Article 26 of the Act of 10 July 1965: which decisions need the double majority?

What article 26 actually says

Article 26 of Act no. 65-557 of 10 July 1965 does not require unanimity: its first paragraph requires the double majority, that is the agreement of a majority of the members of the co-ownership holding at least two thirds of the votes.

Four decisions appear there today: acts of property acquisition and of disposal (a), amendment of the co-ownership rules as they concern the common parts (b), abolition of the caretaker's post and sale of the caretaker's accommodation (c), and, since Act no. 2024-1039 of 19 November 2024, a ban on letting as short-term tourist accommodation those residential lots that are not a main residence (d). Other articles of the Act also refer decisions to this majority.

How the double majority is calculated in practice

The first paragraph of article 26 opens by stating that the following decisions are taken by a majority of the members of the co-ownership holding at least two thirds of the votes. Two conditions must be met at the same time, hence the name double majority.

First condition, a majority by head count: more than half of all the members of the co-ownership, present or not, must vote in favour. A co-owner who holds five lots counts as one member only, with the sum of their shares.

Second condition, a majority by share: those same voters must together hold at least two thirds of the co-ownership's votes, absentees included. That is the decisive difference from the majority under article 24, I, which is calculated on the votes cast by co-owners present, represented or voting by post. Under article 26, the denominator is the whole co-ownership.

An example. A co-ownership of 30 co-owners and 10,000 shares. A resolution falling under article 26 is carried only if at least 16 co-owners vote in favour and those 16 voters together hold at least 6,667 shares. Fifteen voters holding 8,000 shares: rejected, for want of a majority by head count. Twenty voters holding only 6,000 shares: also rejected, for want of two thirds of the votes.

The consequence most misunderstood in practice: under article 26, absence and abstention have the same effect as a vote against. If the co-owners taking part in the vote, whether present, represented or voting by post, do not together hold at least two thirds of the co-ownership's votes, adoption is arithmetically impossible on the first vote.

One correction completes the arithmetic: where a co-owner holds more than half of the common parts, the number of votes available to them is reduced to the sum of the other co-owners' votes (article 22, I, second paragraph). Brought down to half the votes, a majority co-owner therefore cannot reach on their own the two thirds article 26 requires.

The four decisions under article 26, with the wording

The list in the first paragraph is closed. A decision that does not appear there, and that is not referred to article 26 by another provision of the Act, is not voted by the double majority.

Point d was added by article 6 of Act no. 2024-1039 of 19 November 2024, the Le Meur Act: article 26 has been in force in that wording since 21 November 2024. Point d is immediately followed by a condition of application that many commentaries leave out: the amendment provided for in point d may be decided only in co-ownerships whose rules prohibit any commercial activity in lots not specifically designated for commercial use.

Articles 24, 25, 25-1, 26, 26-1 and unanimity: the table that settles it

Most errors come from confusing how the majority is calculated (votes cast, or votes of all co-owners) with how demanding it is. The table below sets the regimes side by side, in the wording in force at the date this article was updated.

What people wrongly believe

On this particular question, a great deal of content repeats statements that were correct before 2020 or before 2024 and are no longer. Here are the seven most frequent errors, with the provision that corrects each.

When two thirds is not reached: the article 26-1 fallback

Article 26-1, introduced by order no. 2019-1101 of 30 October 2019 and in force since 1 June 2020, provides that, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, where the general meeting has not decided by the majority laid down in the first paragraph of article 26 but the proposal was approved by at least half the members of the co-ownership present, represented or voting by post, holding at least one third of the votes of all co-owners, the same meeting decides by a majority of the votes of all co-owners by proceeding immediately to a second vote.

Three points are worth keeping in mind.

First, the trigger threshold itself combines two conditions: half the members present, represented or voting by post, and one third of the votes of all co-owners. Either one alone is not enough.

Second, the provision requires an immediate second vote, at the same meeting.

Third, the Act organises a second vote, not a third. Article 25-1 covers decisions not taken by a majority of the votes of all co-owners under article 25 or another provision, and no provision organises, after the second vote of article 26-1, a further step down to the majority of article 24. As the Act does not expressly settle that articulation, the prudent course is to put the resolution back on the agenda of a later meeting.

Note, for article 25 only: where the draft resolution concerns works under point f of article 25, that is energy-saving works or works reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and it did not obtain at least one third of the votes of all co-owners, a fresh general meeting, if convened within three months on an identical proposal, may decide by the majority of article 24 (article 25-1, second paragraph, as worded by Act no. 2024-322 of 9 April 2024). That mechanism is specific to article 25 and does not apply to article 26.

What still requires unanimity, and what no majority can impose

Article 26 itself sets three locks, which must be carefully distinguished from the double majority.

The first lock is specific to the caretaker: where, under a clause of the co-ownership rules, abolishing the caretaking service would affect the building's designated use or the way the private parts may be enjoyed, abolition of the caretaker's post and sale of the accommodation allocated to the caretaker where it belongs to the co-ownership may be decided only unanimously. In other words, point c of article 26 shifts to unanimity as soon as a clause of the rules ties the caretaking service to the building's designated use or to the enjoyment of the private parts.

