenses between condominium users: the position of the Court of Cassation
Recently the Supreme Court examined a condominium dispute that arose following the replacement of a sewage drainage pipe that served only part of the condominiums. The central question concerned the correct criterion for dividing the related expenses: whether in equal parts among the users of the column or according to the thousandths of ownership, as claimed by the appellant condominium owner. A condominium owner contested the charge of 283 euros for the replacement of the drain pipe, divided “in equal parts among the condominium owners involved rather than per thousandths of ownership”. The Court rejected the request, deeming the equal distribution of the costs of the waste pipe correct and confirming the accounting of the condominium cavity.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision in its entirety. The condominium owner appealed to the Supreme Court denouncing the violation of the art. 1123 cc: in the appellant’s opinion, in fact, the Court of Appeal had erroneously considered the criterion of distribution into equal parts to be correct in the absence of partial tables. The Court of Cassation accepted the plea, recalling the principle according to which the expenses relating to common parts that serve only some condominiums must be distributed proportionally to the value of the respective properties, using the general thousandths and recalculating the internal ratio between only the condominiums involved. The Court did not agree with the Court of Appeal’s argument according to which, in the absence of partial tables, the only possible criterion would have been equal.
The division into equal parts (“by head”) is legitimate only if provided for by a contractual regulation or unanimously decided by all participants in the condominium (or partial condominium), since it constitutes an exception to the legal criteria that affects individual rights (Cass. Civ., section II, 19/01/2026, n. 1095). The conventional exemption can go as far as dividing the general and maintenance costs of the common areas into equal shares between the condominiums, regardless of the thousandth ownership shares, and can even provide for the total or partial exemption for some of the condominiums from the obligation to participate in the expenses (Civil Cassation, section VI, 07/10/2019, n. 24925).
Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter.
