Blog

Eighth and final part of the series “Practical Guide to the Lebanese Code of Real Property.” English adaptation of the Arabic original, drawing also on the French sibling. This part sets out the whole of the Lebanese Code of Condominium Ownership of Built Immovables — Legislative Decree No. 88 of 16 September 1983 — from the definition of condominium and the divided built immovable through the transitory and final dispositions, including the private units and common areas, the 75%-majority rule, the property administration regulations, the general assembly of co-owners, the assembly council, the board of directors for non-residential projects, and the public-order dispositions.

Arabic version: قانون الملكية المشتركة في العقارات المبنية اللبناني. French version: La copropriété des immeubles bâtis en droit libanais.

Introduction

With this eighth part, the analytical itinerary of the series devoted to the Lebanese Code of Real Property reaches its close. We had announced, in the conclusion of the seventh part on delimitation and registration works, that the particular regime of condominium ownership of built immovables deserved an autonomous treatment. Legislative Decree No. 88 of 16 September 1983 is the legislative framework that governs this field. It was issued by way of legislative delegation under Law No. 36/82 of 17 November 1982 and Law No. 10/83 of 21 May 1983, and it expressly abrogated the Law of 24 December 1962 on the organisation of ownership of multi-storey or multi-apartment buildings — subject to the rights acquired before its entry into force. The decree-law is composed of eighty-two articles over six chapters: rules of inscription (Articles 1-11), property administration regulations (Articles 12-17), assemblies of co-owners (Articles 18-49), assembly councils (Articles 50-60), board of directors (Articles 61-73), and miscellaneous dispositions (Articles 74-82). Its architecture has remained stable for forty-two years, with a single modification: Article 77 was amended by Law No. 671 of 5 February 1998.

It must be insisted upon at the outset: Law No. 671 of 5 February 1998 is the annual State Budget Law for fiscal year 1998. Its modification of Article 77 is a rider provision — a fiscal adjustment to the registration fee at the Land Registry. It is not a structural reform of the condominium regime: the law touched neither the status of private units, nor the regime of assemblies, nor any substantive aspect. The decree-law’s substantive body (Articles 1-76 and 78-82) has undergone no modification in forty-two years of application.

A common-law-reader disambiguation is in order at the threshold. The Lebanese institution sits within a family of civil-law and common-law regimes governing the legal organisation of multi-unit buildings, and the family-resemblances are close enough to mislead the foreign counsel reaching for the closest analogue from home. The closest US-style analogue is the condominium under state statutes built on the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act 1982; Canadian provincial Condominium Acts follow similar lines; Australian strata title statutes reach a comparable structural result under different vocabulary; the United Kingdom’s commonhold introduced by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 remains marginal, leasehold continuing to dominate the British market. The Lebanese institution diverges from each on points of substance: the 75%-majority structure with absolute-unanimity hypotheses; the waqf-and-idjaratayn implications inherited from the Ottoman tradition; the absolute-nullity public-order provisions of Article 78; the chamber-of-first-instance jurisdictional default for substantive disputes; and the 2400-denominator carry-forward of indivise shares. Decree-Law No. 88/1983 is a civil-law condominium statute with its own structural shape, derived from the French Loi du 10 juillet 1965 sur la copropriété with adjustments specific to the Lebanese Land Registry tradition.

The scope of the text also calls for clarification. The decree-law is not confined to residential buildings: it applies to any building inscribed at the Land Registry in the form of private units — residential, commercial, mixed-use, or even an industrial complex — provided the constructions comply with the building laws. It does not apply to immovables held in indivision and not yet divided; these remain governed by Decision No. 3339 of 12 November 1930 and by the Law of 16 March 1982 on the exit from indivision. Article 79 expressly provides that Article 72 of Decision No. 3339 — set out in the second part of this series — does not apply to buildings inscribed under the decree-law: as soon as a building is divided into units and inscribed under Decree-Law No. 88, it leaves the perimeter of Article 72 of Decision No. 3339 and passes under the full competence of the decree-law, which substitutes for it integrally.

A terminological precision finally. The body of the 1983 text uses, at Article 25, the expression « محكمة الحاكم المنفرد » (“the tribunal of the single judge”) — vocabulary of the post-abolition era of the Sulh magistracy. In the contemporary judicial organisation, competence in matters of domicile and notification rests with the single-judge civil court. However — and this is a jurisprudential nuance of major importance to the practitioner — settled Lebanese case law has clarified that substantive disputes relating to condominium ownership (interferences with common areas, contestations between co-owners, contestations affecting the consistency of the right of ownership over a private unit) fall not under the single-judge civil court but under the chamber of first instance competent in real-property matters. This precision recurs in the commentary on Articles 20, 22, 25 and 36.

