2.3 Who are the parties involved?

2.3.1 Under Belgian law

71. Many parties are involved in the construction of an apartment building and the subsequent provisional and final delivery. This includes the land owner, the client/client, the building promoter, the contractor and the architect. In addition, the individual co-owners and the association of co-owners, including its bodies, also play a role. In what follows, these parties are discussed one by one. In each case, their capacity and their task are examined and the focus is mainly on their importance in the context of the delivery.

2.3.1.1 Landowner

72. The landowner is the person who holds title to the piece of land on which the apartment building will be built. He therefore has the right to enjoy, use and dispose of this land (supra no. 8). This implies that on the one hand he can opt to take the initiative to erect an apartment building himself and on the other hand he can leave the construction project to a professional building promoter. The interest of the landowner is therefore mainly situated in the realization of the construction works, which, on the other hand, is not the case for provisional or final acceptance.

73. It has already been held in case law that if the landowner de facto acts as a professional in the real estate sector at every stage of the preparations and realization of the construction works, he will be regarded as a building promoter. In a factual assessment, the court will determine whether or not the land owner acts in the capacity of building promoter in a specific situation. If this is the case, it will of course play a role in the context of the delivery. This is discussed further in the section that specifically deals with the construction promoter (infra 2.3.1.3).

74. The land owner will also be an interested party in the context of the delivery when he becomes one of the individual co-owners in the apartment co-ownership (infra 2.3.1.6).

2.3.1.2 Client/ client

75. As appears from the definition of terms (supra 2.1.1), the client or client plays an important role in the context of the delivery. This is because the client-client acts as the counterparty to the contractor. He is obliged to actually accept and approve the construction works and he must also acknowledge whether or not the contractor has carried out the works in accordance with the contract, plans, specifications and rules of the art en whether this realization took place on the basis of the prescribed materials.168 The client is also subject to an inspection obligation in this context whereby he must thoroughly check the construction works and whether or not the works are in good condition with defects. This will be important with regard to the assessment of the liability of the contractor and the architect (infra no. 192).

76. A distinction can be made between casual and professional clients. A client who has no specific knowledge in this area is regarded as an accidental client and will therefore enjoy greater protection. This is reflected, among other things, in the assessment of the liability of the contractor in the context of its obligation to provide information (infra no. 85). The professional client, on the other hand, is someone with sufficient professional knowledge and expertise who is expected to be aware of the potential problems and risks.

In the context of apartment co-ownership, the figure of the client-builder can in principle be divided into the individual co-owner and the association of co-owners. This follows from the fact that a distinction is made between the delivery of the privatives and the common parts respectively. Throughout the further course of this, reference is often made to 'the client-builder' in general for practical reasons.

However, if necessary, a distinction will be made between the two categories.

77. The main contractor can also be assigned the role of client-builder in his relationship with the subcontractor(s) which means that a delivery will also have to take place between the main contractor and the subcontractor(s). This is discussed further in the section that specifically deals with the role of the contractor (infra 2.3.1.4).

2.3.1.3 Construction promoter

78. A third party involved in the delivery is the building promoter. How this term can be defined does not follow from a legal definition. It was therefore up to the case law and legal doctrine to give further substance to this. A building promoter is regarded as a professional client and is a natural or legal person who professionally takes the initiative to realize and commercialize construction projects. In other words, the construction promoter is responsible for the coordination and organization of construction projects at every stage of the construction process and thus assumes the tasks and risks that normally rest with the client.

79. The building promoter is regarded as a specialist in this field and is expected to deliver a completed and finished building to its counterparty. This implies that an obligation of result rests on the building promoter, namely guaranteeing the realization of the construction works in accordance with the agreement, the plans and the specifications and within the agreed term. The assessment of whether this commitment has actually been realized will be based on the delivery. If it turns out that this result has not been achieved, this will be sufficient to hold the building promoter liable (infra 2.4.1.4). 

80. As discussed under 2.3.1.1, it is also possible that a landowner is considered to be acting in the capacity of a property developer if he behaves like a professional in the real estate sector throughout the construction process. In that case, all elements discussed under this point also apply. 81. On the one hand, a building promoter can sell apartments on plan. The object of an off-plan purchase agreement is a building or lot that is not yet in a state of normal habitability and usability at the time the agreement is concluded. However, the buyer will already have to make payments to the building promoter-seller without already being able to dispose of the real estate purchased by him. As soon as the good is finished, the building promoter-seller will deliver the good to the buyer.

