Works on common parts: who pays and what majority is needed

Article 1421 answers on two levels. No. 1 lists what is common without admitting evidence to the contrary: the ground, the foundations, the columns, the pillars, the load-bearing walls and the remaining parts that make up the structure; the roof or the roof terraces; the entrances, hallways, stairs and corridors in common use; and the general installations for water, electricity, heating, air conditioning, gas and communications.

No. 2 adds a list of parts that are merely presumed to be common. The difference is practical: against no. 1 neither title nor habit prevails; against no. 2 the constitutive title does, and that is where you look to see whether that courtyard or that garage belongs to somebody.

The roof is common «even if intended for the use of any fraction» (no. 1, paragraph b)). It is the phrase that settles the annual argument about the top-floor terrace: the use may belong to one owner, the part belongs to everybody.

The rule in no. 1 has two halves, and the second gets forgotten: the expenses of conserving and enjoying the common parts «are the responsibility of the owners of the fractions at the time of the respective decisions, and are paid by them in proportion to the value of their fractions».

Apportionment by permillage, then — not per head, not per floor, not by whoever uses it most. And liability rests on whoever owned the fraction at the time of the decision, which matters when a fraction changes hands between the meeting that approved the works and the contractor's invoice.

The departures are in the article itself. No. 2 allows services of common interest to be shared in equal parts or in proportion to enjoyment, but only under a provision of the regulation approved without opposition by a majority of the owners representing the majority of the building's total value.

• Rule: in proportion to the value of the fraction, as it appears in the constitutive title.
• Lifts: only owners whose fractions can be served by them contribute (no. 4).
• Common parts serving only some owners: borne by those who use them (no. 3).
• Areas of exclusive use: repairs apportioned under no. 1, unless the cause is attributable to whoever uses them (no. 6).

Changing the apportionment criterion carries a double requirement: a majority of the owners representing the majority of the building's total value, and approval without opposition. One vote against is enough to block it.

The Civil Code does not set a single majority for works. It sets a majority per type of works, and that is where most decisions come undone.

Conservation has no special rule: article 1432, no. 5, applies, and the decision is taken by a majority of the votes representing the capital invested. An innovation — works that alter what exists rather than restore it — depends «on approval by a majority of the owners, and that majority must represent two thirds of the building's total value» (article 1425, no. 1).

From there the statute opens exceptions, and the most recent dates from 2026: where there are at least two autonomous fractions, installing equipment and operating production units for self-consumption from renewable sources depend on a simple majority of the owners (no. 3, as worded by Law 29/2026).

Votes are counted under article 1430, no. 2: each owner has as many votes as there are whole units in their permillage. No. 3 of article 1425 is the only one of these cases the statute measures in owners alone, without also requiring a share of the building's value.

Once the innovation is approved, the expenses are apportioned under article 1424. And article 1426, no. 2, is explicit: «Owners who have not approved the innovation are obliged to contribute to the respective expenses, unless the refusal is judicially held to be well founded.»

The word that decides is «judicially»: declaring at the meeting that you refuse to pay is not enough. No. 3 says when the refusal is always well founded — «where the works are of a voluptuary nature or are not proportionate to the importance of the building». And an owner who stayed out may, at any time, come to share in the benefits of the innovation by paying the quota corresponding to the execution and maintenance expenses (no. 4).

There is also an absolute limit in no. 8 of article 1425: in the common parts, innovations capable of harming the use, by any of the owners, of either their own property or the common parts are not permitted.

Law 29/2026 renumbered article 1425 without touching the cross-references other articles make to it: no. 5 of article 1424 and no. 5 of article 1426 still refer to «no. 3» of the neighbouring article, a number that is now the self-consumption one. It is a point to clarify with legal support before fixing apportionments on the basis of those cross-references.

No. 1 of article 1427 allows what practice was already doing without clear cover: «Indispensable and urgent repairs to the common parts of the building may be carried out, in the absence or impediment of the administrator, on the initiative of any owner.» Those are two conditions, not one: where there is an administrator in office and reachable, the initiative is theirs.

Until 2022 the statute did not say what urgent meant. Law 8/2022 added no. 2, and the definition became checkable. On the administrator's side, paragraph r) of no. 1 of article 1436 requires them to «intervene in all situations of urgency that so require, immediately calling an extraordinary meeting of owners to ratify their action».

Article 1427 authorises the works. The expense is still borne by the owners as a whole, in proportion to the value of their fractions. How to reimburse whoever advanced the money is not regulated in this chapter: take the proof to the next meeting and, if there is a dispute, seek legal support.

Whenever the assembly is to decide on extraordinary conservation works or works amounting to an innovation, the administrator is required to present «at least three quotations from different sources», unless the regulation or the assembly provides otherwise (article 1436, no. 2). Failure to perform the duties in that article makes the administrator civilly liable for the omission (no. 3).

If the decision is contrary to the law or to a previously approved regulation, it is voidable at the request of any owner who did not approve it (article 1433, no. 1). The deadlines are short: 10 days to require an extraordinary meeting to be called, to be held within 20 days; 30 days to submit the decision to an arbitration centre; 20 days from that meeting's decision to bring the annulment action, or 60 days from the original decision if no such meeting was requested.

The deadlines in article 1433 are counted from the decision, for those who attended, and from its communication, for those who did not. One more reason for the communication to absent owners under article 1432, no. 9, to be made and documented.