Judicial removal of the condominium manager

What Article 1129 of the civil code provides

Article 1129 of the civil code, as reformed by law 220/2012, sets out specific grounds of serious irregularity that justify judicial removal. These include failing to convene the assembly for approval of the financial statement, failing to open and use the dedicated condominium bank account, management that generates repeated legal actions for arrears not caused by the assembly's inaction, non compliance with accounting transparency duties and tax obligations, and consenting, for an unsatisfied claim, to the cancellation of mortgage registrations securing the condominium's interests.

The law requires the irregularity to be serious, not a formal imperfection or an isolated delay: the court assesses whether the contested conduct has substantially undermined proper management of the condominium or the trust owners must be able to place in whoever administers their shared property.

Who can file the petition and how the procedure starts

The petition for judicial removal can be filed by any single owner, even individually, without needing a prior assembly resolution authorizing it: this is what distinguishes the judicial route from removal by the assembly, which instead requires the majority set out in Article 1136 of the civil code. The petition is filed with the court of the place where the condominium is located, following the summary chamber proceedings, which are generally faster than an ordinary trial.

The petition must precisely identify the contested conduct, supported by documents that prove it: assembly minutes, account statements, unanswered payment reminders, ignored communications. Organized and precise documentation is often what separates a petition that succeeds from one dismissed for vague allegations.

Some of the irregularities listed in Article 1129 allow a single owner to go directly to court even without first raising the matter with the assembly, precisely because the law considers them serious enough to justify immediate action.

Common cases in practice

In many cases that reach a judge, the seriousness does not come from a single episode but from the repetition of similar conduct over time, which together demonstrates a way of managing that does not comply with the duties set by law.

• Failure to present the financial statement for two consecutive years, with no assembly ever convened for that purpose.
• Use of a personal or mixed bank account instead of the dedicated condominium account, making it impossible to distinguish condominium funds from the manager's own assets.
• Accumulation of reminders and formal notices from suppliers for payments not made despite available funds.
• No response to owners' requests to access accounting documents under Article 1129.
• Omission of mandatory tax filings, such as communications relating to subsidized works or certifications owed to owners.

Protections for owners during and after the proceedings

During the proceedings the condominium is not left without representation: the contested manager continues to perform their functions until the court rules, unless the judge orders interim measures. If removal is granted, the court often appoints a new manager or requires the assembly to act quickly, to avoid gaps in managing urgent matters such as system safety or upcoming payments.

Once the appointment ends, the removed manager is still required to hand over all accounting and administrative documentation to the successor: failure to do so exposes the manager to further liability and can be raised in court. For owners, prevention remains the most effective tool: being able to consult accounts and updated documents at any time reduces the risk that irregularities accumulate unnoticed, which is one reason many managers choose a platform such as AmministraPro to keep financial statements, the dedicated bank account and communications traceable and accessible to owners.

Frequently asked questions