Challenge a general meeting decision: identify the grievance and go to the justice of the peace

You reread the minutes and something does not sit right: works voted through by a majority that seems too small, an item that was not on the agenda, a decision that only benefits a few. The first useful reflex, even before going back over the figures: note the date of the meeting. That date, and not the date the letter arrived, starts the clock.

A decision of the general meeting (GM) is binding on all co-owners, including those who voted against it. To challenge a general meeting decision, it is not enough to think it is a bad one: you have to go to court, within a short time limit, on grounds the law recognises. Once that time limit has passed, the decision in principle becomes final, even if it was irregular.

The rule is laid down in article 3.92, § 3, of the Civil Code, and is the same throughout Belgium. Co-ownership disputes go before the justice of the peaceGlossaryJudge with jurisdiction, since 1 January 2019, over all disputes relating to the co-ownership of buildings, whatever the amount claimed. A clause in the articles that would refer such disputes to an arbitrator is deemed unwritten. See the glossary.

Can you take action? Four cumulative conditions

An action for annulment rests on four cumulative elements.

First, there must be a decision of the general meeting. An initiative taken by the syndic without a vote is challenged differently, by calling on the syndic, then the co-ownership council and then the meeting. Remedies against the syndic are covered on the page on syndic liability.

Next, you must be a co-owner. An occupant who does not vote, such as a tenant, has a separate regime under article 3.93.

The decision must be irregular, fraudulent or abusive. These three words cover different situations, explained below.

Finally, it must cause you personal harm. This is the condition most easily overlooked when you are right on the form. The irregularity alone is not enough: you must explain how the decision affects you, for example because it imposes a charge on you, restricts the use of your unit or deprived you of the chance to vote with full knowledge of the facts.

Irregular, fraudulent or abusive: what is the difference?

The irregular decision

This is the easiest case to prove, because it can be read in the documents. The decision breaches a rule of law or of the by-laws. Some typical examples:

The thresholds to check are on the page on voting rules and majorities, and the formal requirements for the notice on the page on the notice of general meeting.

The fraudulent decision

Fraud implies a manoeuvre intended to deceive the co-owners or distort the vote: a falsified quote, information about a conflict of interest knowingly concealed, fabricated proxies. It is harder to prove, since intent has to be established.

The abusive decision

A decision can observe every formality and still be abusive. This is referred to as abuse of majority when the majority imposes a decision with no real interest for the co-ownership, or with the aim of favouring certain co-owners to the detriment of others. The court does not have to say whether the decision was the best possible one. It checks whether the majority went beyond the limits of a normal use of its power.

Four months from the date of the meeting

The action must be brought within four months from the date on which the general meeting took place. The starting point is neither receipt of the minutes nor discovery of the irregularity. If the meeting was held on 12 March, the claim must be brought by 12 July at the latest.

The minutes must be sent to you within thirty days of the meeting (art. 3.87, § 12). In the worst case, you therefore have a little over three months left after receiving them. See the page on general meeting minutes to find out what they must contain.

Amicable steps are useful, but they do not suspend the time limit. If the syndic promises to put the item back on the agenda, note the deadline and go to court if nothing is settled in time.

How do you bring a claim before the justice of the peace?

All co-ownership disputes fall to the justice of the peace. Ask the registry which justice of the peace court has territorial jurisdiction, how to bring the claim and what it costs. Before the justice of the peace, you can represent yourself; a lawyer's help remains valuable on a point of procedure or an abuse of majority. The page on the justice of the peace and co-ownership disputes describes how it works.

Our reading: the further the grievance strays from what can be read in the documents, the more a lawyer's help is justified. A late notice is proved with a receipt; an abuse of majority calls for argument.

The action is brought against the owners' association (VME/ACP)GlossaryLegal entity that brings the co-owners together and whose sole purpose is the preservation and management of the building. It acquires legal personality as soon as a first unit is transferred, provided the deed of division and the co-ownership regulations have been transcribed. See the glossary, which is represented by the syndic. Prepare a chronological file: notice, minutes, proxies if they are at issue, documents put to the vote, letters exchanged.

You can ask the court to annul the decision or to amend it, that is, to change it. Before starting proceedings, also weigh up the impact of an annulment: if works have already begun, an annulment may create other difficulties.

On costs, the Civil Code protects the co-owner who wins. When their claim is upheld, they are exempt from any contribution to the common expense for fees and costs, which is shared among the other co-owners. During the proceedings, keep paying your charges: refusing to pay would expose you to recovery proceedings, without helping your claim in any way.

An example timeline

The meeting is held on 12 March. On 3 April, you receive the minutes: facade works were voted through by absolute majority, whereas works affecting the common parts require two thirds. You write to the syndic on 5 April, citing article 3.88 and asking for a new meeting. By the end of May, no reply.

The time limit expires on 12 July. You gather the notice, the minutes, your letter and any reply, then you consult a lawyer or make enquiries at the registry. The claim is brought in early July, within the time limit. If the syndic meanwhile convenes a meeting that votes on the item again correctly, you can reassess whether it is worth continuing.

The other remedies under article 3.92

An action for annulment is not the only tool. If the syndic neglects or abusively refuses to convene a meeting, any co-owner can ask the court to order it to be convened within the time it sets, on the proposal that co-owner determines (art. 3.92, § 4).

Conversely, when a minority of co-owners abusively prevents the meeting from taking a decision by the majority the law requires, any co-owner who is harmed can apply to the court to take the meeting's place and make the required decision (art. 3.92, § 8). This is a useful route when a few votes are blocking essential works.

For an overview of the general meeting and its bodies, go back to the general meeting page.