This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal, tax or investment advice. Rules change and individual situations differ. Always confirm the current position with a qualified professional before acting.
In the spring of 2020 posters went up on French streets with a blunt message for flat owners. “Merci syndic”, they said, for the water leaks, since it is pool time every day, for the broken heating, which helps you keep a cool head, and for the hold music, because now you know Vivaldi by heart. Then the line that mattered: thank your syndic for good, and vote for a start-up at your next general meeting instead. The professional syndics did not see the joke. Foncia, one of the largest of them, sued, and two trade bodies and a professional association joined in. Their case was simple: a company that helps run buildings without a carte professionnelle (the licence every syndic needs) is practising the profession illegally, and the posters were misleading. Six years later, on 17 September 2026, the Cour de cassation disagreed on both counts.
The ruling matters to you for a reason that has nothing to do with poster wars. It confirms that a small building can run itself through a syndicat coopératif, a co-operative form of co-ownership that most owners abroad have never heard of. It also confirms that the owners may buy in professional help to do it, as long as the help stays help. Perhaps you own a flat in a building of six or ten lots, where the professional syndic charges a four-figure fee for sending four letters a year. If so, this is the piece to read before the next assemblée générale. We start with what a syndicat coopératif actually is, because the whole case turns on it.
Three ways to run a French building, and the one nobody abroad has heard of
A French copropriété is a building divided into privately owned lots with shared common parts. All its owners together form the syndicat des copropriétaires, a legal body in its own right, and that body must have a syndic to run it. The loi of 10 July 1965 gives the owners three ways to fill the job.
The first is the one you know: a professional syndic. It is a company holding a carte professionnelle, the licence issued by the chambre de commerce under the loi Hoguet of 2 January 1970, with a financial guarantee, professional insurance and a regulated standard contract. Even with a professional syndic, the owners normally have a conseil syndical. That is the owners’ committee, elected by the general meeting, which assists the syndic and checks its management. We call it the committee from here on.
The second is a syndic non professionnel, often called the syndic bénévole. One owner, elected by the general meeting, does the job without a licence, because he or she owns a lot in the building. Article 2 of the loi Hoguet keeps the licence rules away from people who deal non-professionally with property they own a share of. Article 17-2 of the 1965 law adds that the volunteer syndic must own at least one lot. The committee exists here too, in the same way.
The third way is the syndicat coopératif, and it is a different animal. Here the general meeting does not elect a syndic at all. Under article 17-1, the owners vote to give the syndicat the co-operative form, and in the same meeting they elect the members of the committee, which becomes compulsory. Those committee members then elect one of their own number as syndic. The person elected becomes president of the committee by operation of law. The committee may also elect a vice-president to stand in when the syndic is unavailable, and both are removable in the same way. The general meeting must separately appoint one or more people, owners or qualified outsiders, to audit the accounts. The building is run, in other words, by a committee of its owners, one of whom holds the pen.
Three rules in the décret of 17 March 1967 complete the picture. Article 41 requires every document issued in the syndicat’s name to state that it is co-operative. It also says the syndic and vice-president lose office the day their mandate as committee members ends. Article 42 says the syndic may, under his or her own responsibility, hand the execution of certain tasks to a union coopérative or to other outside providers. Article 42-2 lets co-operative syndicats, even from different streets, group together in a union coopérative to create and share services. The September ruling turns on that article 42, so keep it in mind.
Getting in, getting out, and who may sit on the committee
Adopting the co-operative form, and abandoning it, takes a vote at the majority of article 25. That means a majority of the votes of all the owners in the building, present or not, and not just of those in the room. If the proposal gets at least a third of all votes without reaching half, article 25-1 lets the same meeting vote again at once at the simple majority of article 24. The service-public.fr page on the syndic adds a step we would not skip. Check that the règlement de copropriété, the building’s constitution, does not forbid the co-operative form. If it does, the règlement has to be amended first. The same meeting that adopts the form must appoint the conseil syndical, since without one there is nobody to elect the syndic.
Article 21 says who may sit on that committee. The list covers the owners themselves, their parents and children, their spouses and civil partners, their legal representatives, usufructuaries, the members of a company such as an SCI that owns a lot, and buyers under certain deferred-purchase contracts. An owner who lives in London or Boston qualifies like any other. The syndic drawn from the committee must, as a non-professional syndic, own a lot, and service-public.fr puts the mandate at three years at most, renewable by the general meeting. Committee work is unpaid by law. Article 27 of the décret says the functions of president and member of the conseil syndical carry no remuneration. The syndicat does bear the committee’s expenses, as ordinary running costs.
