The operative part of uniformity decision no. 5/2026 JPE

Operative part of Uniformity Decision No. 5/2026 on the substantive elements of the articles of incorporation of condominiums established after the entry into force of Act CXXXIII of 2003 on Condominiums, and on the relationship between the articles of incorporation and the bylaws of condominiums registered prior to the entry into force of said Act

On the basis of a motion for a preliminary ruling submitted by Panel No. P.I, the Uniformity Panel of the Curia has issued the following uniformity decision:

  1. The articles of incorporation of a condominium that was established after the entry into force of Act CXXXIII of 2003 on Condominiums (hereinafter referred to as the “Condominium Act”) may not – beyond its mandatory substantive elements – contain provisions that can be regulated exclusively in those bylaws which have been approved by the general meeting.
  2. If any provision in the articles of incorporation of a condominium that was registered prior to the entry into force of the Condominium Act is in conflict with a mandatory provision of the Condominium Act, it shall cease to be effective upon the entry into force of the Condominium Act and shall be replaced by the mandatory provision of the Condominium Act.
  3. If the articles of incorporation of a condominium that was registered prior to the entry into force of the Condominium Act address a matter that, under the Condominium Act, falls within the exclusive purview of the general meeting or must be regulated in bylaws, that provision of the articles of incorporation shall cease to be effective upon the adoption of a general meeting resolution (governing that matter) or upon the adoption of bylaws, provided that it shall not infringe any other mandatory provision of the Condominium Act.
  4. The initiating Panel of the Curia may diverge from Curia Decision No. Pfv.20.026/2019/10 on the issues of legal interpretation addressed in Points 1–3.
  5. Decision No. Pfv.20.026/2019/10 of the Curia and other decisions with identical content may no longer be invoked as binding on the issues of legal interpretation addressed in Points 1-3.