I. Definition of Condominium Ownership and the Divided Built Immovable

Article 1 of Decree-Law No. 88 of 16 September 1983 opens the text with the definition of the juridical mechanism that founds the regime of condominium ownership:

“Article 1 — The owner of an entire built immovable may inscribe in the registers of the Land Registry services the constructions raised on his immovable, divided each into a distinct unit, in conformity with the dispositions of the present decree-law. The land of the immovable and the totality of the elements and parts, together with everything destined for common use, then become common areas between the co-owners; and each part destined for private use becomes the property of the person to whom it pertains, subject to the particular dispositions fixed in the present decree-law.”

The qualification as condominium ownership results from a voluntary choice of the owner: a multi-storey building does not enter the perimeter of the decree-law by the mere fact of being multi-storey. The owner must file an application with the Land Registry service seeking the division of the constructions into units. Once the inscription is effected, the land and the common installations are transformed by operation of law into common areas between the co-owners of the private units, and each apartment, each commercial premise, or each floor becomes an autonomous real-property unit endowed with its own complementary real folio.

Article 2 then states the arithmetical rule that founds the system:

“Article 2 — The ownership of each unit is deemed to be composed of 2,400 parts.”

This 2,400-denominator continues directly the rule carried by the fifth part and the seventh part on the 2,400 as the denominator of indivise shares in the Lebanese land system — the cluster’s single-system rule on indivise shares thus closes here, at Article 2 of the decree-law.

Article 3 precises the meaning of building and immovable in the context of the decree-law: the building designates the single building or the ensemble of buildings constructed on the immovable, and the immovable designates the single immovable or the ensemble of immovables that constitute a single real-property unit in the sense of the building law. When the real-property unit is composed of several immovables, it is identified by the smallest among their numbers. The second paragraph poses an important limit: a building erected on a group of immovables treated as a single real-property unit after the entry into force of the decree-law does not benefit from its dispositions, unless a legal impediment opposes the fusion of the immovables into a single one.

II. The Private Units and the Common Areas

Article 4 establishes a four-tier numbering system that is binding for every divided immovable:

“Article 4 — Each unit receives a determined number, which is added to the number of the immovable, and a particular complementary real folio is drawn up for it on which the inscriptions relating to it are entered according to the rules.

>

– The land of the immovable and the parts, elements, installations and everything destined for common use between the totality of the co-owners of the immovable are considered as common area between all and always receive number 1.

>

– The parts, elements, installations and everything destined for common use between a determined group of co-owners of the immovable are considered as common area between that group and always receive number 2.

>

– The parts, elements, installations and everything destined for common use between the group of co-owners of a single building are considered as common area between that group and always receive number 3.

>

– The remaining parts are considered as private units and are numbered in sequence beginning with number 4.”

Article 5 complements this device: in the event of a plurality of buildings on the same immovable, each of them is identified by a sequential letter of the Latin alphabet added to the number of the immovable and preceding the numbers of the units. The real-property entity thus receives a triple identification: immovable number + building letter + unit number. To guarantee respect for the legal framework, Article 6 provides that “the constructions may not be inscribed as units unless they are in conformity with the dispositions of the building laws.”

The enumeration of the common areas is then detailed by Article 7, which distinguishes two categories by means of two complementary tables:

“Article 7 — The common areas are such either by their nature or by their destination:

>

a — Common areas by their nature comprise, notably and obligatorily:

1. The land of the immovable.

2. The skeleton of the building, the foundations, the pillars, the columns, and the walls bearing the building or bearing the roofs.

3. The entrances, the façades, the staircases and their cages.

4. The conduits and shafts of ventilation and the chimneys.

5. The lifts.

6. The final roof terraces, in conformity with the dispositions of the building laws.

>

b — Common areas by their destination comprise everything destined for common use, notably the following elements:

1. The tunnels, cavities and parking premises.

2. The ways, squares, open spaces, gardens, passages and walkways of all kinds.

3. The sports, tourism and entertainment installations and their annexes.

4. The installations of all kinds.

5. The lodges of doorkeepers.

>

And all the equipment and apparatus rendering a common service and the places in which these things are located.”

The distinction between by their nature and by their destination carries a proper legal effect: the elements common by their nature are common by operation of law and may not be made the object of division or partition, even if the regulations do not expressly so provide. The elements common by their destination are subject to the distribution that the regulations fix among common areas 1, 2 and 3. On this point, it is settled doctrine that the lift constitutes a common area by its nature within the meaning of Article 7(a)(5); the fact that a single co-owner has installed and equipped the lift at his own expense does not modify this qualification, and barring other co-owners from the use of the lift constitutes a characterised interference with their rights.