On the other hand, the property developer can work by means of the turnkey principle, offering the buyers a total package at a predetermined, fixed price.

In both cases, the buyer of a property or plot runs the risk that he has already paid the total purchase price or important advances in advance, but that he is left with an unfinished property or privative because the property developer or contractor is bankrupt during the execution of the works gone. In order to protect buyers against this, the Breyne Act and its Implementing Decree will apply in both cases (supra no. 22 et seq.). This implies that a double delivery of the construction works must take place.

82. In the case of a sale on plan, the property developer can also take on the role of contractor in its relationship with the various buyers. At that point, the actual contractors will be assigned the role of subcontractors. In that case, the building promoter will play a double role in the delivery process: on the one hand, in his capacity as contractor, he will have to request the individual buyers to proceed with delivery and on the other hand, the 'subcontractors' will send a request for delivery to him. The construction works must not only be delivered by the ultimate beneficiaries of the apartments, but also between the main contractor and the various subcontractors (infra 2.4.1.4). 

83. The building promoter can thus be assigned the role of seller on the one hand and the role of contractor on the other. The qualification of the agreement with the building promoter has consequences with regard to the assessment of his liability (infra 2.4.1.4).

84. However, an important nuance must be made in this context. If the building promoter himself also remains the owner of one of the privatives of the apartment building, the building promoter-owner may not participate in the vote of the general meeting regarding the delivery of the common parts. In this way it would be possible to prevent proceedings against itself for construction defects. If the building promoter-owner still participates in this vote, the other individual co-owners can take legal action against this decision. The court then has a marginal right of review to rule on this dispute. It is therefore very important that clear minutes and reporting of the deliberations of the general meeting of the association of co-owners are available. 

2.3.1.4 Contractor

85. Another interested party in the context of the delivery is the contractor. The contractor is the party in the construction process who must carry out the construction work in accordance with the contract, the plans, the specifications and the rules of the art. The contractor therefore has three obligations: first, he must carry out the construction work correctly and on time, second, the contractor has a warning obligation, and finally, he must deliver the finished construction work to the client.

The obligation to warn means that the contractor must inform the principal of any unsuitability of the land, defects in the constructions or building materials, errors in the architect's plans, etc. Although the contractor is in principle only obliged to fulfill his contractual obligation, ie to carry out the work as prescribed in the building plans and specifications, he cannot simply rely on these documents. If the plans and specifications contain errors that the contractor should have discovered as a professional in the construction sector, he can be held liable for committing execution errors (infra 2.4.1.3, a).

86. It is mainly the last obligation of the contractor, the delivery obligation, which is regarded as 'the completion'. As already indicated in the discussion of the realization and progress of the delivery, the contractor must address an individual and written request for delivery to the principal.  When it comes to apartment co-ownership, the contractor must address this request to each individual co-owner for the delivery of the private parts and to the syndic for the common parts (supra no. 58). The role of the contractor during the delivery is therefore extremely high due to the fact that he is regarded as the initiator of this legal act.

87. The contractor sends the request for delivery at the time when he considers the construction works to be completed and provided that the construction works are ready for the normal use for which they were intended. Whether the construction works are actually ready for delivery should not be made dependent in the least on the arbitrariness of the parties, but should be assessed objectively. In the event of a dispute in this regard, the parties must institute legal proceedings to this effect. If necessary, the court will appoint an expert to advise on this.

88. The contractor is liable for minor visible and hidden defects, as well as for serious stability-threatening defects that fall under the ten-year liability under art. 1792 Civil Code. As will become clear from the next part of this (infra 2.4.1.3), the delivery is an important pivotal moment in the assessment of the liability of the contractor. Once the construction works have been delivered, the contractor is partly released from his liability. However, it should be noted that the contractor also has an obligation to rectify the remarks and reservations that were formulated in the delivery report. This repair obligation exists on the part of the contractor during the one-year warranty period that expires between provisional and final acceptance. Whether or not compliance with this obligation to rectify has consequences for the assessment of the liability of the contractor (infra no. 188 et seq.).

