Condominium Resolutions Requiring Unanimity: Which Ones

In a condominium the general rule is majority voting: the meeting decides with the quorums set by Article 1136 of the Italian Civil Code, without needing everyone's consent. There are, however, decisions that escape this logic and require unanimity, that is the consent of each owner. They typically concern acts affecting the individual property rights of owners, the common parts as the object of real rights and the allocation criteria set by law or by contract. If even one consent is missing, those resolutions cannot be validly adopted by majority.

Why a majority is sometimes not enough

The meeting's power has a boundary: it may manage and organise the use of common property, but it cannot dispose of owners' individual rights without their agreement. The majority governs administration, not the ownership of rights. When a decision touches the core of an individual's property right, or changes the way common assets belong to them, the law requires the consent of the person who bears the effect. It is a safeguard against the overreach of the majority.

Acts of disposal over the common parts

A majority meeting may decide on the use, maintenance and improvement of the common parts, but cannot dispose of them as an owner would. Selling a portion of the common property, creating an easement over the building, waiving a real right over the common parts are acts of disposal that exceed the meeting's powers: they require the consent of all owners, because each is a co-owner of the common parts in proportion to their thousandths (millesimi).

The same applies to granting the exclusive and perpetual use of a common part to a single owner: permanently withdrawing a common asset from the others' enjoyment amounts to disposing of it, and cannot happen by majority alone.

Changing the expense allocation criteria

The statutory allocation criteria are set by Articles 1123, 1124, 1126 and 1117 of the Italian Civil Code. Article 1123 allows derogation, but only by agreement, that is with the consent of all those concerned. Permanently changing the allocation method, for instance charging on general thousandths an expense the law assigns by use, affects each owner's right and therefore requires unanimity. The majority may decide how to spend, not how to redistribute the burden of expenses across the board in derogation from the law.

Thousandths tables of a contractual nature

A distinction is needed. Correcting or revising the thousandths tables for error or for changed building conditions can be approved with the majority under Article 1136, second paragraph, as provided by Article 69 of the implementing provisions. Changing the proportional values not because of error or objective variation, but as a contractual choice of the parties, instead affects owners' rights and requires unanimous consent. The difference lies in the cause: correcting is not the same as freely redefining the shares.

Resolutions affecting exclusive property

A resolution cannot impose obligations or limits on portions of exclusive property without the owner's consent. Prohibiting a lawful use, imposing works inside an apartment, creating burdens on a private asset are decisions that fall outside the majority's powers. In these cases the consent of the affected owner is indispensable, because the meeting manages the common parts, not individuals' own property.

Operational summary: when to insist on unanimity

To find your bearings, here are the main categories of decisions requiring everyone's consent:

• Acts disposing of real rights over the common parts, such as sale, easement or waiver
• Permanent grant of exclusive use of a common part to a single owner
• Contractual derogation from the statutory expense allocation criteria
• Non-corrective change of the thousandths table values
• Resolutions imposing obligations or limits on exclusive property without the owner's consent

What happens if unanimity is missing

A resolution adopted by majority on a matter reserved to unanimity is flawed. Under settled case law, when the decision affects owners' individual rights or radically exceeds the meeting's competence, it is null and the nullity can be raised even beyond the thirty-day period for annulment set by Article 1137 of the Italian Civil Code. A defect of this kind is not cured by the passage of time, unlike mere irregularities. That is why the chair and the manager must recognise in advance the matters requiring everyone's consent.

Preparing the agenda by separating majority matters from those requiring unanimity avoids fragile resolutions and later challenges. A management system such as AmministraPro helps set up clear notices, orderly minutes and consent tracking, so that well-built decisions reach the meeting. You will find the details on the funzioni page and the terms on the prezzi page.