EV charging points (IRVE) in co-ownership: obligations and liability of the property manager (2026)

A co-owner tells you that he has just bought an electric vehicle and wants to install a charging point on his underground parking space. Another objects on the ground that it will "trip the power for the whole building". The property manager (syndic) does not know whether to call a general meeting, refuse, or let it happen. This situation recurs in thousands of French co-ownerships (copropriétés), and it exposes the syndic to real liability where it blocks a project that it should have facilitated. This guide sets out the right to a charging point (droit à la prise), the exact procedure at the general meeting, the pre-equipment obligations arising from the Mobility Orientation Act, the allocation of costs between the applicant and the association of co-owners (syndicat), and the areas of liability of the syndic in 2026.

The right to a charging point: a principle that prevails over the co-ownership's refusal

The right to a charging point is the entitlement of an occupant of a multi-occupancy building to install, at his own expense, a charging point for an electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle on his parking space, without having to obtain the prior consent of the general meeting. This mechanism is codified in Articles R.113-11 et seq. of the French Construction and Housing Code (CCH), which took over and strengthened the scheme introduced in 2011.

The guiding idea is simple: charging an electric vehicle is a right recognised in favour of the resident, not a favour that the co-owners as a body may grant or refuse as they see fit. The co-ownership therefore has no right of veto. It has only a restricted right of objection, which it must exercise before the court and on a specific ground.

Who can rely on the right to a charging point

The right to a charging point benefits a wide range of persons. It covers the owner-occupier co-owner, but also the landlord co-owner and the tenant. A tenant who wants a charging point notifies his request to the owner, who has a period in which to react before the request is passed on to the syndic. This approach prevents an occupant from being held hostage to the inertia of his landlord or of the co-ownership.

In practical terms, the scope covers:

• spaces located in an enclosed and covered car park (basement, garage box, indoor car park);
• individual spaces of which the resident has the use, whether held in full ownership or allocated for exclusive use;
• the installation of a dedicated charging point as well as a simple connection to a collective infrastructure that is already in place.

The only admissible grounds of objection

The co-ownership may object to a request under the right to a charging point only by bringing the matter before the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire), within three months of notification of the request, and on a serious and legitimate ground. The CCH cites two main cases: the existence of a charging infrastructure already installed that meets the applicant's need, or a decision by the syndicat to carry out a collective installation itself within a reasonable time.

Outside those cases, an objection of principle (vague concern, aesthetic objection, hostility to electric mobility) is not a serious and legitimate ground. If the syndic or the syndicat lets the three-month period expire without bringing the matter before the court, silence amounts to no objection, and the works may begin.

The procedure at the general meeting: information, not authorisation

This is where most of the obstruction arises, often through a misunderstanding of the legal mechanism. Many syndics believe that an individual charging point must be "voted" by the meeting. That is wrong, and this confusion is a direct source of liability.

Prior notification to the syndic

The applicant sends the syndic, by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, a detailed description of the planned installation, together with a diagram or technical plan. This file allows the syndic to assess the impact on the common parts, in particular the routing of the cables from the electrical panel to the parking space.

The content of this notification is decisive. A precise file (intended power, type of individual metering, route of the line, IRVE-qualified installer) starts the objection period running and protects the resident. An incomplete file weakens the request and gives the syndic a legitimate ground to ask for further information.

Entry on the agenda: for information

The syndic must enter the question on the agenda of the next general meeting, but solely for information. The meeting does not have to approve the individual project: it takes note of it. On that occasion, it may decide to bring the matter before the court if it considers that it has a serious and legitimate ground, or decide to launch a collective infrastructure.

This distinction between information and authorisation is the heart of the subject. Refusing to enter the question, or presenting it as a resolution put to a vote under the majority of Article 25 of Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965 so as to defeat it, amounts to depriving the resident of a right. Such conduct engages the liability of the syndic.

The distinction from a collective installation

The general meeting, by contrast, regains its full decision-making power when the building is to be equipped with a collective infrastructure, that is, a common system (horizontal cable run, dedicated panel, power management) allowing each space to be connected afterwards. Since the Climate and Resilience Act No. 2021-1104 of 22 August 2021, the question of installing such a collective infrastructure, where it is financed by the syndicat, must be placed on the agenda, and the decision requires the simple majority of Article 24 of the 1965 Act. The rules on convening, voting and majorities applicable to these decisions are set out in our complete guide to the co-ownership general meeting.

This strategic choice changes the logic of the building. Rather than multiplying uncoordinated individual installations that overload the panel and complicate safety, the co-ownership builds a host infrastructure to which each resident connects. It is generally the most rational solution in buildings where several requests appear within a few months.

