Commentary on Judgment No. 16231 of 2024: The Distinction between Associative and Contractual Relationships in Housing Cooperatives

The very recent ruling of the Court of Cassation No. 16231 of June 11, 2024, addresses a topic of great relevance for the world of housing cooperatives, clarifying the distinction between associative relationships and contractual ones between members and cooperatives. This aspect is fundamental for understanding the rights and obligations of each member and the limitations that the law imposes on cooperatives, especially regarding requests for additional financial contributions.

The context of the ruling

The dispute arises from the cooperative's request for a financial contribution from the members to cover the loan taken out for the construction of the housing complex. The Court had to assess whether such a request was legitimate, considering the principle that distinguishes the two types of relationships: the associative one, arising from adherence to the social contract, and the contractual one, which stems from the purchase of the property. The Court established that requests for financial contributions cannot affect the rights acquired by members through the housing assignment contract.

Summary of the ruling

COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (DEFINITION, CHARACTERISTICS, DISTINCTIONS, TYPES: LIMITED AND UNLIMITED LIABILITY) - IN GENERAL Housing cooperative - Assignment of housing following the signing of the purchase contract - Request for price adjustment - Inadmissibility - Conditions - Specific case. A member of a cooperative, who benefits from the mutual service provided by the latter, is part of two distinct relationships: one - associative in nature - that directly descends from adherence to the social contract and the consequent acquisition of the status of member, the other deriving from the bilateral exchange contract through which he appropriates the good or service provided by the entity; therefore, in the event of a dispute regarding the legitimacy of contributions imposed by the society on the member in housing cooperatives, where the members' purchase of the property of the housing - for which the entity was established - occurs through the stipulation of an exchange contract in which the cooperative takes on the role of seller and the member that of buyer, it is necessary to verify whether the contributions requested from the member affect the exchange relationship, translating into additional burdens compared to the sale price, in which case we are faced with acts of the society that are unsuitable to affect the rights arising from the housing assignment contract and therefore devoid of effects towards the member, or on the associative relationship, from which the obligation to make contributions and financial contributions to the common expenses of organization and administration provided for by the statute derives. (In this case, applying the said principle, the Supreme Court annulled the contested ruling which, without clarifying which of the two relationships described above it referred to, had deemed legitimate a spending resolution that required each member, well after the assignment of the housing, to make a financial contribution for the payment of the loan contracted by the cooperative for the construction of the housing complex subject to the social relationship).

Practical implications of the ruling

The decision of the Court of Cassation has important implications for the members of housing cooperatives. In particular, several crucial points are highlighted:

  • The distinction between associative and contractual relationships is essential for the protection of members' rights.
  • Requests for financial contributions from cooperatives cannot affect the rights already acquired by members.
  • It is essential for cooperatives to clarify what the common expenses are and what contributions are requested from members, to avoid future disputes.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 16231 of 2024 represents an important step in the protection of the rights of members of housing cooperatives. It clarifies that spending resolutions must be in line with the rights acquired by members and cannot be configured as additional burdens compared to the sale contract. This principle not only protects the members but also contributes to greater transparency and fairness in the management of housing cooperatives.

Bianucci Law Firm