Abuse of the Majority and Protection of the Minority

The majority governs the meeting, but its power is not absolute: when a resolution is adopted to pursue interests unrelated to common management or to unfairly harm minority owners, an abuse of the majority's right arises, which may be sanctioned by annulment of the resolution. Protecting the minority does not deny the majority principle, but prevents it from being used in a distorted way, against the function for which the law provides it, namely the proper administration of the common parts.

The majority principle and its limits

The meeting decides by majority according to the quorums of Article 1136 of the Italian Civil Code. This mechanism allows the common property to be managed without demanding unanimity on every issue, which would make the condominium ungovernable. Yet the majority's power is functional: it exists to serve the common interest, not to satisfy the particular interests of some at the expense of others. When the majority steps outside this function, the resolution loses its substantive legitimacy, even if formally approved with the required numbers.

Compliance with the quorums is therefore a necessary but not sufficient condition. A resolution that is regular in its numbers may still be flawed if the power was exercised for purposes other than those allowed, or in ways oppressive toward the minority.

When abuse occurs

Abuse of the majority, often traced to excess of power, appears in typical situations where the decision finds no justification in the common interest.

• Resolutions adopted to give an exclusive advantage to some owners, with no benefit to the collective body.
• Decisions taken solely to harm or penalise minority owners, without an objective reason linked to management.
• Unreasonable or arbitrary choices, lacking any serious basis in the common interest, that unfairly sacrifice the minority's positions.
• Cost allocations made in a distorted way to shift burdens onto dissenters, departing from the legal criteria without their consent.

In all these cases the flaw lies not in the form but in the deviation of purpose: the majority uses its power for an aim the law does not grant it. Hence the possibility of annulling the resolution at the initiative of the harmed owners.

The line with legitimate dissent

Not every resolution the minority dislikes is abusive. The majority has the right to decide even against the will of some, provided the choice is aimed at the common interest and reasonable. An owner may disagree about the wisdom of an expense, the choice of a supplier or the scheduling of works, but mere dissent does not turn the decision into an abuse. Abuse requires something more: proof that the majority acted for a purpose unrelated to management or with the intent to unfairly harm the minority.

This distinction is essential so as not to confuse minority protection with a veto right. The minority is protected against abuse, not against the normal operation of the majority principle.

Tools to protect the minority

The minority owner who considers a resolution abusive has several tools. The main one is challenging the voidable resolution, provided by Article 1137 of the Italian Civil Code, which the absent, dissenting or abstaining owner may bring within the thirty-day deadline. Where there is a risk of harm, they may ask for suspension of the resolution's execution. Before or during proceedings, for many condominium disputes the confrontation goes through mediation, which offers a chance to settle without reaching the judge's decision.

Upstream, a preventive role is played by the proper conduct of the meeting: a clear agenda, a genuine discussion and accurate minutes reduce the room for arbitrary decisions and make it harder for the majority to impose unjustified choices.

The burden of proving abuse

Whoever alleges abuse of the majority must prove it. It is not enough to claim the resolution is unfair or unwelcome: concrete elements must be shown from which it appears that the power was exercised for a purpose unrelated to the common interest or with the intent to harm the minority. The deviation of purpose must be proven on the basis of facts, such as the absence of any collective benefit from the decision or the evident exclusive advantage of some owners. This burden of proof explains why documenting the meeting process is so important: minutes that record the reasons for the choices help distinguish a legitimate decision, even if contested, from a genuine abuse.

The difficulty of the proof should not discourage the minority but invites them to build their position with care. Gathering the documents in good time, noting the anomalies of the discussion and obtaining a copy of the minutes are steps that strengthen a possible challenge and that, in many cases, push the majority itself to reconsider choices lacking any real justification.

The manager's role

The manager is not a mere executor of the majority: in preparing the agenda, conducting the discussion and taking the minutes, they must ensure that all owners can speak and that decisions stay anchored to the common interest. An attentive manager flags to the meeting the risks of choices manifestly prejudicial to part of the owners, helping to avoid resolutions that could be annulled. This balancing function protects the condominium as a whole, reducing litigation and its costs.

Documenting notices, attendance, votes and the reasons for choices transparently is the first defence against accusations of abuse. With AmministraPro the manager runs the meeting process with orderly, traceable minutes, so every owner can check how the decision was formed. The meeting features are on /funzioni and the plans on /prezzi.