Recovery of service charges (charges de copropriété) under the expedited proceedings on the merits (procédure accélérée au fond) requires, for each financial year claimed, two cumulative checks: approval by the general meeting of the provisional budget, the works or the annual accounts, and a formal notice (mise en demeure) that has remained unsatisfied. A notice to pay (commandement de payer) served in 2020 therefore does not cover the instalments (provisions) called in respect of subsequent financial years, which the commonhold association (syndicat des copropriétaires) must establish separately.
The essentials
- Article 19-2 of the Law of 10 July 1965, in its version prior to the Law of 22 August 2021, makes instalments not yet due immediately payable where an instalment remains unpaid on its due date and a formal notice remains unsatisfied after a period of thirty days.
- The commonhold association may claim the instalments of financial years later than the one covered by its initial claim only if it establishes a fresh formal notice to pay an instalment that has remained unpaid.
- Sums remaining due in respect of financial years not covered by a formal notice, and whose accounts have not yet been approved, cannot be claimed on that basis.
- For each financial year claimed, the judge must find approval by the general meeting and the default of the unit owner (copropriétaire) given formal notice.
Which financial years could the commonhold association claim?
The third civil chamber holds that a single notice to pay served in 2020 does not permit unit owners to be ordered to pay service charges calculated as at 1 January 2023 (Civ. 3e, 15 January 2026, No. 23-23.534). Two real estate companies (sociétés civiles immobilières) had two buildings constructed. On 12 April 1989, a commonhold community statement (règlement de copropriété) was drawn up for each of them, the two companies also forming an association syndicale libre (voluntary association of landowners) whose purpose included the letting of common structures and equipment.
The commonhold association of one of the buildings brought proceedings against two unit owners for payment of service charges, under Article 19-2 of the Law of 10 July 1965, before the President of the tribunal judiciaire (first-instance civil court) sitting under the expedited proceedings on the merits. The decision under appeal (CA Angers, 19 September 2023, No. 21/02429) ordered them jointly and severally to pay the service charges calculated as at 1 January 2023, noting the approval of the accounts for the years 2016 to 2021 and a notice to pay of 11 September 2020 that had remained fruitless.
The Cour de cassation (France's highest civil court) first recalls the exact scope of the provision, before censuring that reasoning (free translation):
It follows that the commonhold association may bring proceedings under Article 19-2 of the Law of 10 July 1965 only for payment of instalments due under Article 14-1 or under I of Article 14-2 which have been the subject of a formal notice, that it may not claim payment of the instalments of financial years later than the one in respect of which the initial claim was brought unless it establishes a fresh formal notice to pay an instalment that has remained unpaid, and that it may not claim payment of sums remaining due in respect of financial years not covered by a formal notice, for which the association's accounts have not yet been approved.
The quashing is partial: the appeal judges could not make such an order without examining whether the commonhold association established approval, by the general meeting, of the provisional budgets, the works or the annual accounts for the 2022 and 2023 financial years, together with the default of the unit owners following formal notices served in respect of the instalments of those financial years. On those points, the case is remitted to the Orléans court of appeal. The first two grounds of appeal did not warrant a specially reasoned decision.
What the commonhold association must establish, financial year by financial year
A claim based on Article 19-2 does not automatically extend to financial years opening while the proceedings are pending. The mechanism rests on a precise sequence, which the decision sets out clearly.
- Trigger: an instalment due under Article 14-1 or under I of Article 14-2 is not paid on its due date.
- Formality: a formal notice served on the defaulting unit owner.
- Time limit: the formal notice must have remained unsatisfied after a period of thirty days.
- Effect: the other instalments not yet due and the sums remaining due in respect of previous financial years, once the accounts have been approved, become immediately payable.
The judge hearing the case does not merely record an overall debt. Depending on the case, the judge must verify approval by the general meeting of the provisional budget, the works or the annual accounts, and then the default of the unit owner. A statement drawn up at a recent date is therefore not sufficient if the steps relating to the most recent financial years are not established. Each new financial year claimed requires its own formal notice and its own general meeting resolution.
What changes for the recovery of service charges
The decision adopts a strict reading of Article 19-2 and closes off any automatic updating of the amount claimed as the proceedings unfold. The provision applied is the one in force before the Law of 22 August 2021, as the decision expressly states. The solution is therefore of primary interest for proceedings concerning financial years prior to that reform.
The practical scope nevertheless goes beyond the case decided. The reasoning focuses on the very structure of the scheme: a formal notice takes effect only in respect of instalments already called and sums for financial years whose accounts have been approved. Nothing in the decision deprives the commonhold association of the possibility of subsequently establishing, before the court to which the case is remitted, the steps taken for the 2022 and 2023 financial years. The decision does not rule on the other means of recovery that may be deployed.
What steps for a unit owner sued for payment?
The defence is built financial year by financial year, by comparing the statement claimed with the documents actually produced. A unit owner who is sued has an interest in identifying the period covered by the formal notice relied on, and then comparing that period with the period covered by the final statement. As the case law stands at 15 January 2026, the gap between the two is the most direct ground for discussion.
For the commonhold association, documentary rigour determines the outcome. Keeping the minutes of general meetings approving the accounts for each financial year, serving a fresh formal notice as soon as an instalment for a later financial year remains unpaid, and updating the documents where the proceedings are prolonged: these steps determine the extent of the order that may be obtained. A claim made beyond the financial years thus covered exposes the decision to being quashed for lack of legal basis.
The checks to carry out on a service charge statement
- Identify, in the opposing party's documents, the date and the subject matter of each formal notice relied on.
- Check that each financial year claimed is covered by a general meeting resolution approving the provisional budget, the works or the annual accounts.
- Verify that the formal notice remained unsatisfied after a period of thirty days before instalments not yet due become payable early.
- Identify separately the sums corresponding to financial years not covered by a formal notice and whose accounts have not been approved.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a notice to pay served in 2020 cover service charges called in 2022 and 2023?
No. Under the decision of 15 January 2026, the commonhold association may claim instalments for financial years later than the one covered by its initial claim only if it establishes a fresh formal notice to pay an instalment that has remained unpaid. An earlier formal notice does not automatically update the calls for funds of later financial years, which require their own steps.
Can the commonhold association claim sums whose accounts have not yet been approved?
No, not under Article 19-2 of the Law of 10 July 1965. The third civil chamber holds that the association may not claim payment of sums remaining due for financial years not covered by a formal notice and for which the accounts have not yet been approved by the general meeting. Approval is a condition of the claim, financial year by financial year.
What must a judge verify before ordering a unit owner to pay service charges?
For each financial year claimed, the judge must find two cumulative elements: approval by the general meeting of unit owners of the provisional budget, the works or the annual accounts, as the case may be, and the default of the unit owner after a formal notice. An order made without that examination lacks a legal basis, as the Cour de cassation held on 15 January 2026, partially quashing the decision and remitting the case.
What should be checked before paying a service charge statement that seems questionable?
Start by comparing the statement with the documents supporting it: general meeting resolutions, the corresponding calls for funds and the reminder letters received. A claim covering a longer period than the documents produced calls for an explanation from the creditor. In principle, whoever claims a sum must justify its amount and its enforceability. Keeping written exchanges makes any later discussion easier, whether amicable or before a court.
Why keep evidence of formal notices sent to a debtor?
A formal notice records in writing both the demand and the default of the debtor, two elements the creditor often has to prove before a judge. Without evidence of its dispatch and its content, a claim for payment may face a dispute over the date or the scope of the demand. Filing these letters with their acknowledgements of receipt, and renewing them as the debt grows, secures recovery.