Revising the Millesimal Tables: When and With What Majority

Revising the millesimal tables is one of the topics that most often splits an assembly: owners who believe they are paying too much relative to their unit's actual value ask for a change, while those who benefit from the existing split oppose it. Italian law does not leave this decision to simple convenience: revision is only allowed under precise conditions, set out in Article 69 of the implementing provisions of the Civil Code.

When millesimal table revision is possible

Article 69 identifies two typical situations. The first is an error: the tables are wrong from the outset, due to an incorrect calculation of surfaces, coefficients or the criteria applied when they were originally drafted. The second is a subsequent change: when, due to an increase or decrease in surface area or other significant variations, the proportional value of one or more units has changed appreciably, altering the millesimal value of one or more units by at least one fifth.

Interventions such as a permitted extension, splitting one unit into several apartments, or adding floors through vertical construction, are typical examples of a change that can justify revision. Conversely, a simple decrease in market value due to external factors, such as real estate market trends, does not fall within the cases envisaged by the rule.

The majority required to approve the revision

When the conditions set out in Article 69 apply, revision of the millesimal tables can be approved by the assembly with the majority provided for by the second paragraph of Article 1136 of the Civil Code, meaning the majority of those attending representing at least half the value of the building, without requiring unanimity. This is a significant simplification compared with the past, when case law tended to require the consent of every single owner for any change to the tables.

It remains essential that the resolution precisely identifies which of the two scenarios under Article 69 applies and attaches the technical report of the appointed professional, so the process followed for the new millesimal calculation is transparent and verifiable.

Going to court when agreement is missing

If the assembly does not approve the revision, or if an owner believes their unit is unfairly penalized, it remains possible to turn to the ordinary court to obtain a ruling that ascertains the existence of the error or the change and orders the millesimi to be recalculated. Judicial recourse is the residual path when the assembly route does not lead to a shared outcome, but it involves longer timelines and higher costs, plus the need for a court-appointed technical consultant.

The role of the appointed technician

In both paths, whether through the assembly or the court, revising the millesimal tables requires a qualified professional to carry out the surveys, apply the correct coefficients based on use, exposure, floor and other relevant factors, and produce a complete technical report. When the choice happens through the assembly, selecting the professional is up to the owners, with the same majority required for approval.

Effects of the revision on past shares

A frequently misunderstood point concerns retroactivity: the new millesimal table generally applies from the moment of approval or of the final court ruling, without affecting splits already carried out under the previous table, unless the resolution or the judge provides otherwise. This avoids endless disputes over past years' financial statements.

Revision is not a discretionary tweak but a remedy for an original error or an objective, appreciable change in the value of the units.

Practical advice for the administrator

Before bringing a revision request to the assembly, it is useful for the administrator to already have a technician's quote, verify the historical documentation of the existing tables, and clearly inform owners of the legal prerequisites, avoiding unfounded expectations of a revision driven by mere perceptions of unfairness unsupported by technical data.

• Check whether an original error or a twenty percent change applies
• Appoint a qualified technician for the technical report
• Bring the proposal to the assembly with the majority under Article 1136 paragraph 2
• Attach the full technical documentation to the minutes
• Consider the judicial route only if assembly agreement cannot be reached

Managing such a technical process requires document order and tools that help track resolutions, attachments and communications with owners. AmministraPro offers exactly this kind of support to administrators: anyone who wants to learn more can check the features page dedicated to document and assembly management, or review the plans available on the pricing page.