Article 8 provides that partitions or walls separating two or more units, and which are not considered as forming part of the skeleton, are common areas between the units they separate. Article 9 states that the elements of a private unit must be contiguous; where a private unit comprises accessory built elements materially separated from it, those elements may be inscribed as autonomous units whose ownership remains tied to that of the principal private unit, without possibility of disposing of them or constituting real rights upon them independently.

Article 10 states the cardinal rule that governs the relationship between the private units and the common areas:

“Article 10 — The ownership of the common areas is considered accessory to the ownership of the private units; consequently, it admits neither dismemberment nor partition, and it is not possible to constitute real rights upon it independently of the private units to which they are attached.”

This accessoriality entails two indissociable practical consequences: it is not possible to sell a co-owner’s quote-part in a common area separately from his private unit, and it is not possible to constitute a mortgage or gage immobilier on the common areas alone — any disposition over the private unit automatically carries with it the corresponding quote-part in the common areas.

III. The 75%-Majority Rule for the Use of the Common Areas

Article 11 summarises two juridical equations that govern any modification or intervention upon the common areas:

“Article 11 — Each co-owner has the right, within the conditions of the regulations, to use the common area in conformity with its destination, provided that this does not prevent the use of the other co-owners. No co-owner may carry out any act of a nature to threaten the solidity of the building or to modify its form or alter its external aspect.

>

No modification may be made to the common area — even on renovation of the building, and in everything necessary to the homogeneity and harmony of the construction, even where the modifications bear on non-common parts such as entrance doors, windows, balconies and the like — except by a decision adopted by the assembly at a majority of at least 75% of the votes of the co-owners.”

It is settled doctrine that this rule extends to external modifications of the building, even where brought to bear within a private unit, as soon as they affect the harmony of the general aspect. The decisive criterion is neither the proportion nor the cost of the intervention, but the fact that it touches the solidity of the building, its form, or its external aspect. The prohibition imposed on a co-owner against constructing or modifying the common areas — or even the non-common parts that touch the external aspect of the building — can be lifted only by a decision of the assembly adopted at a majority of at least three-quarters of the votes; any decision of the assembly taken at a lower majority to authorise a modification of this type is deemed null and inopposable.

IV. The Property Administration Regulations

Article 12 imposes the deposit of property administration regulations, certified before the notary, when the number of private units is three or more. The article fixes the elements that must obligatorily figure in those regulations, which are composed of three pieces: a table, a plan, and normative dispositions.

The table (paragraph a) comprises the eight fields enumerated limitatively below:

“Article 12, a — Table indicating the following elements, in a field proper to each of them:

1. The number of the immovable.

2. The cadastral region.

3. The numbers of the units in order of series.

4. The designation of the building in which the unit is located, where appropriate.

5. The floor, where appropriate (the designation is taken from the building permit).

6. The content of the unit and its annexes, as well as the units that depend on it, in conformity with Articles 9 and 10.

7. The proportion of the rights of the private unit in each of common areas 1, 2 and 3, and its obligations towards each of them, on the basis of a number drawn from a total of one thousand; each co-owner of a private unit has a number of votes equal to the parts that he holds in the common areas, separately for each of them. In case of indivision over the ownership of a private unit, the right of vote returns to the one who holds the majority of the parts; in case of equality of quotities, to the oldest among them. If the holder of the majority does not appear despite his convocation, the unit may be validly represented by the next in the ownership of the number of parts.

8. Observations, in case of need.”

The plan (paragraph b) represents the architectural configuration, the location and the composition of each unit.

As regards the normative dispositions (paragraph c), the legislator institutes nine obligatory rubrics for the rules relating to the administration of the immovable:

“Article 12, c — The dispositions relating to the administration of the immovable, it being understood that the following elements shall be precised in those dispositions, without limitation:

1. The constitution of the assembly of co-owners and the election of a president for it.

2. The convocations and notifications.

3. The holding of meetings.

4. The drawing-up of procès-verbaux.

5. The elections of all kinds.

6. The adoption of decisions and their execution.

7. Where appropriate, the appointment of managers and of the office bureau, the determination of the attributions, indemnities and remunerations, the modalities of performance of the functions, and the modalities of revocation, as set out in chapter five of the present decree-law.

8. The constitution of the boards of administration, the determination of their attributions, and the modalities of their revocation.