One more variant exists for the smallest buildings. It applies where the copropriété has at most five lots of housing, offices or shops, or an average annual budget under €15,000 over three years. There, article 41-11 allows the co-operative form without any conseil syndical at all. The general meeting then designates the syndic directly from among the owners, by a majority of all the owners’ votes, and may name a deputy. For a three-flat house in a Dordogne village, that is the version that fits.
| Question | Professional syndic | Syndic bénévole | Syndicat coopératif |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who is the syndic? | A licensed company or individual under the loi Hoguet | One owner elected by the general meeting | A member of the conseil syndical, elected by the committee from among its members, president by right |
| Carte professionnelle, financial guarantee | Required (loi Hoguet, art. 3) | Not required (loi Hoguet, art. 2) | Not required (loi Hoguet, art. 2) |
| Conseil syndical | The rule, unless the general meeting votes not to have one (loi 1965, art. 21) | The rule, unless the general meeting votes not to have one (loi 1965, art. 21) | Compulsory, except in the smallest buildings (loi 1965, arts. 17-1 and 41-11) |
| How to adopt | Vote at the article 25 majority on a contract, with the article 25-1 second vote if needed | Vote at the article 25 majority on a candidate who owns a lot, with the article 25-1 second vote if needed | Vote at the article 25 majority on the form, with the article 25-1 second vote if needed, then election of the committee |
| Who may help | The firm’s own staff and contractors, within its regulated contract | Advisers and contractors the syndic engages under the general law | Advisers, outside providers and unions coopératives (décret 1967, arts. 27, 42, 42-2) |
| Who answers for mistakes | The firm, with compulsory professional insurance | The owner, personally | The elected owner, personally, under article 42 “sous sa responsabilité” |
| Documents | Standard regulated contract | Standard contract only if paid | Every document must say the syndicat is co-operative (décret 1967, art. 41) |
The case: a platform, a poster campaign and six years in court
Matera is a company that develops and runs an online platform for buildings that have adopted the co-operative form. Its subscription contract, as the courts described it, offered “accompagnement sur des sujets techniques: administratif, comptabilité, juridique”, that is support on administrative, accounting and legal matters. The support came through a team of copropriété specialists and what the contract called an intuitive platform. The annex listed the services. They were generating legal documents, keeping the building’s accounts, making the documents of the building’s life available, and assisting with and following works. From March 2020 the company advertised this with posters and other media.
Foncia, since renamed Emeria Europe, sued Matera and its chairman for damages, arguing that the campaign was unlawful and misleading and that it denigrated professional syndics. The Association nationale des gestionnaires de copropriété joined the case and went further. It said Matera was practising the profession of syndic illegally, and it asked the court to ban the company from presenting itself as a professional syndic or doing a syndic’s work. The Chambre FNAIM du Grand Paris and the Syndicat national des professionnels immobiliers brought their own claims, and the cases were joined. The first round went the other way. On 24 January 2022 the tribunal de commerce de Paris, as reported at the time, found Matera liable for denigration and for unfair and misleading commercial practices, while rejecting the claim of illegal practice. Matera appealed. On 20 March 2024 the cour d’appel de Paris held that Matera was not practising as a syndic illegally and that its campaign was not an unfair commercial practice. The professionals took the case to the Cour de cassation. On 17 September 2026 it dismissed every ground of appeal, in a ruling published in the Bulletin, and ordered the four claimants to pay Matera and its chairman €3,000 towards their costs.
First question: was Matera acting as a syndic without the licence?
The loi Hoguet is wide on purpose. Under article 1 it applies to anyone who, habitually and even as a sideline, carries out operations on other people’s property or “prête son concours” to them, which means lends a hand. Point 9 of the list is the exercise of the functions of syndic de copropriété. Article 14 punishes doing so without the card with six months’ imprisonment and a €7,500 fine, and separately punishes anyone who uses the words “syndic de copropriété” without holding one. The claimants’ argument was simple: a company whose whole business is helping syndics, every week, with every task, is lending a hand with the functions of syndic, however it describes itself.
The court’s answer starts from the décret of 1967, not from the loi Hoguet. Article 27 lets the conseil syndical take advice from anyone it chooses and ask any professional for a technical opinion. Article 42 applies the same freedom to the syndic. It adds that the syndic may hand the execution of certain tasks to a union coopérative or other outside providers, under his or her own responsibility. The cour d’appel had read those two articles together and concluded that Matera was entitled to offer, through its services, support to the functions of a co-operative syndic. The Cour de cassation said that deduction was exact.
The claimants’ better point was that support can add up to management. The court met it with four findings of fact from the Paris judgment, which it approved as answering the point:
- The legal and accounting services consisted essentially of generating documents automatically that might be useful to the syndic, and Matera signed none of them.
