Co-ownership of property is not just about “everyone having their share”. In practice it quickly becomes clear that the key question is: who can decide what about the common asset – repairs, lease, investments, use or indeed a change in the purpose of the property.

The Civil Code distinguishes three levels of management of the common asset depending on how fundamental the decision is. Each level has different requirements for the majority of co-owners.

Need Legal Advice? Contact Us

1) Ordinary Management: A Simple Majority Is Enough

For the most routine decisions, the rule applies that a simple majority is sufficient for adoption (typically calculated by size of shares).

This covers “day-to-day” management, for example:

  • routine maintenance and minor repairs,
  • operational steps and ordinary administration,
  • dealing with smaller acute problems.

2) More Significant Management: A Two-Thirds Majority Is Required

For more significant decisions the law tightens the rules and requires a two-thirds majority of all co-owners.

This typically covers steps that have a greater impact on:

  • the value of the property,
  • the manner of use,
  • the long-term management regime,

for example more costly interventions or investments.

3) Special Management: Everyone Must Agree

For certain legal acts the regime is strictest: the consent of all co-owners is required. In practice this means that each has a “veto” on these matters.

This typically includes for example:

  • encumbering the property (e.g. a pledge),
  • a change in the purpose of use,
  • other steps that fundamentally alter the character of the asset or significantly affect the rights of each co-owner.

What Decision-Making Should Look Like in Practice: Think About Evidence

The law does not prescribe a special form for the “voting” itself – the decision may even be oral. The problem arises when the dispute reaches the stage of proof: who proposed what, who agreed, who abstained, what was actually adopted.

That is why in practice we recommend securing decision-making in a way that can be proved, especially if you expect conflict.

A proven approach is to convene a “meeting of co-owners” similar to a general meeting:

  • send the invitation in advance (a standard of at least 15 days is often used),
  • state the place, time, agenda and ideally also draft resolutions,
  • appoint a chair and a minute-taker,
  • prepare minutes and send them to the other co-owners.

It is not a formal requirement, but it is often the best prevention of future disputes.

What If a Co-owner Does Not Get Their Proposal Through

A co-owner may respond with:

  • agreement,
  • disagreement,
  • abstention.

And it is precisely the difference between disagreement and abstention that can be crucial in its legal effects.

When Someone Merely “Abstains” or Stays Silent

If a co-owner abstains (and there is a fair reason for doing so), the law in certain circumstances allows the person who did not obtain the required majority to turn to the court and propose that the court substitute for the missing quorum so that the decision can be adopted.

This typically concerns situations where the decision is blocked more by passivity than by genuine substantive disagreement.

When Someone Expressly Disagrees

A different situation arises when a co-owner expressly disagrees. If the proposal does not obtain the required majority because co-owners disagree, their will cannot simply be “overridden” by the court just because someone is pushing for a different solution.

Protection of the Minority: When the Majority Decides Unfairly

Besides the situation where the minority does not get something through, there is also the opposite problem: the majority pushes through a decision that is particularly unfair to the minority.

Typical examples:

  • the majority decides that the property will be used by a third party without adequate consideration,
  • the consideration (e.g. rent) goes only to the majority co-owner,
  • management costs are shifted disproportionately onto the minority while the majority collects the benefits.

In such cases the law allows an action to be brought with the aim of having it determined that such a decision is not effective against the minority co-owner.

Watch the Time Limit: Only 30 Days

This is crucial: it is an action with a 30-day preclusive time limit – so the minority co-owner must bring the action within 30 days of the day on which they demonstrably learned of the decision. After the time limit expires, the right is lost.

In practice it is therefore essential to:

  • act quickly,
  • have evidence of when and how the co-owner learned of the decision.

And When I No Longer Want to Be in Co-ownership at All

Sometimes protection of the minority is only a “patch”. If co-ownership does not work in the long term and is a practical burden, the cleanest solution is often to leave the co-ownership by legal means – i.e. by an action for termination and settlement of fractional co-ownership.

We cover that separately in our article: Termination and settlement of co-ownership (2025)

Costs of Proceedings: Also Consider the Financial Impact of the Dispute

In disputes between co-owners it is good to think in advance about how the question of recovery of costs of the proceedings may turn out – i.e. who will pay and to what extent the costs of the lawyer, court fees or other expenses. This often affects strategy and willingness to reach an agreement.

Follow-up article: Recovery of costs of proceedings (2020)

If you are dealing with decision-making in co-ownership or protection of the minority, our office is ready to advise you and propose a concrete approach.