9. The administration, the maintenance and the preservation of the building.”

Under the ninth point, the legislator enumerates ten sub-rubrics the regulations must cover: co-owners’ rights in their private units and in the common areas and the modalities of their exercise; internal modifications a co-owner may bring to his private unit; conditions of insurance against risks (notably fire); works and additions to common areas; the distribution of votes between bare-ownership holder and usufructuary (failing special provision, point 2 of Article 36 of Decree-Law No. 146 of 13 June 1959 applies); the collection of provisions and recovery of debts; employment of personnel and workers; settlement of disputes between co-owners; representation of the assembly before the jurisdictions; and modalities of modification of the regulations themselves.

Article 13 then provides, with marked firmness:

“Article 13 — The regulations may not comprise any provision contravening the dispositions of imperative laws and regulations, notably the dispositions of the laws and regulations of the building. If such a provision figures in them, it is deemed not applicable, even between the parties.”

This text places the regulations in a subordinate normative position: they cannot depart from the building laws, from the decree-law itself, nor from any other imperative law. Any clause contradicting an imperative provision is null by operation of law, even between the co-owners signatory to the regulations.

Articles 14 and 15 distinguish two situations relating to exhaustion of the general exploitation coefficient. If the building has exhausted the coefficient, the applicant for the inscription may not retain any particular right over the elements of the common areas (Article 14). If the building has not exhausted the coefficient, the owner may retain on his account whatever remains, on condition that he expressly so precise in the regulations (Article 15). It is settled doctrine that Article 14 prohibits the retention by the original owner of any private right over common-area elements — such as roof terraces and open spaces — once the coefficient is exhausted; any clause of the regulations attributing such a right thereafter is deemed not applicable.

Articles 16 and 17 settle a frequent practical situation: when the owner of the immovable at the date of inscription is a single person (or one assimilated to a single person — spouses and their minor children are included), he is considered by operation of law as president of the assembly until that assembly is constituted and a president elected (Article 16). If the applicant has not yet completed his project, he may retain the presidency by simple declaration and remain so until completion, without the duration exceeding five years (Article 17).

V. The General Assembly of Co-Owners

The general assembly of co-owners arises by operation of law as soon as the number of private units exceeds three (Article 18), and is entrusted with the administration of the immovable and the performance of the acts of disposition that are attributed to it. In the event of a plurality of buildings, Article 19 permits the constitution of a particular assembly for each building or for each group of buildings forming a unit within the meaning of the property administration regulations.

1. Legal Personality and Jurisdictional Competence

Both the general assembly and the particular assemblies enjoy legal personality within the limit of their attributions. In case of conflict of powers between them or contradiction of their decisions, the tribunal of first instance of the circumscription in which the immovable is located decides by definitive decision, taken in the chamber of council after having heard the representatives of each (Article 20).

It is settled doctrine that the tribunal of first instance of the circumscription in which the immovable is located is the competent jurisdiction to know of the disputes arising between co-owners under the regime of condominium ownership, in application of Article 20 — an orientation reaching stability in the Lebanese Council of State’s arbitration of conflicts of competence between the assembly of co-owners and municipal administrations. More precisely, the civil jurisprudence competent in real-property matters has affirmed that interferences with the common areas committed by the operators of commercial establishments located in a private unit subject to the regime fall within the attributional competence of the chamber of first instance competent in real-property matters, and not that of the single-judge civil court in real-property matters; the jurisprudence is constant in declaring the action irreceivable for lack of attributional competence if brought before the single-judge civil court.

2. The President, the Bureau, and Notification

The assembly elects its president by secret ballot, on the convocation of the co-owner who holds the greatest number of votes in common area number 1 (Article 22). A bureau may be constituted, under the presidency of the president, when the importance of the affairs justifies it. The attributions of the president are stated by Article 23: he executes the decisions of the assembly, takes all measures the assembly has authorised, conducts the ordinary daily affairs, and accomplishes all urgent diligences that the safety of the immovable and that of third parties require. The assembly holds a general meeting at least once a year (Article 24); extraordinary meetings may be held on the request signed by co-owners holding at least a quarter of the votes.

As regards notification, Article 25 imposes on each co-owner the obligation to elect a domicile within the ressort of the single-judge tribunal having competence over the immovable; failing this, he is deemed domiciled by operation of law within the unit that he owns. Per the introductory annotation, the 1983 reference to “the single-judge tribunal” designates today the single-judge civil court for domicile and notification matters; substantive disputes fall under the chamber of first instance competent in real-property matters.

Article 26 precises the modes of notification: by registered mail if the addressee has elected a domicile within the ressort, otherwise by posting at the entrance of the private unit, or at the real domicile by the person himself or through the persons designated in Article 353 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The notification must be effected at least ten days before the date of the meeting (Article 27), and the meeting may be held outside the ressort of the competent tribunal only in cases of force majeure and with the prior agreement of 75% of the votes (Article 28).

