Condominium Gates: Simple or Qualified Majority? The Cassation Court's Stance with Ruling No. 16148/2025

The management of common areas in condominiums often raises questions, particularly concerning interventions related to security, such as the installation of gates. The crucial question is: do such works require a qualified majority, typical of "innovations," or a simple majority? The Court of Cassation, with ruling No. 16148 of June 16, 2025, has provided essential clarification, defining the boundaries between innovation and the regulation of use.

The Regulatory Framework: Innovations and Majorities

The Civil Code distinguishes between works in condominiums. Article 1120 of the Civil Code defines innovations as modifications that alter the substance or purpose of common areas, requiring, pursuant to Article 1136, paragraph 5, of the Civil Code, a qualified majority (two-thirds of the building's value). This provision protects the interests of co-owners against substantial changes. However, not all interventions on common areas fall within this strict category.

The Cassation Court's Ruling: A Crucial Distinction

Ruling No. 16148/2025 by the Second Civil Section of the Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. M. F. and reported by Dr. R. G., addresses the case of gate installation. In the dispute between D. (G. G.) and C. (E. C.), the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, consolidating a precedent.

In matters of condominium buildings, a resolution by the assembly that orders the installation of gates at the entrance of the condominium area, to regulate pedestrian and vehicular traffic by preventing indiscriminate entry by outsiders, does not concern an innovation and therefore does not require approval by a number of votes representing two-thirds of the building's value, as it pertains to the use and regulation of the common property, without altering its function or purpose, nor does it suppress or limit the co-owners' right of enjoyment.

This ruling clarifies that the installation of gates for security purposes is not an innovation. The reason lies in the fact that such work:

• Does not alter the function or purpose of the access area.
• Does not suppress or significantly limit the co-owners' right of enjoyment.

The intervention aims to regulate the use of the common property for security reasons, not to modify its nature or preclude its use. Consequently, a simple majority (Article 1136, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code) is sufficient, as already supported in consistent rulings such as No. 4340 of 2013.

Security and Balancing of Interests

This interpretation facilitates the adoption of essential security measures. The need to protect property and residents is growing, and the Court of Cassation's stance allows for the implementation of such interventions without the procedural burdens of qualified majorities. This achieves a balance between the protection of collective security and the maintenance of individual rights of enjoyment, provided that the work does not involve substantial alterations or excessive limitations.

Conclusions and Practical Advice

Ruling No. 16148/2025 is an important reference for condominium law. It reiterates that the installation of gates for security falls under the regulation of the use of common areas and does not require a qualified majority. This simplifies assembly decisions aimed at improving security, provided that the interventions do not alter the function or purpose and do not limit co-owners' enjoyment. For administrators and co-owners, it is crucial to assess the nature of the intervention to ensure the correct application of the rules and prevent disputes.