Limits of Majority Power: When Unanimity Is Required

The majority at the meeting may decide on the management of the common parts, but not on everything: some acts affect the individual rights of owners and require unanimity or at least the consent of those directly concerned. This threshold is reached, for example, by acts that alter the common property, that affect owners' rights over their exclusively owned units, or that change the legal criteria for allocating expenses. A resolution that crosses this limit is flawed, often void, and has no effect toward the owner who did not give their consent.

Managing the common property versus disposing of rights

The majority's power is broad when it comes to administering and preserving the common parts: maintenance, choice of suppliers, approval of the budget and financial report, orderly use of the common assets fall within the meeting's duties and are decided with the quorums of Article 1136 of the Italian Civil Code. The picture changes radically when the decision no longer concerns management but the disposal of rights: transferring or encumbering a common part, suppressing a common asset, or affecting owners' rights over their units are acts the majority cannot perform on its own.

The distinction between management and disposal is the key to understanding where the majority's power ends. As long as it is administering, the rule is the majority principle; when it disposes of rights, the consent of the holders is needed, which often amounts to unanimity.

Acts requiring unanimity or the consent of those concerned

Some categories of decisions fall outside the perimeter of majority power and require reinforced consent.

• Acts that change the ownership or the intended use of the common property in a way that affects each owner's rights.
• Departures from the legal criteria for allocating expenses set by Articles 1123 and following, which can be changed only with the consent of all owners.
• Decisions that compress owners' rights over their exclusively owned units or over the equal use of the common parts.
• Approval or amendment of contractual thousandths (millesimi) tables, which cannot be imposed by majority against the owners concerned.

In these cases the lack of the required consent is not a mere formal flaw: it affects the very validity of the resolution, which cannot bind those who did not agree. It is how the legal system protects the sphere of individual rights from the power of the collective body.

Void resolutions and voidable resolutions

Crossing the limits of majority power is reflected in the type of flaw. Resolutions that affect individual rights without the necessary consent, that have an impossible or unlawful subject, or that fall outside the meeting's competence are generally void: nullity can be raised by anyone with an interest, without the constraint of the thirty-day deadline. Merely voidable resolutions, by contrast, concern procedural flaws or violations that do not touch intangible rights, and must be challenged within the deadline of Article 1137 of the Italian Civil Code.

Distinguishing nullity from voidability matters in practice, because it changes both who may contest the resolution and the time to do so. An owner harmed in an individual right is not necessarily bound by the short deadline if the flaw amounts to nullity.

The by-laws and their limits

The condominium by-laws also have limits. By-law provisions cannot diminish owners' rights over their units and over the common parts beyond what the law allows. Clauses that affect these rights have a contractual nature and require the acceptance of the owners concerned: they cannot be introduced or amended by majority against the will of those who suffer the restriction. This explains why some by-law changes, though approved at the meeting, are not enforceable against owners who did not accept them.

How to recognise a resolution that exceeds the limits

Recognising in time a resolution that crosses the boundaries of majority power avoids pointless litigation. A few questions help frame the situation: does the decision merely administer the common property, or does it affect the ownership and intended use of the common parts? Does it change the legal allocation criteria without the consent of all? Does it compress owners' rights over their own units? Does it introduce contractual constraints into the by-laws against the will of those concerned? Every affirmative answer to these questions signals the risk that the resolution steps outside the permitted field and requires reinforced consent.

The owner who spots one of these features need not necessarily wait for the decision to be carried out. They can flag the flaw at the meeting, asking for it to be recorded in the minutes, and assess the protection tools suited to the type of invalidity, bearing in mind that nullity can be raised even beyond the short deadline, while mere voidability must be contested within thirty days. Correctly identifying the nature of the flaw is therefore the first step in choosing the right remedy.

Why knowing the limits benefits everyone

Knowing the boundaries of majority power is useful both to the majority and to the minority. To the majority, because it avoids approving resolutions destined to be declared void or ineffective, with wasted time and litigation risk. To the minority, because it allows them to recognise at once when an individual right is being unduly compressed, without having to endure a decision the law did not allow. A competent manager helps the meeting stay within the limits, flagging when a choice requires unanimity or the consent of those concerned.

Preparing correct agendas, indicating the applicable quorums and accurately recording the majorities reached reduces the risk of invalid resolutions. With AmministraPro the manager sets up the meeting process with clear, traceable minutes, documenting attendance, quorums and votes. The features for managing meetings are on /funzioni and the available plans on /prezzi.