Condominium Resolutions and Exclusive Property: Nullity Without Unanimous Consent According to Ordinance No. 16893 of 2025

Life in a condominium requires a delicate balance between individual rights and collective interests. A critical point is the limit of the assembly's decision-making power, especially when resolutions affect the exclusive property of individual condominium owners. The Supreme Court of Cassation, with Ordinance No. 16893 of June 24, 2025, has provided fundamental clarification, reaffirming an indispensable principle for the protection of owners and proper condominium administration.

The Limits of the Assembly and the Protection of Private Property

The case examined by the Court of Cassation involved C. A. and I. and concerned an assembly resolution that established access to the roof (a common area pursuant to art. 1117, no. 1, c.c.) through exclusive property. The Court of Appeal of Naples had initially rejected the challenges, but the Supreme Court quashed that decision, stating that the assembly cannot dispose of assets that do not fall within its direct purview.

In the context of building condominiums, it is not within the assembly's purview to deal with assets exclusively owned by individual condominium owners or third parties. Therefore, a condominium resolution that mandates access to the building's roof, a common area pursuant to art. 1117, no. 1, c.c., without the unanimous consent of the condominium owners, to occur by passing over the exclusive property of the owner of a single real estate unit, is null and void.

This maxim is a cornerstone of condominium law: a resolution that imposes passage over private property to access a common area is fundamentally null and void, unless it has been approved with the unanimous consent of all condominium owners. Nullity, unlike voidability, renders the resolution ineffective from its inception and challengeable without time limits. The foundation lies in the protection of property rights, protected by the Constitution and the Civil Code, which cannot be compromised by a majority decision.

Consequences of Nullity and Legal References

Article 1135 of the Civil Code lists the powers of the assembly, which focus on the management and preservation of common areas, excluding the faculty to affect exclusive property rights. Any modification that involves a limitation or the establishment of an easement on private property requires an act of disposition that demands the unanimous consent of all affected owners, and cannot be imposed by a simple majority.

This ruling has significant practical implications:

• Administrators must carefully evaluate proposed resolutions that may, even indirectly, affect exclusive properties.
• Condominium owners have the right to object to resolutions that violate their private property sphere, and can challenge them without time limits.
• The establishment of real rights over exclusive properties (such as a right of way) always requires the written and unanimous consent of the involved condominium owners.

Conclusions: A Warning for Proper Condominium Management

Ordinance No. 16893 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation reaffirms the primacy of individual property rights in condominiums. No assembly majority can validly dispose of private property without the unanimous consent of its owner. This principle is essential to ensure legal certainty and prevent abuses, promoting fair condominium management that respects the prerogatives of each condominium owner. Administrators and owners are urged to exercise the utmost care in distinguishing what is common from what is exclusive, always acting in full compliance with the law.