Protecting Minority Owners in Condominiums: Remedies Against Majority Decisions

One of the most frequent conflicts in condominium living is the tension between majority and minority owners. When the owners’ assembly passes a resolution by majority vote that harms the legitimate interests of the minority, the law does not leave those affected without protection — but the available remedies are narrower and subject to stricter conditions than popular discourse suggests.

Legal Basis for Challenging Condominium Resolutions

The System Under Section 42 of the Condominium Act

Under Section 42(1) of the Condominium Act (Act CXXXIII of 2003, Tht.), any co-owner may request the court to declare an assembly resolution invalid if the resolution:

1. violates legislation, or
2. significantly harms the legitimate interests of the minority.

These two alternative grounds constitute the legal basis for a challenge. Crucially, it is not sufficient that the resolution is merely “disliked” or disadvantageous to the minority — the harm must affect a legitimate interest and must be significant.

”Significant Harm to Legitimate Interests” — What Does It Actually Mean?

The raw text claims that “every resolution serving the majority’s convenience at the cost of disproportionate burden on the minority is invalid.” This is an oversimplification:

• Judicial assessment is case-specific: it considers the building’s condition, the nature of necessary renovations, the economic situation of co-owners, and the interests of maintaining and preserving common property
• A necessary renovation (e.g. eliminating a life-threatening structural condition) does not constitute “disproportionate burden” on the minority, even if the cost is significant for them
• The concept of “luxury” investment is not a statutory category — courts examine whether the investment is necessary for the building’s proper use and structural maintenance, or whether it is purely a comfort-enhancing development that disproportionately increases common costs
• Based on case law (BH 2019.11.312 and similar), courts assess invalidity on the basis of necessity, proportionality, and the specific harm to dissenting owners

Standing — Who May Challenge?

Under Section 42(1) Tht., any co-owner may request a declaration of invalidity — not only those who voted against. However, case law requires the plaintiff to demonstrate a specific personal interest affected by the resolution.

The 60-Day Preclusive Deadline

Nature of the Deadline

Under Section 42(2) Tht., the action must be filed within 60 days from the date the resolution was adopted — or, if the co-owner was not present at the assembly, from the date of becoming aware of the resolution. This deadline is preclusive (jogvesztő):

• It cannot be extended by judicial discretion
• It cannot be restored on mere equitable grounds
• Once missed, the right to bring action ceases permanently

What About Restitution Requests?

The raw text claims that “in 2026, courts handle restitution requests more flexibly.” This is inaccurate and misleading:

1. The relationship between preclusive deadlines and restitution — the availability of restitution requests (igazolási kérelem) under Sections 113–114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act CXXX of 2016, Pp.) in the context of preclusive deadlines is debated in legal scholarship. Under the Curia’s case law, restitution for preclusive deadlines is limited.

2. The property manager’s obstructive conduct — if the property manager intentionally prevents a co-owner from accessing the minutes, this may affect the date of becoming aware of the resolution (Section 42(2) Tht. — 60 days from “becoming aware”). This does not mean the preclusive deadline is “made more flexible” — rather, the starting date of the deadline shifts to a later point.

3. The property manager’s other liability — if the property manager fails to prepare the minutes or obstructs access, this constitutes a breach of their obligations under Section 24(1) Tht., and their liability may be established under Section 6:519 Ptk. (mandate/agency relationship).

Proving the Date of Becoming Aware

Case law on the date of becoming aware:

• For a co-owner present at the assembly, the date of awareness is the day of the assembly
• For an absent co-owner, the date of awareness is when they actually learned of the resolution — the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff
• If the condominium demonstrably sent the resolution, the date of delivery is the date of awareness
• Refusal of delivery does not extend the deadline — the date of refusal is deemed the date of awareness

Actual Tools for Financial Oversight

No “Mandatory Auditor Audit” in the Condominium Act

The raw text refers to a “2026 legislative amendment” introducing a “mandatory auditor audit” at the request of 10% of owners. This is a non-existent legal institution — the Condominium Act contains no such provision, and no such amendment was enacted in 2026.

A condominium is not a legal person (it is a sui generis legal entity under Section 3 Tht.), meaning the mandatory audit requirements of the Accounting Act (Act C of 2000) do not automatically apply to it.

