Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
11 10 220 • KG LU 11 10 220 AI generated

Awning Installation on Communal Facade Without Unanimous Consent

Case Number 11 10 220
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Lucerne (CH-LU)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Entscheidsuche mirror Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court ruled that an awning installed by co-owners on the facade of a building, intended to shade a communal garden seating area, constituted an alteration to a communal part and was not part of the special rights of the installing owners, as it was not an integral part of a window. Since the relevant regulations stipulated unanimity for any changes to communal parts, the prior approval granted by the homeowners' association with a qualified majority was invalid, leading to the annulment of the resolution, and the court dismissed the plaintiffs' request to directly order the removal of the awning, confirming that the challenge action is inherently revocatory, meaning its scope is limited to annulling the contested decision, leaving subsequent enforcement measures to the association.

Legislator headnote

Official

Art. 647 Abs. 1 i.V.m. 647d Abs. 1 und 712b Abs. 2 ZGB. Stockwerkeigentum: Sonnenstore als gemeinschaftlicher Teil, nicht als Sonderrecht; Verschärfung des gesetzlichen Quorums im Nutzungs- und Verwaltungsreglement. Kassatorische Natur der Anfechtungsklage. | Sachenrecht

Keywords

AI generated
building regulations enforcement decision right of removal association action for annulment qualified majority

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 647 Abs. 1 i.V.m
Leitsatz: · Art. 647 Abs. 1 i.V.m.
Art. 712b Abs. 2 Ziff. 2 ZGB
Art. 712b ZGB
Art. 712b Abs. 2 Ziff. 1 ZGB
Art. 712g Abs. 1 ZGB
Art. 647 Abs. 1 ZGB
The court implicitly relied on this article regarding the power of co-owners to agree on a different usage and administration order, which was then restricted by the regulatory quorum requirement.
Art. 712g ZGB
Art. 647d ZGB

Cited Case Law

AI generated
BGE 131 III 459
Unit Owner Fee Dispute Regarding Facade Advertisements
5C.40/2005
Condominium Fee Exemption for Ground-Floor Commercial Unit Upheld
BGE 118 II 12
Racer v. Swiss Motorcycle Federation (Exhaustion of Internal Remedies)
AI generated
V 09 341 1
Administrative Decision on Unauthorized Roof Extensions and Building Code Interpretation
1B 11 51
Co-Owners Dispute Over Building Restriction Servitude and Landscaping Alterations
7H 18 256
Condominium Owner Standing to Appeal Building Permit Following Association Decision

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 647 Abs. 1 ZGB

The court implicitly relied on this article regarding the power of co-owners to agree on a different usage and administration order, which was then restricted by the regulatory quorum requirement.

Art. 647d Abs. 1 ZGB

This article concerning the quorum required for useful structural measures was used to assess the validity of the resolution taken by the owners' meeting.

Art. 712b Abs. 2 ZGB

This article defining which elements are not eligible for special private ownership was used to determine that the sunshade constitutes a common part.

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

This procedural rule would typically govern court costs, although the dispositive orders provided in the snippet do not explicitly list cost allocations.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Rechtsprechung Luzern

Instanz: · Obergericht

Abteilung: · 1. Abteilung

Rechtsgebiet: · Sachenrecht

Entscheiddatum: · 18.08.2011

Fallnummer: · 11 10 220

LGVE: · 2011 I Nr. 10

Leitsatz: · Art. 647 Abs. 1 i.V.m. 647d Abs. 1 und 712b Abs. 2 ZGB. Stockwerkeigentum: Sonnenstore als gemeinschaftlicher Teil, nicht als Sonderrecht; Verschärfung des gesetzlichen Quorums im Nutzungs- und Verwaltungsreglement. Kassatorische Natur der Anfechtungsklage.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.