The second lock is absolute: the general meeting may not, by any majority whatever, impose on a co-owner a change to the designated use of their private parts or to the way they may be enjoyed, as those follow from the co-ownership rules. This is not a question of majority; it is a prohibition. No vote can override it against the co-owner concerned.

The third lock is unanimity properly so called: the meeting may not, save unanimously by the votes of all co-owners, decide on the disposal of common parts whose preservation is necessary to respect the building's designated use, or on amendment of the provisions of the rules relating to that designated use.

Outside article 26, unanimity also remains the rule for changing how charges are apportioned (article 11), subject to cases where that change is only the necessary consequence of works or of acts of acquisition or disposal decided by the majority the Act requires, to point e of article 25, and to point l of article 24, II, which covers a change in apportionment made necessary by a change in the designated use of private parts in the cases provided for in the second paragraph of article 9, I, as worded by Act no. 2025-541 of 16 June 2025.

Point d of article 26: banning short-term tourist letting since the Le Meur Act

This is the change that now drives most questions about article 26. Before 21 November 2024, banning tourist letting in a building required, where it touched the designated use of the lots, a unanimous amendment of the co-ownership rules. Since article 6 of Act no. 2024-1039 of 19 November 2024 came into force, the amendment covered by point d of article 26 falls under the double majority.

Four conditions apply cumulatively, and the third is the one agendas most often forget.

1. The resolution must amend the co-ownership rules to ban letting as short-term tourist accommodation within the meaning of article L. 324-1-1, I, of the Tourism Code. It cannot cover unfurnished letting, ordinary furnished letting or a mobility lease.

2. It may cover only residential lots that are not a main residence within the meaning of article 2 of Act no. 89-462 of 6 July 1989, that is a home occupied at least eight months a year, save for professional obligations, health reasons or force majeure. A co-owner letting their own main residence while away therefore falls outside point d.

3. The co-ownership must be one whose rules prohibit any commercial activity in lots not specifically designated for commercial use (article 26, paragraph 6). If the rules merely contain a plain residential-use clause that tolerates certain professions or activities, that statutory condition is not met.

4. The double majority must be reached, with the article 26-1 fallback if the first vote fails.

The constitutionality of the scheme has been settled. Seised on 19 December 2025 by the Court of Cassation (3rd civil chamber, decision no. 625 of 18 December 2025), the Constitutional Council held, by decision no. 2025-1186 QPC of 19 March 2026, that the fifth and sixth paragraphs of article 26 of the Act of 10 July 1965, as worded by the Act of 19 November 2024, comply with the Constitution. It found that Parliament pursued objectives of general interest, namely tackling the nuisance associated with the growth of short-term letting and preserving the stock of homes available for long-term letting, and that the interference with co-owners' rights remains confined and proportionate.

Two points are not settled by the provision and are argued case by case: what becomes of lettings already running at the date of the vote, and how exclusive the commercial clause in the rules must be.

Article 26 majority decisions found elsewhere in the Act

The list a, b, c, d does not exhaust the field of the double majority: other articles expressly refer to it.

Adding storeys is the main example. Article 35, first paragraph, provides that raising the height of a building or constructing buildings in order to create new private premises may be carried out by the co-ownership only if the decision is taken by the majority laid down in article 26.

The second paragraph adds that a decision to sell, for the same purposes, the right to raise the height of an existing building requires the majority laid down in article 26 and, where the property comprises several buildings, confirmation by a special meeting of the owners of the lots making up the building to be raised, deciding by the same majority.

An important exception appears in the third paragraph: where the building lies within an area subject to an urban pre-emption right under article L. 211-1 of the Planning Code, the decision to sell the right to add storeys is taken by a majority of the votes of all co-owners, that is the majority of article 25, and not that of article 26.

Finally, the owners of premises situated, wholly or partly, beneath the proposed additional storeys have a priority right if the co-ownership sells the private premises created or transfers the right to add storeys, the managing agent's notification counting as an offer to sell for two months.

Challenging a decision taken, or refused, under article 26

A resolution passed without both conditions of article 26 being met, or a point d resolution adopted in a co-ownership whose rules contain no general prohibition on commercial activity, is not automatically void: it must be challenged in court.

Article 42 of the Act confines that challenge to a short period. Proceedings to challenge decisions of general meetings must, on pain of forfeiture, be brought by dissenting or absent co-owners within two months of notification of the minutes, effected by the managing agent. After that period the decision becomes final, whatever the defect in majority affecting it.

Two habits follow. First, have the way you voted recorded in the minutes: a co-owner who voted in favour, or who abstained, is neither dissenting nor absent and loses standing to sue. Second, check the date of notification, which starts the period running.

This article states the law as at 4 August 2026. It is not legal advice: every situation depends on the co-ownership rules concerned and on the exact wording of the resolutions placed on the agenda.