Who Can Challenge a Condominium Resolution

Standing to challenge an annullable condominium resolution is reserved by Article 1137 of the Italian Civil Code to three categories of owners: the absent, the dissenting and the abstaining. Those who voted in favour cannot challenge, because they helped form the will of the meeting. Correctly identifying each person's position is the first step to understanding whether a challenge is admissible, and when the term to bring it starts.

The dissenting owner

A dissenting owner is one present at the meeting who voted against the resolution. Their opposition must appear in the minutes: for this reason it is important to ask that the negative vote be recorded clearly. The dissenter has full standing to challenge and, having attended, the thirty-day term runs from the date of the meeting, without needing to wait for the minutes to be communicated.

The abstaining owner

An abstainer is someone present at the meeting who cast neither a vote in favour nor against. The condominium reform clarified that the abstainer too has standing to challenge, overcoming past doubts. The reasoning is consistent: abstention is not adherence to the resolution, so those who abstain retain the interest to contest its validity. For the abstainer, as for the dissenter, the term starts from the date of the meeting.

The absent owner

An absent owner is one who did not take part either in person or through a proxy. This is the position with the strongest protection in terms of time, because the thirty-day term runs from communication of the minutes and not from the date of the meeting. Absence means non-participation: if the owner granted a proxy and the proxy voted in favour, their position aligns with that of a consenting owner and standing to challenge is lost.

Who cannot challenge

The following lack standing:

• the owner who voted in favour of the resolution, unless the consent was vitiated
• the proxy who cast a favourable vote on behalf of the represented owner, with effect on the principal
• anyone who does not hold a real right over the unit and does not fall within the cases where the law extends protection
• anyone acting merely out of convenience, without a concrete, legally relevant interest

Usufructuary and bare owner

When usufruct and bare ownership coexist over a unit, standing follows the division of powers over decisions. In general the usufructuary has a say on resolutions concerning ordinary administration and the enjoyment of common services, while the bare owner is involved in choices affecting the substance of the property, such as extraordinary works and innovations. As a result, standing to challenge belongs to whoever held the right to vote on the specific matter resolved.

The tenant's position

A tenant is not an owner and, as a rule, has no standing to challenge meeting resolutions. The law grants a tenant the right to vote, in place of the owner, only on limited matters connected to the use of the services they enjoy, such as heating and air conditioning. Outside these cases, challenges to meeting decisions remain with the owner, who is the true holder of the condominium relationship.

The owner in default

Being in default on payment of charges does not remove the status of owner and, with it, standing to challenge resolutions. Even someone behind on payments can contest an annullable decision, if they fall among the absent, dissenting or abstaining. The condominium may act separately to recover the debt, but cannot deny the defaulter protection of their rights over the validity of resolutions.

AmministraPro records for each agenda item who was present, absent, in favour, against or abstaining, with the corresponding thousandths (millesimi), so each owner's position stays documented and verifiable. You can see the management of minutes and votes on the /funzioni page and the plans in /prezzi.