- Matera offered to open a payment account to receive sums paid in the syndicat’s name, but that did not make Matera responsible for the account.
- Giving the co-operative syndicats information to follow works on the building, or helping them deal with contractors, was not unlawful.
- The services came from using the platform, to which the syndic had access in complete autonomy, and more generally Matera’s role was only to accompany the syndic.
What the court held, in its own published summary (Civ. 3e, 17 September 2026, n° 24-15.665, published in the Bulletin)
« Ayant caractérisé que les prestations fournies par une société aux syndics des syndicats des copropriétaires ayant opté pour le mode de gestion du syndicat coopératif se bornaient à une assistance, notamment par la fourniture d’une plateforme intuitive permettant de générer en autonomie des documents utiles, sans qu’elle-même en signe aucun, et à un accompagnement sur des sujets techniques par la mise à disposition d’une équipe de professionnels de la copropriété aux fins de suivi de travaux ou de démarches auprès des entreprises, une cour d’appel en a déduit à bon droit que cette société n’exerçait pas illicitement la profession de syndic de copropriété. »
Our translation: having found that the services a company supplied to the syndics of co-operative syndicats were limited to assistance, in particular an intuitive platform that lets the syndic generate useful documents on his own, none of which the company signed, and to support on technical matters through a team of copropriété professionals who follow works or deal with contractors, a court of appeal rightly concluded that the company was not unlawfully practising the profession of syndic.
Read the four findings again and one word does the work: autonomy. The syndic, an owner elected by the committee, keeps the pen. The platform drafts, the owner signs. The platform suggests a bank, the owner holds the account. The platform explains the works, the owner instructs the builder. Where that stays true, the helper is a provider under article 42 and not a syndic under the loi Hoguet. Where it stops being true, because the provider signs, decides and runs the money, the ruling gives no cover at all. The six months and the €7,500 come back into view. The court did not draw that line in the abstract. It approved the line the Paris judges drew on these facts, which is how the Cour de cassation works. Every platform will now be measured against it.
Second question: were the posters misleading?
On the advertising, the professionals came closer. The slogans were “Remerciez votre syndic pour de bon, votez Matera à la prochaine AG” and “Remerciez votre syndic et passez chez Matera”. The campaign also called the company “le nouveau syndic de référence” and its service “le syndic réinventé”. The cour d’appel had accepted that this was apt to create an ambiguity, suggesting that Matera could itself offer buildings the services of a syndic, professional or not. The Cour de cassation repeated that finding without softening it.
Ambiguity, though, is not the test. Under article L. 121-1 of the code de la consommation a commercial practice is unfair only on two conditions. It must be contrary to professional diligence, and it must alter, or be likely to alter, substantially the economic behaviour of a normally informed and reasonably attentive consumer. Article L. 121-2 lists what makes a practice misleading, and confusion with a competitor’s service is on the list. The missing element here was the substantial alteration.
Before any building could use Matera, its owners had to do four things. They had to call a general meeting on a written agenda, vote to adopt the co-operative form, vote to contract with the company, and accept that the committee members would take on the responsibility of running the building themselves. Owners facing that process, said the court, would inform themselves about the offer and would not act on a poster. The Cour de cassation added one procedural clarification. The cour d’appel had not relied on the press interviews in which Matera explained its real business, so the claimants’ complaint that interviews cannot cure a misleading poster missed its target.
Where the line now runs: what your co-operative may buy, and what it may not
Put the two halves together and the ruling becomes a buyer’s guide for any building thinking of going co-operative. What you may buy in, on the court’s own findings:
- Software that drafts the convocations, the procès-verbaux, the calls for funds and the annual accounts, provided the elected syndic reads and signs them.
- Bookkeeping help, provided the syndic remains the person who answers for the accounts to the general meeting and the auditors the meeting appointed.
- Help opening the compulsory separate bank account in the syndicat’s name, provided the account is the syndicat’s and the syndic runs it.
- Technical support on works, which covers information, follow-up and help talking to contractors.
- Advice from anyone the committee chooses, on any question, which article 27 of the décret expressly allows.
And what you may not, whatever the brochure says:
- A provider that signs the building’s documents, holds its money or gives instructions to its contractors in its own name. At that point it is doing the syndic’s job, and it needs the card.
- A provider that calls itself your “syndic”. Article 14 of the loi Hoguet punishes the use of the word by anyone without the card, separately from the practice of the profession.
- A committee that has stopped reading. Article 42 says the syndic delegates “sous sa responsabilité”. The elected owner carries the liability for whatever the platform gets wrong, and service-public.fr is blunt that a non-professional syndic can be liable in civil and in criminal law and should insure accordingly.
