Where an owners¡¯ committee, upon authorization, designates public parking spaces exactly in front of the main entrance of a fitness club¡ªwith the parking needs of the collective owners on one side and the safety red line of fire evacuation on the other¡ªhow exactly should the lawful boundaries of owners¡¯ self-governance be drawn?

[Case Review]

In July 2023, in response to complaints from owners about insufficient parking spaces, the owners¡¯ general assembly of a residential community passed a Renovation Plan by vote, authorizing the owners¡¯ committee to reallocate parking spaces according to actual needs. The owners¡¯ committee drafted and published five proposed plans and ultimately decided to install four standard parking spaces directly in front of the main entrance of the community¡¯s fitness club, leaving a passageway of approximately 1.65 meters in width between the parking spaces and the entrance.

The manager of the fitness club strongly opposed the proposal, arguing that the reserved passageway was too narrow to meet the needs of loading, unloading, and pedestrian access. This would not only affect the club¡¯s normal operations but also, in the event of an emergency such as a fire, impede the rapid entry of rescue vehicles, posing a major public safety hazard. The owners¡¯ committee, however, maintained that the resolution of the owners¡¯ general assembly and the decision of the committee were in compliance with relevant legal provisions, that the parking space allocation plan was lawful and valid, that the owners¡¯ general assembly had the authority to determine the use of common areas, and that the actual passageway reserved did not obstruct access to the club. The property management company said that the decision to designate the parking spaces was made by the owners¡¯ committee, and that the company was merely responsible for implementing the plan and had no authority to make unilateral adjustments. As multiple rounds of communication between the parties proved fruitless, the fitness club filed a lawsuit with the people¡¯s court, seeking the removal of the four parking spaces in front of its main entrance.

[Ruling of the People¡¯s Court]

Upon review, the people¡¯s court held that, based on on-site inspection, a passageway of 1.65 meters in width could accommodate pedestrian traffic only and was insufficient for vehicle access. As the fitness club was a commercial establishment, such a narrow passage would obstruct customer flow and impede loading and unloading operations, directly infringing upon the club¡¯s lawful business rights and interests. Moreover, the club constitutes crowd-intensive premises, and parking vehicles in front of its main entrance would seriously hinder access for emergency and rescue vehicles, posing a public safety hazard. Although the owners¡¯ committee had solicited opinions from all owners when formulating the parking space allocation plan, it had failed to give due consideration to the club as a stakeholder, nor had it comprehensively assessed the potential operational impacts and safety risks, thus constituting a clear omission.

Accordingly, the people¡¯s court ruled in accordance with the law that the owners¡¯ committee and the property management company of the residential community shall remove the four parking spaces in front of the main entrance of the fitness club and restore the premises to their original condition.

[Judge¡¯s Insights]

I. Collective Decision-Making by Owners Must Abide by the Principle of Fairness

Pursuant to Article 278 of the Civil Code of the People¡¯s Republic of China, matters collectively decided by owners shall satisfy the statutory voting thresholds. This provision is intended to safeguard owners¡¯ right to self-governance over common areas and shared affairs, while balancing collective and individual interests.

In this case, the owners¡¯ committee adopted the renovation plan to install parking spaces directly in front of the fitness club¡¯s main entrance. While the plan was originally intended to ease the community¡¯s parking pressure and served the common interests of some owners, the resolution failed to account for the club¡¯s lawful business rights and interests and ignored public safety hazards, clearly contravening the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and good faith governing owners¡¯ self-governance. In practice, some owners¡¯ committees harbor the misconception that ¡°a measure passed by vote is ipso facto lawful.¡± They overlook the reasonableness and fairness of resolutions, which may readily give rise to abuse of majority-rule powers and undermine harmonious community governance.