3. Quorum and Majorities

Article 29 institutes a regime of double quorum: at the first sitting, the presence of the absolute majority of the votes of the co-owners is required; at the subsequent sitting, the meeting is validly held whatever the number of those present, unless a special disposition fixes a particular majority. Decisions are adopted by majority in conformity with the quotities provided, and the vote is taken by raised hand for the expression of approval (Article 32).

The cardinal rule of classification of acts figures at Article 33, which distinguishes acts of disposition from acts of administration:

“Article 33 — Acts of disposition may not, in principle, be the object of a decision of the general assembly of co-owners except at the unanimity of the votes of the co-owners, subject to the two following cases:

>

1. The addition of a construction or the installation of equipment or machines that are necessary or useful.

>

2. The sale of the immovable, if the sole building of the immovable has collapsed or has been damaged to the point of becoming unfit for use, and likewise if, in the case of a plurality of buildings, these have collapsed or been damaged to the point of becoming unfit for use, and where no indemnity covers at least sixty per cent of the costs of reconstruction of a similar building, and this in the absence of unanimity of the co-owners on the reconstruction.

>

In these two cases, the decisions may be adopted at the majority of at least 75% of the votes of all the co-owners of the immovable.”

The definition of acts of administration is then given by Article 35:

“Article 35 — Are considered as acts of an administrative character, notably and without limitation:

>

1. The maintenance, the repair and the replacement of the totality of the existing equipment that assures a common service, such as motors, lifts, heating and cooling apparatus… common installations of all kinds… water and fuel tanks… common sewers… ventilation conduits and their accessories… sporting, recreational and cultural installations…

>

2. The exploitation of certain common areas by contracts whose duration does not exceed one year.

>

3. The repair of all defects arising on the common areas or on certain of their elements.

>

And, in general, everything that is not of a nature to diminish the rights of the co-owners in the ownership or in the use of the common areas.”

Decisions relating to acts of administration are adopted at the absolute majority of the votes at the first round, and at the majority of those present at the second round (Article 34).

Articles 36 and 37 address exceptional situations consecutive to destruction of the building. Article 36 permits the assembly to decide reconstruction at a 75% majority if an indemnity covers at least 60% of the costs of reconstruction of a similar building; a co-owner refusing to submit is obliged to cede his rights to the other co-owners at a price fixed by the tribunal of first instance in chamber of council. Article 37 addresses the hypothesis of plurality of buildings with total destruction of one, where the co-owners of the destroyed building refuse reconstruction within three years: those co-owners are constrained to cede their rights to the other co-owners at a price fixed by the tribunal of first instance after hearing the presidents of the assemblies.

4. Modalities of Vote and the Personal-Majority Safeguard

A co-owner may give a mandate to a third party to represent him by official procuration or before the mokhtar (Article 38). A co-owner may not take part in the vote when the assembly deliberates on the conclusion of a contract with him personally (Article 39). If one of the co-owners requests secret ballot, that mode of ballot becomes obligatory for all questions of a personal character, such as the revocation of the members of the administration or the impeachment of their responsibility (Article 40).

Article 41 states a fundamental safeguard against drift by a majority co-owner:

“Article 41 — If the quote-part of one of the co-owners exceeds half of the number of the votes, and he exercises his right of vote, each co-owner among his peers may, within a delay of fifteen days from the decision, bring before the tribunal of first instance competent for the immovable an action in nullity against him and against the president of the assembly, on the ground that the decision has privileged the interest of the majority co-owner to the detriment of the interest of his associates, and that it is contrary to the principles of justice and equity. The decision of the tribunal is definitive.

>

The majority co-owner may avoid such an action if he declares before the vote and the adoption of the decision that he exercises his right of vote only within the limit not exceeding half of the votes of the co-owners.”

This safeguard does not in principle suppress the prerogative of the majority co-owner, but accords to the minority an instrument of rapid action (fifteen days) before the tribunal of first instance, entrusted with the power of annulment if it appears the decision served the interest of the majority co-owner to the detriment of the others. The precaution rule of the second paragraph (prior declaration of self-limitation to half of the votes) permits the majority co-owner to immunise his decision against subsequent action.

5. President’s Attributions and Financial Management

Where impediments obstruct the president’s exercise of his attributions, any interested party may petition the president of the tribunal of first instance to designate a temporary president to convoke a meeting within a month (Article 42). Article 43 imposes on the president the keeping of four registers: a repertory of co-owners and their situation, the assembly’s files and official documents, the procès-verbaux of meetings, and the assembly’s accounting with the annual budget presented to the assembly at least one month and at most three months before the close of each exercise. The president may request from co-owners monthly or quarterly provisions, the settlement of expenses, or exceptional provisions according to the modalities fixed by the assembly (Article 44); he must deposit the sums collected into a special bank account opened in the assembly’s name (Article 45). The indemnities of the president are fixed by an assembly decision taken at the 75% majority (Article 46).