Two obligations do not change with the form. Under article 18 of the 1965 law the syndic, professional or not, must open a separate bank account in the syndicat’s name within three months of appointment, or the mandate lapses. A second separate account must hold the compulsory works fund. And under article 9-1 the syndicat must insure its own civil liability. We covered that point when a roof above a chocolate shop leaked and the syndicat paid whatever the règlement said. A co-operative with no insurer behind it is a building where the owners pay the next leak out of their own pockets.
The owner abroad: sit on the committee, but think before you hold the pen
Nothing in the law stops a non-resident owner from sitting on the conseil syndical, or from being elected syndic by it. Article 21 opens the committee to any owner. The general meeting itself can be attended by video link or by postal vote, under the rules we set out in our guide to the assemblée générale. A platform of the kind the court approved makes the committee’s work possible from a distance in a way it was not ten years ago. The documents are drafted online, the accounts live online, and the calls for funds go out by email.
Being the syndic is another matter. The syndic receives the registered letters, meets the plumber and deals with the mairie. When a lot is sold, the syndic also produces the état daté that settles the charges between seller and buyer. The syndic also chases the owner who does not pay, and the formal notice has to be done properly or the court throws the claim out. Our advice is the obvious one. Join the committee from abroad by all means, insist on the platform and on the auditor, and let an owner who lives in the building be the syndic. If you are the only candidate, make sure the vice-president lives on site. Make sure, too, that the syndicat’s insurance and your own civil liability cover are in place before you sign anything.
The decision rule
Go co-operative if the building is small, the accounts are simple, at least two owners live on site and will stand for the committee, and nothing heavy is coming (no ravalement, no lift, no litigation with a neighbour). Buy a platform to draft and to keep the books, and make the elected syndic sign everything. Stay with a professional syndic, or change to a cheaper one, if the owners are scattered across three countries, if works worth more than a year’s budget are on the horizon, or if anyone in the building is already in dispute with anyone else. Whatever you choose, the syndicat’s insurance comes first.
Our view: the right line, drawn in the right place
We think the court got this right, and the reason is older than the platform. The loi Hoguet exists to protect owners from strangers handling their money and their building without guarantees. A syndicat coopératif has no stranger in the chain. The owners run the building, one of them answers for it, and the décret of 1967 has let them buy advice and delegate tasks, in its current wording, for more than twenty years. Reading “prête son concours” so widely that a bookkeeping tool needs a licence would not have protected a single owner. It would have made the co-operative form, which the law has offered for decades, impossible to use in practice. And the people who brought the case are the people who sell the alternative.
The advertising half deserves a quieter word. The court accepted that the slogans were ambiguous. It then held that the owners of a French building are not fooled by posters, because the law makes them hold a meeting before they can act. That is true, and it is also a reminder that the protection against a bad choice of syndic, professional or not, is the meeting itself. If you own abroad and never read the convocation, no ruling will protect you from your building’s decisions. The ones who turn up, or vote by post, decide who holds the pen.
FAQ: syndicat coopératif, syndic bénévole and outside help
What is the difference between a syndic bénévole and a syndicat coopératif?
A syndic bénévole is one owner elected directly by the general meeting to act as syndic. In a syndicat coopératif the general meeting changes the legal form of the syndicat itself. A conseil syndical becomes compulsory, and the syndic is elected by the committee from among its members and presides over it. Neither needs a carte professionnelle under the loi Hoguet.
What majority does it take to adopt the co-operative form?
The majority of article 25 of the loi of 10 July 1965, which is a majority of the votes of all the owners, whether present or not. If the proposal gets at least a third of all votes, article 25-1 allows an immediate second vote at the simple majority of article 24. Leaving the co-operative form takes the same majority.
Can an online platform legally run our building for us?
It can assist, not run. On 17 September 2026 the Cour de cassation approved a platform that drafts documents the elected syndic signs, helps with the accounts and the bank account without being responsible for them, and supports the syndic on works. That, the court held, is not practising as a syndic illegally. A provider that signs, holds the money or instructs contractors in its own name would need the carte professionnelle, and may not call itself a syndic.
Who is liable if the co-operative gets something wrong?
The elected syndic, personally, in civil and in criminal law, under the general rules for non-professional syndics. Article 42 of the décret of 17 March 1967 says tasks are delegated “sous sa responsabilité”. The syndicat itself must carry civil liability insurance under article 9-1 of the 1965 law, and service-public.fr recommends that the non-professional syndic takes out personal cover as well.
Can an owner who lives abroad be the syndic of a co-operative?
Legally yes, if he or she owns a lot and sits on the conseil syndical. In practice the syndic receives the post, meets contractors and signs the deeds. We therefore recommend that the syndic lives in or near the building, and that owners abroad serve on the committee instead. The general meeting can be joined by video link or postal vote.
