The Single Owner Acting to Protect Common Parts

A single owner may sue alone to protect the common parts, without waiting for a meeting resolution or the manager's initiative. The reason is that each owner holds a right over the common property, not a mere reflected interest: that right entitles them to defend it directly, alongside the manager's representation provided by Article 1131 of the Italian Civil Code. This possibility is an important safeguard, especially when the condominium remains inactive in the face of harm to the common assets.

Ownership of the right over the common parts

The common parts listed in Article 1117 of the Italian Civil Code, such as the ground, the foundations, the load-bearing walls, the stairs, the roofs and the shared systems, belong in co-ownership to all owners. Each owner is therefore a co-holder of a property right over them. From this ownership derives the standing to act in defence of the common asset: the owner does not assert someone else's interest but their own right, which directly concerns their legal sphere even when the benefit is shared with the other co-owners.

This framing explains why the defence of the common parts is not reserved exclusively to the management body. The manager represents the condominium and may act to protect the common assets, but their standing does not deprive the individual of the power to act in person.

Concurrent standing with the manager

Article 1131 grants the manager representation of the condominium and standing to act and defend in court within the scope of their duties. This standing, however, is concurrent with that of the single owner, not a substitute for it. In practice this means the owner may act alone even if the manager has not received a mandate from the meeting, and even when the manager has chosen not to act. The owner defends a right that is also theirs, and the law does not make this defence conditional on the majority's consent.

Coordination is nonetheless advisable. When the owner informs the manager of their initiative, the management body can assess whether to intervene, support the action or bring the matter to the meeting, avoiding overlapping or contradictory initiatives that would weaken the condominium's overall position.

When acting alone is worthwhile

Individual action is particularly useful in a few recurring situations, where collective inertia would risk prejudicing everyone's rights.

• Improper occupation or use of a common part by a third party or another owner, when the condominium does not react.
• Harm to the rights over the common parts that directly affects the individual's unit, for example leaks coming from common assets.
• The need to interrupt a limitation period or to react urgently, before the meeting can convene and resolve.
• Defence against a third party's claim that affects the common parts, when the manager does not resist it.

The limits of individual standing

The power to act alone has clear boundaries. The owner may defend the common parts but cannot dispose of them or perform acts that belong to the collective body: they cannot, for example, decide alone on improvements or changes that require a meeting resolution, nor bind the other owners with choices that go beyond mere preservation of the asset. Individual action is by nature aimed at protecting and preserving the common parts, not at managing or transforming them.

The matter of costs must also be considered. The owner who acts autonomously bears the costs of their own initiative and cannot automatically charge them to the condominium: if they want the costs to fall on the collective body, the question must go through the meeting, which assesses the usefulness of the action for the common interest.

Relationship with dissent over lawsuits

The single owner's action must be kept distinct from the mechanism of dissent over lawsuits under Article 1132. The latter concerns cases decided by the meeting, from whose consequences the owner may separate their liability. Individual action to protect the common parts, by contrast, does not arise from a resolution but from the direct ownership of the right: it is an autonomous initiative, not a reaction to a majority decision. Confusing the two institutions leads to mistakes, for example claiming to dissociate from a lawsuit the condominium never resolved on.

Proving the right and the condominium's position

Whoever acts alone must be ready to prove their ownership and the common nature of the asset to be protected. The status of owner, the co-ownership of the common parts under Article 1117 of the Italian Civil Code and the harm complained of must be proven with the available documentation, such as purchase deeds, the by-laws and the acts describing the common parts. An initiative based on a rough reconstruction of the common assets risks weakening in court, with the danger that the costs remain with the single owner who acted.

The position of the condominium as such must also be considered. The individual's action does not strip the manager of their standing, and the meeting may decide to intervene or to adopt the initiative, recognising its common usefulness. When that happens, the defence of the common parts is reinforced and the costs can be allocated according to the legal criteria, instead of falling on a single owner. This is why informing the management body in good time is not just courtesy but a choice that can strengthen the protection of the common asset.

Documenting the initiative and informing the condominium

Even when acting alone, the owner has an interest in leaving a written record of their initiative and in informing the manager. An orderly communication lets the management body update the meeting, assess a possible intervention and coordinate the overall defence of the common parts, reducing the risk of divergent positions in court.

For the manager, keeping a record of owners' reports and of the status of disputes over the common parts is essential for transparent management. With AmministraPro the communications received, the minutes and the files linked to the common assets stay in a searchable archive, so the management body can decide knowingly whether and when to intervene. The dedicated features are described on /funzioni, and the available plans on /prezzi.