Internal rules of a co-ownership: what value compared with the co-ownership regulations?

A co-owner receives a letter from the property manager (syndic) complaining that he hung laundry on his balcony, citing the residence's "internal rules" (règlement intérieur). Another discovers that a notice in the lobby now bars children from the courtyard after 6 pm. In both cases the same question arises: do these "internal rules" carry the same force as the co-ownership regulations (règlement de copropriété), and can they really impose such constraints? The two documents are often confused, with very concrete consequences for what each occupant can or cannot be required to accept. This article distinguishes the two texts, explains the conditions in which internal rules become enforceable, and details how to challenge an abusive clause in a co-ownership (copropriété).

Co-ownership regulations and internal rules: two documents not to be confused

The co-ownership regulations, the founding and mandatory text

The co-ownership regulations are the reference document for every building subject to the co-ownership regime. Their existence and content are governed by Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965 establishing the status of co-ownership of built property, and by its implementing decree No. 67-223 of 17 March 1967.

Article 8 of the Law of 10 July 1965 assigns them a precise content. They determine the intended use of the private and common parts, and the conditions of their enjoyment. They set the rules on the administration of the common parts and, above all, they establish the schedule allocating charges among the co-owners according to categories of expenditure.

This document has a dual legal nature which explains its full force. It is both contractual, since it binds the co-owners to one another as a contract would, and regulatory, since it organises the collective operation of the building. To be enforceable against everyone, including successive purchasers and tenants, it must be published at the land registry (service de la publicité foncière). This publication is the key to its enforceability against third parties: a purchaser is deemed to be aware of it from the signing of the deed, which systematically refers to it.

The internal rules, a document unknown to the 1965 Law

Unlike the co-ownership regulations, the internal rules of a co-ownership are not defined by any provision of the 1965 statute. The law does not organise them, does not set their content, and does not recognise any value of their own. They are a practice born of co-ownerships' need to govern daily life with concrete rules that are more flexible and more detailed than those of the co-ownership regulations.

In practice, the internal rules gather practical instructions: hours of use of a swimming pool or a common room, waste sorting arrangements, rules for using the lift, management of visitor parking spaces, conditions of access to the bicycle room, noise control. These are implementing measures, intended to specify how to live together in compliance with the co-ownership regulations.

Another confusion should also be avoided: the term "internal rules" appears in the Construction and Housing Code (Code de la construction et de l'habitation), in particular in the annexes to Article R353-159 on subsidised residences and hostels. These internal rules, annexed to and initialled by the parties to the residence contract, fall under a completely different regime from that of co-ownership. The similarity of vocabulary should not mislead.

What legal value do internal rules have?

A document strictly subordinate to the co-ownership regulations

The value of the internal rules depends entirely on that of the co-ownership regulations. The principle is simple: the internal rules may never contradict the co-ownership regulations, nor add obligations or restrictions that the latter do not provide for. They rank lower in the hierarchy.

This subordination has two practical consequences. First, if an instruction in the internal rules conflicts with a clause of the co-ownership regulations, the co-ownership regulations prevail. Second, a provision of the internal rules that would restrict the co-owners' rights further than the co-ownership regulations do has no binding force.

Take a concrete illustration. The co-ownership regulations authorise the use of balconies without any particular restriction. Internal rules that flatly prohibited drying laundry there would introduce a new restriction on the right to enjoy the private parts. Such a prohibition, if it does not appear in the co-ownership regulations, cannot be imposed by the internal rules alone. It requires an amendment of the co-ownership regulations, which is subject to strict majority rules.

The condition of enforceability: a vote at the general meeting

For internal rules to have any chance of being enforceable against the co-owners, they must have been adopted by the general meeting (assemblée générale), the only body empowered to take decisions binding on the collective. Internal rules drafted by the property manager alone, or posted on the initiative of the co-ownership council (conseil syndical) without a vote, have no binding value. At best they are a recommendation.

The applicable majority depends on the nature of the measure. Article 24 of the Law of 10 July 1965 sets the majority of the votes cast by the co-owners present, represented or voting by correspondence for ordinary administrative decisions. Measures affecting the arrangements for enjoyment of the common parts may fall under Article 24, whereas those affecting the conditions of enjoyment of the private parts or amending the co-ownership regulations fall under the more demanding majorities provided for in Articles 25 and 26.

This is where the essential difference lies. Internal rules voted at a general meeting, in compliance with these majorities and within the limits of mere arrangements for use, are binding on the co-owners. By contrast, as soon as they encroach on the rights defined by the co-ownership regulations, the procedure for amending the latter must be followed, with the corresponding enhanced majority. The applicable majority regimes and the cases where unanimity is required are detailed in our article on the amendment of the co-ownership regulations.