The pre-equipment obligations arising from the LOM Act

The Mobility Orientation Act (loi d'orientation des mobilités, LOM) No. 2019-1428 of 24 December 2019, supplemented by Decree No. 2020-1720 of 24 December 2020, introduced pre-equipment obligations that apply to new buildings and, in some cases, to existing buildings. Pre-equipment consists of installing in advance the conduits, cable trays and power supply provisions needed to accommodate charging points at a later stage, without having to break into the structure.

New and heavily renovated buildings

For new residential buildings with a car park, the regulations require a significant share of the spaces to be pre-equipped, in order to anticipate future needs. Building permit applications filed since 11 March 2021 are subject to these reinforced requirements. The aim is to avoid the prohibitive cost of pre-cabling carried out after the event, in a building that has already been delivered.

Where a co-ownership undertakes major renovation affecting the car park or the electrical installation serving it, the pre-equipment obligations may also apply. The syndic has an interest in building this aspect in from the design stage of any heavy works programme, failing which it may have to revisit the matter at its own expense.

Existing non-residential buildings

Existing non-residential buildings with a car park of more than twenty spaces were required to have at least one charging point by 1 January 2025. This deadline concerns in particular office buildings and commercial complexes. In a mixed co-ownership (shops, offices and homes), the syndic must identify the nature of the units in order to determine which obligations apply to which building.

What pre-equipment does not replace

A point that is often misunderstood: pre-equipment is not a charging point. It creates the conditions for hosting one, but each resident must then fund and connect his own charging point, or connect to a collective infrastructure. A pre-equipped building makes the right to a charging point easier and reduces its cost, but does not dispense with the notification procedure. Conversely, the existence of suitable pre-equipment may, in some cases, be a factor justifying the co-ownership in proposing an alternative solution to the applicant.

Allocation of costs: who pays for what

The financial question crystallises most of the tension. The principle is clear: the right to a charging point is exercised at the applicant's expense, not at the expense of the community of co-owners.

The cost of an individual installation

The co-owner or tenant who installs a charging point on his space bears the full cost: equipment, installation by an IRVE-qualified installer, connection to the panel, and an individual consumption metering device. The co-ownership does not have to fund an installation from which a single resident benefits. Individual metering is essential: it ensures that the electricity consumed by the charging point is billed to its user and not spread across the common charges.

In a building where several residents equip themselves in succession on a collective infrastructure, each pays for his own charging point and consumption, while the elements that are genuinely common are allocated as determined by the meeting.

Funding the collective infrastructure

Where the co-ownership decides to create a collective infrastructure, three arrangements coexist in practice. The first has the syndicat bear the cost, the expense being shared among co-owners according to their shares (tantièmes) or a key voted at the meeting. The second, very widespread, rests on an agreement with an infrastructure operator: the operator funds, installs and operates the collective cable run, the co-ownership bears no initial investment, and each resident who connects pays a subscription and his consumption. The third draws on public aid, notably the ADVENIR programme, which subsidises part of the installations in co-ownerships.

The choice between these arrangements is an economic and legal trade-off. An agreement with an operator preserves the syndicat's cash position but commits the building for a long period, with takeover and billing clauses that need to be examined closely. Direct funding gives the co-ownership control but requires investment capacity and a favourable vote.

The electrical riser and the grid connection

One technical aspect conditions everything else: the available power. If the panel and the rising main cannot absorb several charging points at the same time, a reinforcement of the grid connection with the distribution network operator (Enedis in most cases) becomes necessary. Where this reinforcement benefits the whole building, it falls within a collective decision and shared funding. Power management systems often make it possible to avoid this additional cost by smoothing the load between charging points, and are worth studying before any heavy reinforcement.

The syndic's liability in the event of obstruction

The syndic is the agent of the association of co-owners (syndicat des copropriétaires). In that capacity, it carries out the decisions of the meeting and administers the building. In matters of IRVE (electric vehicle charging infrastructure) in co-ownership, its liability may be engaged on several grounds where it obstructs a legitimate right to a charging point.

The obligation to enter the item and pass it on

A syndic that refuses to enter the question on the agenda of the meeting, or that neglects to do so despite a regular notification, fails in its obligations. The resident may then request that it be entered and, in the event of continued obstruction, bring the matter before the judge. The syndic's fault is clear here: it has deprived the applicant of the exercise of a right recognised by the CCH. Its contractual liability towards the syndicat, or even its personal liability in the case of a separable fault (faute détachable), may be sought.

Take a co-owner in a building of thirty units who duly notifies his request by registered letter. The syndic, under pressure from a few hostile co-owners, "forgets" to enter the question on two successive meeting agendas. The resident loses a year, has to give up a convenient parking space, and starts litigation. The syndic is exposed to compensating the loss of enjoyment and the costs incurred, and its breach may justify the termination of its mandate. The procedure for terminating the mandate, its time limits and a model termination letter are set out in our article on changing syndic.

