Revision of condominium tables: the conditions

As expected dall’art. 69 disp. to. ccthe thousandth tables can be modified or corrected unanimously (first paragraph) and in two cases can be modified by majority: 1) “when it turns out that they are the result of an error”; 2) “when, due to the changed conditions of a part of the building, as a result of elevation, increase in surfaces or increase or decrease in the real estate units, the proportional value of the real estate unit is altered by more than a fifth, even by only one condominium”.

It is about the CD revision of the millesimal tables i.e. that process of modify the rectification which can be of the assembly, when it takes place in a meeting, or judicial when, in the event of disagreement, the decision on the revision is referred to the judicial authority.

Based on the assumptions established by law, a single condominium or more condominiums can take legal action to request the revision of the thousandth tables.

In a case recently decided by the Court of Rome, Section V civilcon judgment no. 3295 of 2023the revision of the thousandth tables, requested by a Condominium against the other Condominiums constituting the Consortium, proved to be technically impracticable with the consequent impossibility of establishing whether the same tables, attached to the consortium’s statute, were correct or not.

Revision of condominium tables: the conditions. Done and decision

A condominium in Rome, constituting together with others a Consortium established in the 60s, sued the other condominiums asking for the revision of the thousandth table adopted in the 80s with a shareholders’ resolution as well as ordering the restoration of the thousandth table attached to the consortium statute.

As a basis for the claim, the Condominium pointed out that the revision of the thousandth table adopted by resolution in the 1980s was necessary due to a series of circumstances:

– In consideration of the higher attribution of thousandths to the plaintiff condominium building by the table approved by resolution in the 1980s compared to the thousandths attributed with the table attached to the consortium statute;

– In consideration of the significant changes to the real consistency of the building: the original building referred to in the millesimal table, which was used as offices and private studios, had been demolished and subsequently built as a building made up of real estate units for residential use.

The Condominium concluded by requesting the revision of the millesimal table using as benchmarks: the cubature of the individual consortium condominiums; the destination of the units included in each building; the availability of private parking and more generally any factor or objective element affecting the distribution of management, maintenance and administration costs of the common areas.

A CTU was arranged in order to determine the correctness of the thousandth tables attached to the Consortium’s Statute as amended by subsequent resolution and to possibly proceed with the revision and preparation of new tables.

The expert witness highlighted the impossibility of establishing whether or not the said tables were correct, lacking any reference to bring the volumetric rights of the original lots back to the actuality of the situation, just as it was also impossible to perform, from a technical point of view, the calculations starting from the current volumes of individual buildings, among other things resulting in a lower number than that indicated in the statute.

Considering the conclusions reached by the Ctu to be shared, the Judge confirmed them and consequently rejected the plaintiffs’ questions.

Final considerations

According to constant case law (Cass. n. 21950 of 2013; Cass. n. 11290 of 2018), the error determining the revision of the millesimal tables, pursuant to article 69 disp. att. cc, consists of the objective divergence between the actual value of the real estate units and that envisaged in the table.

The relevant errors for the purposes of the audit are, therefore, those objectively verifiable (e.g.: differences in surface extension, level and the like), consequently excluding the relevance (for the purposes of the error) of the subjective criteria ( e.g.: of an aesthetic nature and the like).

The party requesting the revision of the thousandth tables does not have, in this regard, the burden of proving the real difference between the actual values ​​and those ascertained in the table, being able to limit itself to providing even implicit proof of such a difference, demonstrating in court the existence of errors, objectively verifiable, which necessarily involve a different valuation of one’s properties compared to the rest of the condominium; while the judge, both to review or modify the thousandth tables of some real estate units, and for the first caliber of the same, must verify – usually by means of an expert witness – the values ​​of all the portions, taking into account all the objective elements – such as the surface, the height of the floor, the luminosity, the exposure – affecting the effective value of them and, therefore, adapting the tables, eliminating the errors found.

The error or errors complained of must, in addition to being the cause of an appreciable discrepancy between the values ​​placed on the basis of the drafting of the tables and the actual one at the time, must also be objectively verifiable on the basis of the elements on which the value at that moment had to be calculated (cf.: Civil Court of Cassation, SU, sentence of January 24, 1997, n. 6222; Civ. Court of Cassation, sentence of February 10, 2010, n. 3001).

In the present case, no element was provided to support the erroneousness of the contested thousandth table the deeds lacking any reference to the volumetric rights of the individual original buildings as well as making it impossible to calculate the table starting from the current volumes.