In a co-ownership, a parking space allocated for exclusive enjoyment does not confer ownership rights over the land. The holder has a private usage right over a common area, which means that the land remains the undivided property of all co-owners. This distinction, often misunderstood, conditions both the possible remedies and the limits of what each resident can do on their space.
Exclusive enjoyment and private part: a confusion that fuels parking conflicts
The co-ownership regulations sometimes refer to a parking space as a “private lot,” and sometimes as a “common area for exclusive enjoyment.” The legal consequences differ radically.
A private parking lot is listed in the descriptive state of division with its own shares. Its holder is the full owner: they can sell it, rent it out, and dispose of it like an apartment, subject to the co-ownership regulations and the building’s purpose.
Exclusive enjoyment, on the other hand, only grants a right of use. The space remains a common area. The co-owner cannot sell it separately from their main lot, nor make alterations without the agreement of the general assembly. This right of use is accessory to the lot to which it is attached: it automatically transfers upon the sale of the apartment but cannot be detached from it.
Checking the right of enjoyment of a parking space therefore requires carefully rereading the co-ownership regulations and the descriptive state of division to identify the exact status of the concerned space.
Encroachment on a space with exclusive enjoyment: observe and act when the regulations are unclear
The most common scenario is as follows: a vehicle regularly parks in a space for which a co-owner has exclusive enjoyment, and the co-ownership regulations do not detail the markings or the precise boundaries of each space. The holder finds themselves without a clear written reference to prove the encroachment.
Identify useful evidence before taking any action
The first reflex is to gather factual elements. Systematically photographing the unauthorized occupation with timestamps, keeping written exchanges (emails, messages) with the concerned co-owner, and noting the dates and times of repeated incidents constitutes an actionable file.
If the co-ownership regulations do not mention a detailed plan of the spaces, requesting access to the surveyor’s plan used for the co-ownership from the property manager may suffice to clarify the ambiguity. This document, distinct from the regulations, often specifies the dimensions and location of each space.
Request the property manager for a formal notice
Article 9 of the law of July 10, 1965, states that each co-owner freely uses the private and common areas, provided that they do not infringe on the rights of other co-owners or the purpose of the building. The property manager is obligated to enforce the co-ownership regulations, including the rights of exclusive enjoyment mentioned therein.
Sending a registered letter to the property manager describing the facts, attaching photographic evidence, and citing the relevant clause of the regulations (even if vague) regarding the allocation of the space triggers an obligation to intervene. The property manager must then formally notify the offending co-owner by registered letter.
The bailiff’s report as an alternative to legal action
If the formal notice remains ineffective, a report by a judicial officer (formerly a bailiff) establishes undeniable proof of the recurring encroachment. This document has greater evidentiary weight than simple photographs and can be produced in case of mediation or, as a last resort, before the court.
A repeated bailiff’s report over several weeks demonstrates the systematic nature of the occupation and significantly strengthens the position of the holder of exclusive enjoyment.
General assembly of co-owners: clarify parking rules through a vote
When the co-ownership regulations are silent or ambiguous regarding the allocation of spaces, regularization requires a collective decision. The general assembly can vote on:
- The adoption of a parking plan attached to the regulations, with precise identification of each space and its beneficiary
- The modification of the co-ownership regulations to include existing rights of exclusive enjoyment, mentioning the lots to which they are attached
- The implementation of control measures (ground markings, numbering, signage) funded by common charges
The majority required depends on the nature of the resolution. Granting a right of exclusive enjoyment over a common area falls under the double majority of Article 26 of the 1965 law, as it modifies the distribution of use of the common areas. In contrast, adopting a simple internal parking regulation may fall under the majority of Article 25.
Including this item on the agenda of the next general assembly requires sending a request to the property manager by registered letter, along with the proposed resolution. The property manager is obliged to include it in the notice.
Electric charging station and parking space: a lever to secure its use
The installation of a charging station in a parking space is a concrete case where the right of exclusive enjoyment takes on a reinforced practical dimension. The procedure, governed by the right to connection, requires the co-owner to send the property manager a detailed description of the planned work, accompanied by a layout plan and a connection diagram.
The distinction between private space and common area for exclusive enjoyment conditions the applicable regime. On a private lot, the co-owner notifies the property manager, who can only oppose it before the court. On a common area for exclusive enjoyment, the property manager includes the request in the agenda of the general assembly, but the refusal can only be justified by a serious and legitimate reason.
Formalizing this request for a charging station has a useful collateral effect: it obliges the property manager and the co-owners to check and then officially confirm the allocation of the concerned space. This is sometimes the most effective way to regularize a vague situation without direct confrontation.
The holder of exclusive enjoyment who documents their rights, requests the property manager in writing, and uses the available procedural tools (report from a judicial officer, inclusion on the agenda of the general assembly, request for a charging station) has concrete levers to stop an encroachment, even when the co-ownership regulations lack precision. The key remains the written record: each documented exchange strengthens the holder’s position and reduces the risk of a lengthy dispute.