Confusing objection with abstention

The syndic must not present the right to a charging point as a resolution to be adopted by the meeting. If it puts to the vote the authorisation of an individual charging point and the meeting refuses it, that resolution is irregular: the meeting had no need to authorise what the law permits as of right. Such a refusal vote is liable to be annulled, and the syndic that orchestrated it takes a risk. Its role is to inform the meeting of the possibility of a judicial objection, not to manufacture a collective refusal. The remedies and time limits for challenging such a decision are set out in our article on challenging the management or a decision of the syndic.

The duty of advice and diligence

Beyond obstruction, the syndic bears a duty of diligence. Faced with several requests, it must alert the co-ownership to the advantages of a collective infrastructure, commission a technical study, compare the funding solutions and put the relevant questions on the agenda. A passive syndic that allows uncoordinated individual installations to accumulate, to the point of overloading the network and compromising safety, may find its management criticised. Good practice is to anticipate: from the second or third request, the question of a host infrastructure deserves to be examined.

Safety and insurance issues

The syndic also ensures the safety of the collective installation and compliance with the technical rules applicable to charging points. A charging point installed by an IRVE-qualified installer, with the required protection devices, reduces the fire risk and insurance difficulties. The syndic has an interest in requiring, as part of the notification, proof of a compliant installation and in informing the building's insurer of the presence of charging installations, without turning this requirement into a dilatory pretext for delaying a project.

Conclusion: the syndic must facilitate, not arbitrate

The underlying logic has been constant since 2011 and has only been reinforced by the LOM Act and the Climate and Resilience Act: the right to a charging point is a right of the resident, and the co-ownership has only a narrow right of objection, exercised before the court and on a serious and legitimate ground. A syndic that ignores it, through ignorance or out of complacency towards reluctant co-owners, protects no one: it exposes the syndicat to litigation that is lost in advance and engages its own liability.

The soundest position, legally and economically, is never to block a regular individual request and to anticipate the transition by examining, from the first requests, a collective infrastructure backed by an operator agreement or by the aid available. Before any meeting at which a charging point request appears, have your adviser check that the question is entered for information and not put to an authorisation vote: it is this error of characterisation that triggers most disputes.

Frequently asked questions

Can a co-owner install a charging point without the consent of the general meeting?

Yes. The right to a charging point, codified in Articles R.113-11 et seq. of the French Construction and Housing Code, allows an occupant to install a charging point at his own expense on his space without authorisation from the meeting. The meeting is merely informed. The co-ownership may object only by bringing the matter before the judicial court within three months, and on a serious and legitimate ground.

What are the valid grounds of objection for the co-ownership?

The admitted grounds are limited. The French Construction and Housing Code essentially refers to the existence of a charging infrastructure already installed that meets the need, or the decision of the syndicat to carry out a collective installation within a reasonable time. Hostility of principle, an aesthetic concern or an unreasoned objection do not constitute a serious and legitimate ground.

Who pays for the installation of a charging point in a co-ownership?

The individual installation is entirely at the applicant's expense: equipment, installation by an IRVE-qualified installer, connection and individual metering of consumption. The co-ownership funds only what belongs to a genuinely collective infrastructure, decided at the meeting by the majority of Article 24 of the Law of 10 July 1965. The ADVENIR programme may subsidise part of the installations in co-ownerships.

Does the LOM Act require my co-ownership to install charging points?

Not for existing residential buildings, which remain subject to the logic of the right to a charging point. The pre-equipment obligations of the Mobility Orientation Act No. 2019-1428 of 24 December 2019 mainly concern new buildings and heavy renovations. Existing non-residential buildings with more than twenty spaces were required to have at least one charging point by 1 January 2025.

What does a syndic risk by refusing to enter a charging point request on the agenda?

It engages its liability. By depriving the resident of the exercise of a right recognised by law, the syndic commits a fault capable of justifying compensation for the loss of enjoyment and the costs incurred, or even the calling into question of its mandate. Nor may it put to the vote an authorisation that has no place, failing which the resolution may be annulled.

Is an individual meter needed for each charging point?

Yes, it is the rule of good management and the condition of a fair allocation. Individual metering ensures that the electricity consumed by each charging point is billed to its user and not charged to the building's common charges. Collective infrastructure solutions systematically include a metering and per-user billing system.

Is it better to have individual charging points or a collective infrastructure?

As soon as several requests appear, a collective infrastructure is generally preferable. It avoids overloading the electrical panel, secures the installation, allows power management and pools the connection. The decision is taken by the simple majority of Article 24 of the 1965 Act, and an agreement with an infrastructure operator may spare the co-ownership any initial investment.