The usual architect does not have to be put in competition

It is in fact accepted that a co-ownership uses a regular architect in whom it places its trust and that it uses him for project management missions without having to organize a competitive tender, explained the Court of cassation.

It is not even necessary in such a case, she clarified, to deliberate on the choice of this architect by a special vote.

This is not contrary, according to the Court, to the 1965 law which organizes life in co-ownership and which provides that the majority fixes, for markets or contracts, an amount from which competitive bidding is obligatory.

The lawsuit submitted to the Court pitted a co-owner against the co-owners' union. The co-ownership had voted for a renovation and, in the same resolution, had entrusted project management to the usual architect. The dissatisfied co-owner argued that not only was it not possible to vote on two separate contracts in the same resolution, one with the renovation company, the other with the architect, but also that each vote had to respect, taking into account the amount committed, the obligation to put into competition.

The Court rejected these criticisms. The decisions on the choice of the architect and the amount of his fees did not even have to be the subject of a separate deliberation since they were questions linked to the same project, and moreover the usual architect did not have to be put into competition.

(Cass. Civil 3, 28.1.2021, W 19-22.681).