Condominium meetings are often the scene of delicate decisions that can lead to real legal disputes. This is the case of a recent ruling by the Court of Santa Maria Capua Vetere, which examined the validity of one assembly resolution relating to the ratification of the mandate to a lawyer.
The mandate, already given to represent the condominium in a legal case, was challenged by a condominium owner, who believed that the resolution had been approved without respecting the majorities required by law and in an irregular manner.
This ruling not only clarifies the rules on hiring a lawyer through a condominium meeting, but also reaffirms the importance of demonstrating a concrete interest in being able to appeal a condominium decision.
Advertisement – Advertising
The case in question
The case analyzed by the Court of Santa Maria Capua Vetere originates from a 2011 assembly resolution which had two main objectives: to ratify a mandate given to a lawyer to represent the condominium in a pending legal dispute e increase an expense fund to address the costs associated with ongoing legal actions.
The appellant, a condominium owner of the building, based his appeal on an alleged procedural and regulatory violation. On the one hand, he argued that the resolution had been approved without respecting the qualified majorities required by article 1136 of the Civil Code. This article establishes specific voting requirements, depending on the nature of the decisions made at condominium meetings.
On the other hand, the condominium owner complained about a defect in convening the meetingwhich would have compromised the very legitimacy of the meeting and the decisions taken.
In addition, the appellant highlighted that such decisions could have a significant economic impact, risking creating a disproportionate burden for him. Although he had not actively participated in the resolution, the condominium owner considered that his position was sufficiently damaged to request the intervention of the court.
On the other hand, the condominium countered by underlining that the appellant had been expressly exempted from any economic obligation deriving from the resolution, such as participation in the expense fund. The defense therefore argued that the condominium owner did not have a direct, concrete and current interest in bringing the appeal, an essential element for the legitimacy of a legal action of this type.
The question posed to the judge was therefore not limited to the formal validity of the resolution, but also to verifying the existence of a legitimate interest on the part of the appellant. This interest is a key principle in legal disputes, as it ensures that judicial proceedings are not used for specious matters or those without real practical impact.
Advertisement – Advertising
The court’s decision
The Court of Santa Maria Capua Vetere, with sentence no. 3502/2024, has decided to reject the appeal advanced by the condominium ownerjustifying the decision on two main fronts: the lack of concrete interest in taking action and the nature of the contested resolution.
The question ofinterest in taking action was addressed in depth, underlining that the appellant did not suffer any concrete damagedirected or immediate by the contested meeting resolution. The judge highlighted how the condominium owner had been exempted from any economic obligation deriving from the resolution, a condition which eliminated any potential prejudice and made the legal action groundless. The lack of real damage or immediate financial damage is an essential element to validate the interest in taking action, an essential requirement for starting a dispute.
Furthermore, the Court carefully analyzed the nature of the contested resolution, highlighting that it was not an autonomous and innovative decision, but a simple ratification of a mandate already granted previously to a lawyer.
This confirmatory nature of the resolution led the judge to conclude that the qualified majorities envisaged by article 1136 of the Civil Code were not necessary, given that it was not a resolution aimed at introducing new expenses or extraordinary obligations for condominium owners.
In ruling on the issue, the Court also recalled jurisprudential precedents, highlighting that any formal defects in the convocation of the meeting, although relevant, can be remedied by elements such as the participation of the condominium owner in the meeting itself or, as in this case, by the absence of direct consequences deriving from the contested decision.
This approach follows a consolidated line of interpretation, according to which the formalism in condominium procedures must be balanced with the substance of the decisions taken, especially when no violations of individual or collective rights of the condominium owners emerge.
The sentence, therefore, not only confirmed the validity of the contested resolution, but also reiterated the centrality of concrete and current interest as a criterion for evaluating the legitimacy of legal actions in the condominium context. This decision is part of a clear regulatory and jurisprudential framework, which aims to avoid an abuse of the judicial instrument for specious disputes or those without real legal basis.
