Browsing by Author "Scholze, Gregor"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Zur Frage, inwieweit der südafrikanische Sectional Titles Act aus der neu verabschiedeten WEG-Novelle in Deutschland Nutzen ziehen kann
    (Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch, 2010-03) Scholze, Gregor; Van der Merwe, S. E.; University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Private Law.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The most important innovations of the revised German Wohnunungseigentumsgesetz which came into force on 1 July of 2007, concern the possiblity to amend parts of the constitution of the scheme (Gemeinschaftsordnung) by majority instead of unanimous resolution; the extension of the decision-making competence of sectional owners; the easier and more appropriate distinction between maintenance of and luxurious and non-luxurious improvements to the common property; the recognition that the body corporate has legal capacity to act in certain circumstances; the increase in the functions and powers of the professional manager (Verwalter); and the replacement of the procedure for non-contentious matters for the settlement of disputes by the ordinary civil court procedure. These predominantly valuable innovations raise the question in how far South African law could benefit from these amendments, and whether they could be used as a model for solving some of the unsatisfactory aspects of the South African sectional title law. The revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz now allows apartment owners to amend more provisions of the constitution by majority resolution. The harsh unanimity principle is in many contexts replaced by the majority principle and individual apartment owners are allowed to request an amendment of certain provisions of the constitution for important reasons. The Sectional Titles Act and the model management and conduct rules regulate the relationship between sectional owners in South Africa. Both the developer and the body corporate have the authority to supplement or amend the existing model rules by special rules. However, in comparison with the revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz the management and conduct rules can only be amended by a unanimous or special resolution for management and conduct rules respectively and an individual owner is not allowed to request an amendment of a model rule on account of the unfair consequences suffered by him or her. An important advantage of the revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz in comparison with section 32(4) of the Sectional Titles Act is furthermore that no written consent is required from the sectional owner who is adversely affected by an amendment of certain aspects of the participation quota. This requirement causes many problems. First, the circumstances in which an owner can be considered adversely affected have not been judicially determined. Second, the South African requirement is out of step with modern conditions, which witness the number of larger schemes increasing, because it allows one owner to block objectively necessary resolutions of the body corporate. The provision requiring the written consent of the adversely affected owner should therfore be repealed. The same applies to the general requirements for carrying out maintenance of and improvements to the common property. On closer analysis it becomes clear that the management rules contain no criteria to distinguish between maintenance and improvement measures or between luxurious and non-luxurious improvements. In final analysis these distinctions seem to depend on subjective rather than on objective criteria. By contrast the revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz contains a clear objective distinction between the four categories of improvements to the common property.