6. Recovery of Common Charges and the Privilege

Article 47 institutes an executory mechanism specific to the recovery of common charges:

“Article 47 — If a co-owner does not acquit the share that falls to him of the common charges — notably those mentioned in Article 44 of the present decree-law — within a delay of ten days from the notification of the formal notice to perform effected according to the modalities fixed at Article 26 of the present decree-law, the formal notice to perform stands as a written title. The president of the assembly, or the manager, may then seize the execution department for the recovery in conformity with the dispositions of the law on the recovery of debts established by written title, brought into application by Decree No. 9793 of 4 May 1968. In this case, the collection of judicial fees is deferred until the completion of the execution or the cancellation of the procedure.”

In practice, the formal notice that the president addresses pursuant to Article 26 acquires, after ten days from the notification, the value of a direct executory title permitting the immediate seizure of the execution department — without a prior judicial action to have the debt established. The ten-day delay runs from the date of the notification, not from the date of sending.

Article 48 further reinforces the position of the assembly by instituting a privilege that guarantees any loan accorded by the assembly or by certain co-owners of the private units to one of the co-owners to enable him to discharge his obligations; this loan is inscribed at the Land Registry according to the rules of inscription of real-property mortgages (the regime of mortgages was set out in the fourth part of the series).

7. Modification of the Regulations

Article 49 fixes the majorities required for the modification of the regulations:

“Article 49 — The regulations mentioned in chapter two of the present decree-law may be modified at the majority of at least 75% of the votes of the co-owners, except in the two following cases:

>

– The modification of the proportions of the rights of the private units in the common areas and of their obligations toward them.

– The change of the destination of use of the private unit and the conditions of enjoyment attached to it.

>

In these two cases, the unanimity of the votes of the co-owners is required.”

The distinction is sharp: 75% suffices for any administrative modification, but modification of the proportions of the rights and contributive obligations, or change of the essential destination of any private unit (transformation, for example, of a commercial premise into an office or residential apartment, or the inverse), requires the signature of all co-owners without exception. It is settled in case law that any modification bearing on the proportions of the rights effected at a majority lower than unanimity is struck with nullity and inopposable to the abstaining co-owner.

VI. The Assembly Councils

The assembly may, on the president’s proposal, elect a council from among the co-owners, their spouses, or their legal or statutory representatives; the council comprises at least three and at most twelve members (Article 50). Election of the assembly council becomes obligatory when the number of private units exceeds fifty (Article 51), unless a board of directors has been constituted under chapter five. The council’s mission is to assist the president, give him advice, and control his acts; the president of the assembly is by operation of law the president of the council (Article 52). Election is at the majority for acts of administrative character (Article 53); if election does not result in a designation, the president may petition the summary procedures judge to designate the council (Article 54).

The council is deemed dissolved by operation of law, and new elections are held, if the number of its members — titular and substitute — falls below half of the minimum effectives fixed by the regulations (Article 56). It substitutes for the assembly in all acts of administrative character and adopts decisions at the majority provided for those acts (Article 57). It must meet at least once every three months to take cognisance of the president’s acts and expenses (Article 58). The president’s and council members’ mission does not give right to indemnity except by assembly decision at a 75% majority (Article 59); at the end of each exercise, the council draws up a report that the president presents at the annual general meeting (Article 60).

VII. The Board of Directors for Non-Residential Projects

In projects of a non-residential character, or where that character predominates, the general assembly may elect a board of directors composed of at least three and at most twelve members to administer the immovable (Article 61). In this case, the president of the assembly’s mandate ends by operation of law, and the board must designate one of its members for the presidency — possibly the president of the assembly himself. The board’s mission is gratuitous in principle unless the regulations provide otherwise (Article 62); all members must be co-owners, and the mandate may not exceed three years renewable (Article 63). The president of the board exercises the functions of manager and may propose to the board the appointment of another manager, who exercises his functions for the account of the president and under his personal responsibility (Article 64).

Article 67 fixes the quorum: for board decisions to be valid, at least half of the members must be present or represented, and a member may represent only one other. Article 68 vests the board with broad powers to execute the assembly’s decisions and accomplish all acts that the ordinary administration of the immovable requires that are not daily acts, subject only to limits provided by the law or by the regulations.

