Background
M. [L] is a co-owner in the “Les Universités” residential condominium in France. On 19 November 2018, the co-owners’ general meeting appointed Société Cabinet Terrier as the building’s property manager (syndic). That appointment was subsequently annulled — meaning Cabinet Terrier’s mandate was void from the outset by operation of retroactive nullity.
Despite the annulment of its own appointment, Cabinet Terrier issued a notice on 18 November 2019 convening a general meeting of co-owners for 9 December 2019. On 2 March 2020, M. [L] brought proceedings seeking annulment of both the convening notice and the resulting general meeting, on the ground that Cabinet Terrier lacked any authority to call a meeting once the resolution appointing it had been annulled. He also sought compensation for his resulting losses.
The Riom Court of Appeal (First Civil Chamber), in a judgment of 2 April 2024, rejected M. [L]’s annulment claims. The appellate court reasoned that the challenge could only be treated as a claim for relative nullity — a form of nullity that, under French law, requires the claimant to demonstrate both a fault on the part of the party whose act is impugned and a personal grievance suffered by the claimant. Finding that M. [L] had established neither a fault by Cabinet Terrier nor any personal harm to himself, the court of appeal dismissed his claims and even ordered him to pay damages to the co-owners’ association for bringing abusive proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation granted a partial quashing (cassation partielle) of the Riom judgment. Applying Article 42(2) of the Law of 10 July 1965 on co-ownership and Articles 7 and 29 of the Decree of 17 March 1967, the Court held that when a property manager’s appointment is annulled, the retroactive effect of that annulment strips the manager of the power to convene any general meeting. A convening notice issued by such a manager, and any meeting held pursuant to it, are therefore susceptible to annulment at the request of any co-owner who acts within the two-month limitation period running from notification of the meeting minutes.
Critically, the Court ruled that a co-owner bringing such an annulment claim is not required to demonstrate a personal grievance or any fault on the part of the manager. The court of appeal had erred by treating the defect as giving rise only to relative nullity — a characterisation that imported the grievance and fault requirements. Because the defect was the manager’s total lack of authority to act, the nullity was not of the relative kind, and the additional requirements the appellate court imposed were legally untenable.
The Court annulled the Riom ruling in all respects except for two procedural points (the acknowledgment of Cabinet Terrier’s voluntary intervention in the proceedings and the admissibility of Cabinet Terrier’s own claim to have its mandate validated). The case was remitted to the Montpellier Court of Appeal for fresh determination. The co-owners’ association, Cabinet Terrier, and Cegadim (the former manager joined as a guarantor) were ordered to pay costs and a combined sum of €3,000 to M. [L]’s counsel under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Key Takeaways
- When a property manager’s appointment is annulled, that annulment has retroactive effect and extinguishes the manager’s authority to convene co-owners’ general meetings from the moment of the void appointment — any meeting notice issued in the interim is tainted.
- A co-owner challenging such a meeting notice or the resulting meeting does not need to prove a personal grievance or fault by the manager; the nullity flows automatically from the manager’s lack of authority, not from any harm or misconduct.
- The two-month time limit under Article 42(2) of the 1965 Law still applies: the co-owner must have acted (and apparently did act) within two months of notification of the meeting minutes.
- Classifying this type of defect as “relative nullity” — and thereby requiring proof of grievance and fault — is a legal error that will be corrected on cassation.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies an important and practically recurring problem in French condominium law: what happens to acts taken by a manager whose own appointment is later annulled? The Court of Cassation confirms that the retroactive nullity of the appointment cascades to all acts of authority performed under it, including meeting convocations, without any need for co-owners to establish harm. This strengthens the position of individual co-owners who wish to challenge procedurally defective meetings and prevents buildings from insulating flawed general-meeting decisions behind a requirement to prove personal injury.
For property managers and co-owners’ associations across France, the ruling is a reminder that the validity of a manager’s appointment is foundational: if that appointment falls, so do the formal acts of authority that flow from it. Legal practitioners advising condominium clients should audit the chain of appointment decisions carefully, as a successfully challenged appointment can unravel subsequent meetings regardless of whether any concrete harm can be shown.