First of all, it's worth noting that some condominium rules already set limits on what is and isn't permitted as outdoor installations. For example, in very high-end buildings, as is often the case in the Principality, the simple installation of private parasols on balconies or terraces may be formally prohibited, for reasons of façade harmonization. The models or colors of external blinds or parasols may also be limited to those authorized in the building's internal regulations. It is also important to ensure that the exterior design under consideration does not contravene any regulations that may be applicable to the district in question.
The next step is to obtain any necessary authorization from the general meeting of co-owners.
While work carried out by co-owners within their private areas may be carried out without authorization, Law 1.329 of January 8, 2007 on co-ownership of buildings stipulates that requests for work or installations affecting the exterior appearance of the building must be approved by a majority vote of co-owners present or represented. This will generally be the case for the installation of pergolas, blinds, tents or even an outdoor air-conditioning unit.
When presenting a project to modify the exterior of a building, it's important to consider the ownership and use of the outdoor spaces concerned. For example, the ownership of certain exterior spaces accessible from several lots may be questioned. When it's not the ownership itself, the use of certain special or private common areas, as stipulated in the building's regulations, can stand in the way of a work project. This analysis can prove tricky, depending on what has been recorded in the building regulations and the various property titles.
If we look more specifically at the installation of Jacuzzis or water basins on the terraces and rooftops of condominium buildings, the very waterproofing of the building may be affected by the work project put to the vote. In this context, and depending on the provisions of the building's regulations, it may be considered that the said project impacts the building's common areas. If the building's rules are silent, waterproofing is deemed to be a common part of the building. However, for work or installations affecting the common parts of the building and compliant with its destination, the aforementioned law 1.329 also provides for a majority vote of the co-owners present or represented.
In the event of an unjustified refusal by the general meeting of co-owners, the petitioner may, if the conditions are met, apply to the President of the Court of First Instance, ruling in summary proceedings, for authorization to carry out the work or installations, provided they are not such as to damage the solidity or aesthetics of the building, or to cause inconvenience to the other co-owners of the building. The exercise will be facilitated if installations of the same type are already authorized or tolerated in the building.
This being said, a special mandate may also have been given to the building's manager by a majority vote of the co-owners present or represented, in order to authorize, at the expense of co-owners who so request, the carrying out of works or installations affecting the common parts included in one or more lots belonging to them, when such works or installations are useful to them and are not likely to harm the solidity or aesthetics of the building, or to cause inconvenience to the other co-owners.
