Recent case law reaffirms a fundamental rule of Belgian co-ownership law: the syndic (building manager) cannot initiate court proceedings on behalf of the owners' association without ratification by the general meeting. Without that ratification, the action risks being declared inadmissible. The exceptions are limited and precisely defined.
Can the building manager initiate court proceedings without the general meeting's approval?
No, except in limited cases. Article 3.92 of the Civil Code (formerly Article 577-9 §1) defines the powers of the syndic. In matters of court proceedings, the rule is clear: a syndic who brings an action in the name of the owners' association (ACP) must obtain ratification by the general meeting, either in advance or as soon as possible after the action is filed. Without that ratification, the court may declare the action inadmissible.
Why this rule exists
The building manager: agent of the co-ownership, not acting unilaterally
The syndic is a mandatary. Their authority to act derives from the mandate conferred by the general meeting. For routine management acts, that mandate is implicitly included in their role. But for acts that significantly commit the co-ownership financially — such as court proceedings — the Civil Code requires a deliberate decision by the co-owners.
This logic protects co-owners from a syndic who might engage in costly procedures without their agreement, expose the co-ownership to significant costs if the action fails, or compromise commercial or neighbourly relationships through actions the majority would not have approved.
The concrete risk of an inadmissible action
A syndic who acts without ratification risks having the action declared inadmissible — meaning the court refuses to examine the merits of the case. The consequence is twofold:
- The co-ownership loses the benefit of the proceedings, often after incurring significant costs
- If a limitation or forfeiture period is running, an inadmissible action does not interrupt it — the co-ownership may permanently lose its right to act
The exceptions: when the building manager can act without prior ratification
Case law and the Civil Code recognise situations where the syndic may act without waiting for the general meeting's approval.
1. Urgent protective measures
The syndic may file:
- An interlocutory application: an urgent procedure before the president of the court to obtain an immediate measure (prohibition of works, appointment of an expert, security measure)
- A pre-litigation judicial expert assessment: to have a state of affairs established by a court-appointed expert, to secure evidence, or to assess damages
- Any purely protective measure that does not prejudge the merits and aims to prevent irreparable harm
In these cases, the syndic must obtain AGM ratification as soon as possible after the action is filed.
2. Recovery of common charges
The syndic may act without prior ratification to recover arrears of common charges. This exception is logical: if every recovery action required an AGM, the syndic could not effectively manage non-payment in a large co-ownership building. Case law and legislation recognise this as part of routine management.
3. What does not constitute an exception
Contrary to what some building managers have believed or argued, the following situations are not valid exceptions:
- Subjective urgency (the syndic considers there is no time to convene an AGM)
- The conviction that co-owners would certainly approve
- The fact that the opposing party is known and the case is sound
- The difficulty of organising an extraordinary general meeting
For any significant dispute (neighbourhood nuisance, construction defects, conflict with a contractor, action against a third party), ratification is mandatory.
How to organise ratification: a practical guide
Option 1: Prior ratification at the ordinary AGM
The cleanest solution is to add authorisation to take legal action to the agenda of the annual general meeting. If the dispute is known well in advance, the syndic presents:
- The nature of the dispute
- The parties involved
- The financial stakes
- The estimated prospects of success (as assessed by the lawyer)
- The provisional budget (fees, procedural costs)
- The proposed specific mandate for the lawyer
The AGM votes and the syndic is authorised to act.
Option 2: Extraordinary general meeting
For a dispute that arises between two ordinary AGMs and cannot wait, the syndic convenes an extraordinary general meeting. This procedure is more cumbersome (notice costs, difficulty in meeting quorums) but is sometimes unavoidable.
Convening an extraordinary AGM with a reduced notice period (15 days in cases of urgency instead of the usual period) is possible if the situation warrants it.
Option 3: Retrospective ratification
In cases of genuine urgency, the syndic may act first (interlocutory application, protective measure) and submit ratification to the next AGM. This option is risky if the AGM refuses ratification — in that case, the syndic could be personally liable for the costs incurred.
The risks for the building manager in the absence of ratification
A syndic who initiates proceedings without valid ratification faces several risks.
Inadmissibility of the action
The court may refuse to examine the merits if the syndic's authority to act is not established. The co-ownership loses the proceedings and the costs incurred.
Personal liability of the building manager
If an inadmissible action has caused harm to the co-ownership (lost procedural costs, a limitation period allowed to run), co-owners may take action against the syndic. Their professional liability — and potentially their professional indemnity insurance — are at stake.
Challenge to the AGM itself
If retrospective ratification is refused by the AGM, a syndic who acted without authorisation finds themselves in a legally difficult position. Co-owners who opposed the action may raise the absence of ratification as a defence and seek to have the costs borne personally by the syndic.
What property managers should check on current files
Audit of ongoing court proceedings
Any manager of a co-ownership building should review current legal proceedings and verify for each one:
- Is there an AGM resolution authorising the action?
- If the action was filed urgently, was ratification obtained at the next AGM?
- Is the lawyer's mandate supported by an AGM decision?
If an ongoing action lacks ratification, it is still possible to submit regularisation to the AGM. The absence of ratification, if it has not yet been raised by the opposing party, can still be remedied.
Systematic documentation
Every AGM decision relating to court proceedings must be:
- Clearly mentioned in the minutes
- Attached to the lawyer's file
- Kept in the co-ownership's archives
In the event of a challenge to the validity of the ratification, the AGM minutes are the key document in the file.
With Seido, general meeting minutes are centralised and accessible at any time — by the building manager, the lawyer, and the co-owners. Every decision relating to court proceedings is tracked, timestamped, and retrievable in seconds. In the event of a challenge to the ratification, you have the proof immediately. Discover Seido →
This article is part of Property Essentials #2 — February 2026. Also read: Hidden defects in co-ownership: the Court of Cassation ruling — Fibre optic in co-ownership buildings: rights and obligations of the building manager.
Sources and references
- Article 3.92 of the Belgian Civil Code (formerly Article 577-9 §1) — powers of the syndic to act on behalf of the ACP
- Right of action in co-ownership, copropriete-ejuris.be
- Recovery of co-ownership charge arrears, ActualitesDroitBelge.be