Article 69 institutes a conflict-of-interest safeguard: any agreement between the board and one of its members — directly, indirectly, or through an interposed person — is subject to the prior authorisation of the assembly. Likewise subject to authorisation is any agreement between the board and another entity if a board member is its owner, joint-and-several partner, manager, or board member; the authorisation must be renewed each year for contracts with successive obligations of long duration.

Article 70 states four financial obligations: a semi-annual statement at the end of the first six months, an inventory and annual budget at the close of the financial year, explanations in case of modification of the budget method between exercises, and the convocation of assemblies (or upon petition signed by co-owners holding a quarter of the votes).

Article 71 provides that board members are responsible, even toward third parties, for their administrative fault, for all fraudulent acts, and for any violation of the law or of the regulations; the individual action that an injured co-owner may bring may not be arrested by a proposal of the assembly tending to absolve the members. Responsibility is either individual, proper to a determined member, or collective, in which case the members are all jointly and severally liable for damages, unless some of them have had their dissent noted in the procès-verbal (Article 72). Article 73 closes chapter five by providing that these dispositions do not obstruct the application of the dispositions of the Code of Commerce that are not contrary to them — an articulation reflecting that many boards of non-residential immovables are managed on commercial-management models.

VIII. Miscellaneous Dispositions

1. The Right of Pre-emption and Divided Immovables

Article 74 states a major exceptional rule:

“Article 74 — Subject to the rights acquired before the entry into force of the present decree-law, the laws relating to the right of pre-emption or to the right of priority, or to any other similar right, do not apply to the immovables subject to its dispositions. However, each co-owner of a private unit disposes of the right of pre-emption to acquire the indivise quotity whose sale is projected by amicable means to the profit of a person other than a co-owner, in conformity with the dispositions on the right of pre-emption stated in Decision No. 3339 of 12 November 1930.

>

This right of pre-emption does not arise on the occasion of the sale taking place between spouses, ascendants and descendants, or brothers and sisters and their descendants.”

This text automatically excludes the classical rules of pre-emption from the sale of private units — these being already, by hypothesis, divided, there is no occasion to resort to pre-emption as an instrument of exit from indivision. The legislator reserves the unique hypothesis in which the right preserves a meaning: residual indivision within a determined private unit (for example, heirs holding an apartment in indivision, one of whom cedes his quote-part to a person other than a co-owner). The family exception of the second paragraph aligns with the general exceptions of Decision No. 3339 (see the fifth part of the series). It is settled doctrine that the right of pre-emption does not apply to built immovables divided into floors and apartments under Article 74.

2. Notification of the Cession of Ownership

Article 75 imposes on any person acquiring a right of ownership or usufruct in a private unit the obligation to notify the person responsible for the administration of the immovable within a maximum delay of thirty days, and to deposit with him all official documents establishing the acquisition. Failing this, the former co-owner continues to represent the unit toward the assembly, which may recover all charges from either of them, unless the former co-owner has notified the proof of cession. This rule places the acquirer before a rigorous procedural duty: in the absence of notification within thirty days, the seller remains the apparent co-owner toward the assembly, and the acquirer and the seller bear the charges jointly and severally.

3. Submission of Indivision to the Condominium Regime

Article 76 addresses a frequent practical situation: a built immovable held in indivision, the object of an action for partition that cannot be effected in kind and that has not been made the object of a joint-stock company under the Law on the Exit from Indivision in Immovables of 16 March 1982. In this hypothesis, the tribunal is bound to operate the partition by submitting the immovable to the condominium regime of the decree-law, if the majority of the indivisaries so request and they hold more than half of the parts. The tribunal may join infinitesimal quotities and attach them to one or more quote-parts, and adjust quotities by monetary compensations up to one-fifth of their value, as provided by points 3 and 4 of Article 942 of the Code of Obligations and Contracts. The tribunal designates an expert to effect the distribution and propose property administration regulations that complete what the decree-law has not provided for.

4. The Registration Fee

“Article 77 — modified in conformity with Law No. 671 of 5 February 1998. If the application for inscription bears on a building already inscribed on the real folio according to the rules, or bears simultaneously on the inscription of the constructions as units in conformity with the dispositions of the present decree-law, the fee due is one per cent (1%).”

As recalled in the introduction, Law No. 671 of 5 February 1998 is the State Budget Law for fiscal year 1998; the modification of Article 77 figures among the fiscal adjustments carried by that type of annual budget law in Lebanon, which explains the absence of a stand-alone law dedicated to the modification of the registration fee in condominium matters. The 1% rate applies whether the building is already inscribed on the real folio or the inscription of the constructions is effected concomitantly with the application for division.

5. The Dispositions Relating to Public Order

“Article 78 — Articles 25, 26, 27, 29, 33, 36, 41, 47, 48, 49 and 73 of the present decree-law are among the dispositions relating to public order.”