II. Stakeholders May Apply for Revocation of Defective Resolutions

Article 280 of the Civil Code of the People¡¯s Republic of China stipulates that where a decision adopted by the owners¡¯ general assembly or the owners¡¯ committee infringes upon an owner¡¯s lawful rights and interests, the aggrieved owner may petition the people¡¯s court to revoke such decision. In this case, when drawing up the renovation plan, the owners¡¯ committee failed to solicit opinions from the fitness club and other stakeholders as required by law, nor did it assess the potential operational impacts, access-related problems, and safety hazards stemming from the plan. This not only breached the principle of procedural due process but also rendered the plan substantively defective, satisfying the statutory conditions for revocation.

As the implementing body for owners¡¯ self-governance, the owners¡¯ committee is duty-bound to safeguard the community¡¯s overall interests and balance the rights and interests of all parties concerned. It should enhance its legal awareness and pursue a comprehensive, balanced approach to duty-performance, so as to avoid disputes caused by inadequate deliberation or the legal risk of having its resolutions revoked by the people¡¯s court. Likewise, the property management company is not a mere executor of the owners¡¯ committee¡¯s resolutions. As the community¡¯s professional management service provider, it also bears an independent duty of prudent discharge of its obligations and must not blindly assist in implementing unreasonable resolutions.

III. Self-Governance Must Abide by Legal Boundaries and Accommodate the Interests of All Parties Concerned

The utilization of residential common areas shall be geared toward maximizing property efficiency and advancing the overall public interests of the community. Meanwhile, any act of use or disposition must not infringe upon the lawful civil rights and interests of adjacent right holders, obstruct traffic passage, or jeopardize public safety.

Owners¡¯ self-governance constitutes a key pillar of grassroots community governance. As the autonomous management body safeguarding the collective rights and interests of all owners, the owners¡¯ committee is legally empowered to manage, maintain, and reasonably dispose of community common areas. That said, the exercise of such autonomous authority is neither absolute nor unlimited. Collective self-governance shall not prevail over mandatory legal provisions, nor may it disregard the legitimate rights and interests of minority stakeholders or public safety in the name of meeting majority demands. Only by strictly observing legal boundaries and balancing the legitimate interests of all parties concerned can community self-governance deliver effective outcomes, realize the fair, sound, and sustainable utilization of public resources, and sustain harmonious and stable community order.

[Comments from a Deputy]

Han Ruobing, Deputy to the Shanghai Municipal People¡¯s Congress and General Manager of Shanghai Rouwei Materials Technology Co., Ltd., said that owners¡¯ self-governance is an important component of grassroots social governance. The Civil Code of the People¡¯s Republic of China explicitly confers upon the owners¡¯ general assembly and the owners¡¯ committee the right of joint management over community public affairs. However, the exercise of such right must strictly adhere to legal boundaries and follow the principles of lawfulness, reasonableness, and due consideration for all parties concerned. This case is a typical dispute for removal of nuisance arising from a conflict between an owners¡¯ self-governance resolution and the lawful rights and interests of a specific stakeholder, as well as public safety. The judgment rendered by the people¡¯s court after a comprehensive review of the on-site conditions and the impact of the parking spaces not only upholds the lawful business rights and interests of the affected party, but also safeguards the bottom line of public safety, clearly conveying the judicial stance that owners¡¯ self-governance is not without boundaries, and that the power reflecting the will of the majority must also be exercised within the framework of the rule of law. At the same time, this case establishes a clear adjudicative benchmark for resolving similar disputes over the validity of owners¡¯ self-governance resolutions, demonstrating the judiciary¡¯s commitment and human-centered approach in safeguarding public safety, clarifying the boundaries of self-governance, and balancing diverse interests.

[Relevant Laws]

Civil Code of the People¡¯s Republic of China

Article 236 Where a real right is subject to obstruction or potential obstruction, the right-holder may request removal of obstruction or elimination of danger.

Article 287 An owner has the right to request that the developer, property-service enterprise or other managers, as well as other owners, bear civil liability for any act that infringes upon the owner¡¯s own lawful rights and interests.