Unpublished internal rules are not enforceable in the same way as the co-ownership regulations

Unlike the co-ownership regulations, the internal rules are not published at the land registry. They are therefore not automatically enforceable against successive purchasers in the same way. A new co-owner is bound by the co-ownership regulations by the mere fact of the acquisition, but is bound by internal rules only to the extent that they were properly adopted by the general meeting and brought to his or her attention.

For tenants, the logic is comparable. The landlord must annex to the lease the extracts of the co-ownership regulations relating to the intended use of the building and to the enjoyment and use of the private and common parts. Validly voted internal rules may be passed on to the tenant, who must comply with the rules of everyday use, but they cannot impose on the tenant constraints that the co-ownership regulations do not provide for.

Distinguishing a simple rule of use from an abusive clause

What the notion of an abusive clause in a co-ownership really covers

The expression abusive clause in a co-ownership is widely used, but it calls for a clarification of vocabulary. In consumer law, an abusive clause refers to a significant imbalance between a professional and a consumer. This mechanism does not apply to relations between co-owners, who are not in a consumer relationship.

In a co-ownership, the relevant tool is the clause deemed unwritten (réputée non écrite), provided for by Article 43 of the Law of 10 July 1965. This article provides that all clauses contrary to the mandatory provisions of the law and of its implementing decree are deemed unwritten. In other words, an unlawful clause is treated as never having existed, without the need to annul the whole of the regulations. On the mandatory clauses of the regulations, clauses deemed unwritten and their enforceability against purchasers, see our analysis of the content of the co-ownership regulations.

When an individual speaks of an "abusive clause" in the co-ownership regulations or internal rules, he or she is in fact most often referring to a clause deemed unwritten: a provision that contradicts a mandatory rule or that infringes the co-owners' rights disproportionately.

Examples of fragile clauses or clauses without value

Certain provisions found in internal rules or co-ownership regulations are particularly exposed to challenge. Several are set out below in concrete terms:

• a clause prohibiting a co-owner from practising a liberal profession in his or her lot, although the co-ownership regulations classify the building as mixed residential and professional use
• a clause imposing an allocation of charges that takes no account of the objective utility of the services and items of equipment for each lot, contrary to the criterion set by Article 10 of the Law of 10 July 1965
• a clause in the internal rules prohibiting the keeping of any domestic animal, although such a general prohibition conflicts with the protective rules in this area
• a clause reserving the use of certain common parts to a category of co-owners without any basis in the co-ownership regulations
• a clause prohibiting a sign on the door of an authorised professional premises, which would deprive of substance the right to carry on the activity provided for

One should be careful not to conclude too quickly that a rule is unlawful. A rule that merely organises the hours of use of a shared facility, without depriving anyone of a right, is generally valid. The whole difficulty lies in separating the lawful arrangement for use from the disguised restriction that cuts into a right recognised by the co-ownership regulations.

How to challenge an unlawful clause or internal rules

Challenging the general meeting decision adopting the internal rules

Where internal rules, or a clause of them, are adopted by a resolution of the general meeting, a dissenting or absent co-owner may challenge that decision before the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire). Article 42, paragraph 2, of the Law of 10 July 1965 confines this action to a period of two months from notification of the minutes of the general meeting.

This period is short and mandatory. Once it has expired, the decision becomes final and it will no longer be possible to call it into question on the ground of its formal regularity. Hence the importance, for every co-owner, of reading carefully the minutes received after each meeting and of reacting without delay if he or she disputes a resolution concerning the internal rules. The procedure for challenging a general meeting decision and the remedies against the property manager's management are dealt with separately in our article on that subject.

Only dissenting or absent co-owners, that is, those who voted against or were neither present nor represented, may bring the action. A co-owner who voted in favour of the resolution cannot, in principle, challenge it afterwards.

Having a clause declared deemed unwritten

An action based on Article 43 of the Law of 10 July 1965 follows a different logic that is more favourable to the co-owner. An application for a declaration that an unlawful clause is unwritten is not subject to the two-month period applicable to challenges to general meeting decisions. This action remains open for as long as the disputed clause produces its effects, which makes it possible to challenge it long after its adoption.

In practical terms, a co-owner against whom a clause he or she considers unlawful is invoked may apply to the judicial court for a ruling that it is deemed unwritten. If the judge agrees, the clause is neutralised for the future, as if it had never appeared in the regulations. Depending on the circumstances, a rectification of the allocation of charges may be ordered for the period not yet time-barred.

