In the condominium context, the decisions of the meeting they represent essential tools for the management and organization of the common areas. However, not all have the same legal weight. In fact, there are resolutions decision makingwhich determine concrete and immediate effects, e.g programmatic or interlocutory decisions, which merely assumes a preparatory or exploratory character. Let’s try to better understand the differences between the different types of decisions and when it is possible to challenge them.
Types of condominium resolutions
The condominium decisions are the instrument with which the will of the condominiums is expressed regarding the management of the common areas. However, there are some that are not decision-making in nature.
Let’s start from decision making or dispositive decisions: represents a clear decision on a specific issue. It is about binding acts, which can involve a wide range of decisions, from using the courtyard as a parking lot to approving the final budget, to appearing in court to defend yourself against legal action. In these cases, the condominium meeting decides on issues involving a financial commitment or a change in the management of the condominium.
The non-decisive decisions however, it does not involve immediate implementation, as it does not have a “preceptive” content, it does not reach a definitive conclusion and does not bind the condominium. Within non-decision-making decisions, further categories of decisions can then be distinguished: preparatory (it serves to prepare the ground for future decisions, to collect information or to prepare preliminary analyses), programmatic (they establish guidelines or plans for future actions without immediately deciding anything operationally), interlocus (they discuss a topic without coming to a conclusive decision, postponing the decision to a later time).
The preparatory, programmatic or interlocutory decisions do not directly affect the capacity of the condominium owners, since they do not involve definitive decisions or economic commitments. As a result, the prejudice to condominium owners is only potential and not concrete, making it generally more difficult to challenge such decisions.
Interest in taking action
Having established that the possibility of appeal mostly concerns decisions of a decisive nature, if a decision of this type is considered illegal or harmful to one of the co-owners, the latter has the right to challenge it to invalidate it to determine. In this context it is fundamental the interest in acting: that is, the condominium owner must demonstrate that the contested decision causes concrete damage to his legal or capacity sphere. The law therefore requires s interest worthy of protection take legal action. This interest represents a utility or an advantage that the citizen can only obtain by appealing to justice. Even to challenge a condominium decision, it is necessary to demonstrate this interest, without this prerequisite the action is inadmissible.
We also remind you that the decision of the meeting can only and exclusively be challenged by those apartment owners did not contribute to approve it. Therefore, only i can challenge the decision, approved by a majority of the meeting dissident condominium members, stayed or absent. The minutes of the meeting must include attendance, thousandths of ownership and the decisions taken on the items on the agenda.
Regulatory guidelines
Italian jurisprudence has repeatedly clarified that interlocutory or programmatic resolutions they cannot be challenged independently in the absence of a concrete interest in taking action. For example, in a recent judgment of the Court of Rome (No. 5043 of March 19, 2024) it was established that two 2018 resolutions contested by an owner were only interlocutory in nature and did not concretely affect her sphere of competence. Accordingly, the appeal application was dismissed for lack of interest to institute proceedings.
The Supreme Court of Cassation (judgment no. 10865 of 2016) also reiterated that the interest in contesting a condominium decision presupposes that the decision is suitable for bring about change in the position of the condominium owners, subject to possible prejudice.
A further judgment of the Supreme Court, n. 6128 of 2017, then underlines that the condominium owner who intends to challenge a decision must show a concrete interest arising from a substantial personal prejudice.