Commentary on Judgment No. 16231 of 2024: The Distinction Between Associative and Contractual Relationships in Housing Cooperatives

The very recent judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 16231 of June 11, 2024, addresses a highly relevant issue for the world of housing cooperatives, clarifying the distinction between associative and contractual relationships between members and cooperatives. This aspect is fundamental to understanding the rights and duties of each member and the limitations that the law imposes on cooperatives, especially regarding requests for additional financial contributions.

Context of the Judgment

The dispute arose from the cooperative's request for a financial contribution from its members to cover the mortgage taken out for the construction of the building complex. The Court had to assess whether such a request was legitimate, considering the principle that distinguishes the two relationships: the associative one, arising from adherence to the social contract, and the contractual one, which stems from the purchase of the property. The Court established that requests for financial contributions cannot affect the rights acquired by members through the housing assignment contract.

Headnote of the Judgment

COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (DEFINITION, CHARACTERISTICS, DISTINCTIONS, TYPES: LIMITED AND UNLIMITED LIABILITY) - IN GENERAL Housing cooperative - Assignment of housing following the execution of the purchase contract - Request for price adjustment - Inadmissibility - Conditions - Case law. A member of a cooperative, beneficiary of the mutualistic service provided by the latter, is party to two distinct relationships: one - of an associative nature - which directly derives from adherence to the social contract and the consequent acquisition of membership status, the other which derives from the bilateral exchange contract by virtue of which they acquire the property or service provided by the entity; therefore, in case of dispute over the legitimacy of contributions levied by the society on the member in housing cooperatives, where the acquisition by members of the ownership of the housing unit – for the realization of which the entity was established – passes through the stipulation of an exchange contract in which the cooperative acts as the seller and the member as the buyer, it is necessary to verify whether the contributions requested from the member affect the exchange relationship, translating into additional burdens compared to the sale price, in which case the acts of the society are incapable of affecting the rights deriving from the housing assignment contract and therefore have no effect on the member, or affect the associative relationship, from which the obligation to make contributions and payments for common organizational and administrative expenses provided for by the statute arises. (In this case, applying the said principle, the Supreme Court quashed the appealed judgment which, without clarifying which of the two relationships described above it referred to, had deemed legitimate a spending resolution that required each member, well after the housing unit assignment, a financial contribution for the payment of the mortgage taken out by the cooperative for the construction of the building complex subject to the social relationship).

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The decision of the Court of Cassation has significant implications for members of housing cooperatives. In particular, some crucial points are highlighted:

• The distinction between associative and contractual relationships is essential for the protection of members' rights.
• Requests for financial contributions from cooperatives cannot affect rights already acquired by members.
• It is crucial for cooperatives to clarify which are the common expenses and which are the contributions requested from members, to avoid future disputes.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 16231 of 2024 represents an important step in protecting the rights of members of housing cooperatives. It clarifies that spending resolutions must be in line with the rights acquired by members and cannot be configured as additional burdens compared to the sales contract. This principle not only protects members but also contributes to greater transparency and fairness in the management of housing cooperatives.