This enumeration warrants sustained attention: Article 25 (election of domicile + notification), Article 26 (notification modalities), Article 27 (ten-day delay), Article 29 (quorum), Article 33 (acts of disposition + unanimity), Article 36 (reconstruction after destruction), Article 41 (minority action against majority co-owner), Article 47 (formal notice as executory title), Article 48 (real-property privilege), Article 49 (modification of the regulations), and Article 73 (articulation with the Code of Commerce) — none of these dispositions may be set aside by convention, neither in the regulations nor by a collective decision, whatever the majority attained. Any clause to the contrary is struck with absolute nullity, invocable by any interested party, whether or not he was a party to the adoption of the regulations.

6. The Exclusion of Article 72 of Decision No. 3339

Article 79 provides that the dispositions of Article 72 of Decision No. 3339 do not apply to buildings inscribed at the Land Registry under the decree-law. This text closes the articulation announced in the introduction and in the second part of the series: the rule of distribution of the costs of maintenance and renovation of the multi-storey building (Article 72 of Decision No. 3339) does not apply to buildings inscribed as divided units under Decree-Law No. 88. These buildings are entirely and exclusively subject to the new integrated regime borne by the decree-law.

7. Transitory Dispositions

Article 80 accords a delay of six months to co-owners who divided their private units under the Law of 24 December 1962 to elect a domicile under Article 25 of the new decree-law. Article 81 abrogates the totality of dispositions contrary to Decree-Law No. 88, notably the Law of 24 December 1962 on the organisation of ownership of multi-storey or multi-apartment buildings. The formula “subject to the rights acquired before the entry into force of the present decree-law” of Article 74 applies to that abrogation: buildings divided under the 1962 law do not see Decree-Law No. 88 applied retroactively, but remain governed by the rules inscribed on their real folios at the time of division, subject to application of the new rules to questions the original regime had not addressed.

8. Entry into Force

Article 82 provides that “the present decree-law enters into application upon its publication in the Official Gazette.” It was published in the Official Gazette and entered into force on 16 September 1983.

IX. Synthesis — The Closing of the Eight-Part Series on Lebanese Real-Property Law

With the publication of this eighth part, the series consecrated to the Lebanese Code of Real Property closes. The series has traversed three major legislative corpora:

• Decision No. 3339 of 12 November 1930 — the foundational Code of Lebanese Real Property, which constituted the spine of five successive parts: the first part (the definition of the immovable and types of ownership, Articles 1 to 55), the second part (real-property easements, Articles 56 to 90), the third part (the immovable pledge and the vente à réméré, Articles 91 to 116), the fourth part (real-property privileges, the mortgage, and the forced sale, Articles 117 to 173), and the fifth part (the promise of sale, the right of pre-emption, and acquisitive prescription, Articles 204 to 227 and 238 to 266).
• The Decisions of 1926 — the infrastructure of the Lebanese land system: the sixth part (the Land Registry — Decisions No. 188 and 189) and the seventh part (delimitation and registration works — Decision No. 186).
• Legislative Decree No. 88 of 16 September 1983 — this eighth part, which covers condominium ownership of built immovables and constitutes the particular regime complementing the general regime of Decision No. 3339 for a dominant category of Lebanese immovables: multi-storey buildings divided into private units.

Certain fields adjacent to Lebanese real-property law fall outside the perimeter of this series and merit particular mention: the Law on Expropriation for Public Utility (Legislative Decree No. 58 of 29 May 1991 and its amendments), the Building Law (Law No. 646 of 11 December 2004), the laws on residential and commercial leases (the commercial lease was treated in two separate prior studies), the Law on Civil Urbanism, and the Law on the Exit from Indivision in Immovables of 16 March 1982. Each merits autonomous treatment.

We invite the reader to traverse the whole of the series in its logical order: the first part for the definition of the right of ownership and its dismemberments; parts two through five for the substantive matter of Decision No. 3339; the sixth part for the Land Registry and the seventh part for the delimitation and registration works that precede its opening; and finally this eighth part for the particular regime of condominium ownership that completes the framework.

Related Posts in This Series

This series covers the Lebanese Code of Real Property in eight parts.

• Part One — Definition of Real Property and Types of Ownership
• Part Two — Real-Property Easements
• Part Three — The Immovable Pledge and the Vente à Réméré
• Part Four — Privileges, the Mortgage, and the Forced Sale
• Part Five — Promise of Sale, Right of Pre-emption, and Acquisitive Prescription
• Part Six — The Land Registry
• Part Seven — Land Delimitation and Registration Works
• Part Eight (final) — Condominium Ownership of Built Immovables (you are here)