What Actually Exists: Tools for Oversight of Financial Management

The Tht. provides the following actually existing instruments:

1. Right to Inspect Documents (Section 25 Tht.)

• Every co-owner is entitled to inspect the condominium’s documents — including financial statements, invoices, and receipts
• This is not contingent on an assembly resolution but is an individual co-owner’s right
• If the property manager obstructs inspection, this constitutes a breach of duty

2. Requesting an Assembly (Section 34 Tht.)

• Co-owners holding 1/10 of ownership shares may request in writing that an assembly be convened, stating the proposed agenda and reasons
• If the property manager does not convene the assembly within 30 days, the requesting owners may convene it themselves
• The assembly may then address: review of financial management, dismissal of the property manager, engagement of an independent accountant or auditor

3. Audit Committee (Section 53 Tht.)

• The Tht. permits the election of an audit committee under conditions specified in the bylaws
• The committee’s role is to oversee the property manager’s financial management
• Where no such committee exists, co-owners may exercise oversight directly

4. Dismissal and Liability of the Property Manager

• The assembly may dismiss the property manager at any time (Section 28(1) Tht.)
• The property manager is liable under the rules governing mandate/agency (Sections 6:272–6:280 Ptk.)
• Where embezzlement (Section 376 Criminal Code) or fraud (Section 373 Criminal Code) is suspected, a criminal complaint may be filed
• Damages claims under Section 6:519 Ptk. may be pursued against the property manager who caused loss through mismanagement

Actual Protection Against “Phantom Renovations”

The tools for combating fictitious or overcharged renovations:

1. Document inspection (Section 25 Tht.) — reviewing invoices, contracts, and tender documentation
2. Assembly review — placing financial management on the agenda and calling the property manager to account
3. Civil claim — damages action against the property manager (Section 6:519 Ptk.)
4. Criminal proceedings — filing complaints for embezzlement (Section 376 CC), misappropriation (Section 372 CC), or fraud (Section 373 CC)
5. Supervisory notification — turning to the municipal clerk (jegyző) under the legality supervision procedure of Section 27/A Tht.

Practical Issues in Court Proceedings

Filing the Action

An action under Section 42 Tht. is brought in civil proceedings. The competent court is the regional court (törvényszék) where the property is located (Section 20(2)(c) Pp.). When filing:

• The plaintiff must identify the challenged resolution
• The assembly minutes must be attached (if available)
• The plaintiff must demonstrate standing (ownership status) and specific harm
• The 60-day preclusive deadline must be observed

Interim Measures

Under Sections 103–106 Pp., the plaintiff may request suspension of the resolution’s execution by way of interim measures, where execution would cause irreparable harm. This may be particularly warranted:

• Before the commencement of a significant investment
• When the purpose of common property is being altered
• Where the resolution restricts co-owners’ rights

The Court’s Decision

In addition to declaring the resolution invalid, the court may:

• Annul the resolution — rendering it void retroactively from the date of adoption
• Order a new resolution — directing the condominium to convene a new assembly
• Remedy the harmful consequences

Practical Advice for Minority Owners

1. Request a copy of the minutes — promptly after the assembly, request a copy; if absent, request written notification of resolutions (the 60-day deadline runs from the date of becoming aware)
2. Know your voting share — convening an assembly under Section 34 Tht. requires 1/10 of ownership shares; connect with similarly affected co-owners
3. Exercise your right to inspect documents — under Section 25 Tht. you may inspect all financial documents; if the property manager obstructs this, document the obstruction in writing
4. Observe the 60-day deadline — late filing results in forfeiture of the right to sue; file promptly and request interim measures
5. File a criminal complaint if financial mismanagement raises suspicion of a crime — embezzlement (Section 376 CC) is prosecuted ex officio
6. Contact the municipal clerk — under the legality supervision procedure of Section 27/A Tht., the clerk may initiate proceedings through the prosecutor’s office

The system of minority protection in condominiums is embodied in Section 42 Tht., in individual co-owner rights, and in general civil and criminal law instruments. Effective use of these tools does not require waiting for “new legal institutions” — the existing statutory framework provides adequate protection when owners know their rights and enforce them in time.