The amicable route before litigation

Before any proceedings, the first useful step is to write to the property manager, by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, setting out precisely how the clause or the internal rules exceed the limits of the co-ownership regulations or disregard the law. It is also possible to request that an item be placed on the agenda of the next general meeting, so that the collective may decide on the amendment or deletion of the disputed provision.

This prior approach has a twofold advantage: it may resolve the dispute without cost or judicial delay, and it provides a useful record if litigation nevertheless becomes necessary. Mediation or conciliation may also be used, in particular where the disagreement concerns rules of use between neighbours rather than a genuine illegality.

What to remember in order to act correctly

The co-ownership regulations and the internal rules do not belong to the same category. The first is a mandatory, published text of contractual and regulatory value, which fixes everyone's rights and charges. The second is merely an implementing document, with no legal existence of its own, whose force depends entirely on its proper adoption at a general meeting and its strict conformity with the co-ownership regulations. As soon as internal rules add a restriction that the co-ownership regulations do not provide for, that restriction is fragile and often unenforceable.

The position is clear: never presume that an instruction posted in a lobby or circulated by the property manager is automatically binding. Before complying with a new constraint, three points must be checked: does the rule appear in the published co-ownership regulations, was it properly voted at a general meeting, and does it merely organise a use without cutting into a right? If any one of these three links is missing, the provision can be challenged.

Before bringing any action, have the disputed clause and the minutes of the meeting reviewed by a French lawyer practising in real estate law: the choice between challenging the general meeting decision, which is confined to a two-month period, and the action seeking to have the clause deemed unwritten, which is open more broadly, in itself conditions your chances of success.

Frequently asked questions

Are the internal rules of a co-ownership mandatory?

No. No provision of Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965 requires internal rules in a co-ownership. Only the co-ownership regulations are mandatory. Internal rules remain optional, adopted to specify the rules for the building's daily use. Many co-ownerships operate without any, relying solely on their co-ownership regulations.

Can internal rules contradict the co-ownership regulations?

No, and this is the central rule. The internal rules are hierarchically subordinate to the co-ownership regulations. In the event of contradiction, the co-ownership regulations always prevail. A provision of the internal rules that added a restriction not provided for by the co-ownership regulations, or that contradicted them, has no binding force. To genuinely change the co-owners' rights, the co-ownership regulations must be amended, by a vote at the majorities of Articles 25 or 26 of the Law of 10 July 1965.

How can I tell whether a clause in my regulations is abusive?

In a co-ownership, it is more accurate to speak of a clause deemed unwritten than of an abusive clause. Article 43 of the Law of 10 July 1965 deems unwritten any clause contrary to the mandatory provisions of the law and of its implementing decree of 17 March 1967. A clause is fragile where it disproportionately infringes a recognised right, for example a general prohibition on carrying on an activity that is nevertheless authorised by the intended use of the building, or an allocation of charges that does not respect the utility criterion of Article 10. In case of doubt, an analysis by a French lawyer practising in real estate law makes it possible to characterise the clause precisely.

What is the time limit for challenging a clause in the internal rules?

Two regimes coexist. To challenge the general meeting decision that adopted the internal rules, Article 42, paragraph 2, of the Law of 10 July 1965 imposes a period of two months from notification of the minutes, and only dissenting or absent co-owners may bring the action. To have a clause declared unwritten on the basis of Article 43, no two-month period applies: the action remains open for as long as the clause produces its effects.

Is a tenant required to comply with the internal rules of the co-ownership?

Yes, within certain limits. The tenant must comply with the rules of everyday use arising from internal rules validly voted at a general meeting, provided they have been communicated to him or her, generally by the landlord. The landlord must in any event annex the relevant extracts of the co-ownership regulations to the lease. By contrast, the internal rules cannot impose on the tenant any constraint that the co-ownership regulations do not provide for, since they cannot themselves go beyond the latter.

Who can adopt or amend the internal rules of a co-ownership?

Only the general meeting of the co-owners has that power. Internal rules drafted by the property manager alone, or a notice decided by the co-ownership council without a vote, have no binding value and can only be a recommendation. The applicable majority depends on the subject matter: Article 24 of the Law of 10 July 1965 for mere arrangements for administration and use of the common parts, the enhanced majorities of Articles 25 and 26 where the measure affects the conditions of enjoyment of the private parts or amends the co-ownership regulations.

What should I do if the property manager invokes a rule that is not in the co-ownership regulations?

The first step is to ask the property manager, in writing and by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, for the exact basis of the rule invoked: does it appear in the published co-ownership regulations, and was it voted at a general meeting? If no serious basis exists, the constraint is probably unenforceable. It is then possible to request that the question be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and, failing a solution, to apply to the judicial court for a declaration that the clause is deemed unwritten or that the instruction has no value.