89. In principle, the contractor must carry out the construction works to which he has committed himself. However, unless expressly prohibited, the contractor may hold subcontractors liable

who can assist him in the performance of his assignment. There is no legal definition of 'subcontracting', but legal literature defines the concept as an agreement whereby the main contractor accepts part or all of the work entrusted to him in the main contract. outsourced to a third party. This subcontracting takes place under the responsibility of the main contractor, although the third party will carry out the work without subordination to this main contractor and subject to payment of a price. The subcontracting agreement is thus a stand-alone agreement separate from the main contracting agreement.

90. With regard to delivery, it should be noted that this will not only take place between the client and the main contractor, but also between the main contractor and the various subcontractors. This delivery usually takes place in the time before the delivery between the main contractor and the client takes place. 

Since the subcontracting agreement has an independent character, the delivery of the works between the subcontractor(s) and the main contractor is completely separate from that between the main contractor and the client. It is therefore perfectly possible that the client has accepted the works without remarks or reservations, while the main contractor in turn refuses to proceed with the delivery with regard to the subcontractor(s). In practice, however, the two operations are usually linked, so that the risk of acceptance remains with the subcontractor(s). 

91. Please note: even if work is done with subcontractors, the main contractor will nevertheless remain liable to the client (infra no. 213) and he must personally supervise the construction works.

92. In summary, it can therefore be said that, when working with subcontractors, four deliveries will have to take place: on the one hand provisional and final acceptance between the main contractor and the subcontractor(s) and on the other hand provisional and final acceptance between the client and the main contractor. In the context of apartment co-ownership, this number is in turn doubled since the delivery of the privatives takes place separately from the delivery of the common parts.

The last chapter of this deals with the possibility of working with powers of attorney in the context of delivery (Chapter III infra). Such an option will mainly benefit in a situation as described above, as the number of delivery operations, as well as the number of parties involved, increases considerably here.

2.3.1.5 Architect

93. The architect also has an important task in the building process. He will have to design the structure, apply for the necessary urban planning permits and draw up the building plans and construction documents. These documents include the design plans, the implementation plans and the specifications on the basis of which the contractors must carry out the construction work.

94. The architect is charged with a control task during the execution of the work: he must ensure that the contractor carries out the work in accordance with the construction plans and documents. The architect must therefore be present on a regular basis at the construction site so that he can discover the shortcomings and errors in the works and have them corrected in a timely manner. To this end, the architect must, among other things, draw up site reports.

95. In addition to this inspection obligation, the architect also has an obligation to provide assistance. He will (have to) be present at the completion and will tour the building together with the contractor and his client. He will check whether the building has visible defects and if this is the case, the architect will record these defects in the completion report. Depending on the findings made, he then advises his client on whether or not to accept the construction works. The tasks of the architect end with the provisional acceptance, with the exception of his assistance task during the final acceptance.

96. As is the case with the contractor, the architect can also be held liable for serious stability-threatening defects that fall under art. 1792 Civil Code. This will be discussed in more detail (infra 2.4.1.3, d).

97. In practice, the role of the architect seems to be of importance that should not be underestimated. The client is often a layman in construction matters, which makes the technical knowledge and expertise of the architect highly recommended. The architect will be able to translate his client's requirements into concrete jargon, so that the contractors immediately know what is expected of them. At the same time, the architect will have to ensure that his client does not set unrealistic and unjustified requirements, but will have to bring him to reasonableness.

98. The conditions and requirements for apartment buildings today are also becoming increasingly technical and complex. As a result, the architect is sometimes forced to call on more specialized people who can steer these tasks in the right direction. If the architect has made use of this, these specialized designers are under his responsibility. Which was above

described above, remains applicable in such a situation since the architect is the one who will bear the final responsibility. This can be compared to the situation where the main contractor carries out his tasks through subcontracting.

2.3.1.6 Individual Co-Owners

99. The individual co-owners are the buyers and ultimate owners of the privatives. On the one hand they have the exclusive right of ownership with regard to their private lot and on the other hand they have an undivided share in the common parts (supra no. 16). As discussed earlier, the contractor will have to address the request for delivery of the privatives separately to each individual co-owner (supra no. 58). This individual co-owner then conducts a tour of his private lot with the contractor with a view to its completion.

100. The individual co-owner may, if necessary, be assisted by an architect, although this is by no means mandatory in the provisions of the Breyne Act. In principle, the architect will not be an agent, which implies that it remains the individual co-owner who, in his own name and for his own account, decides whether or not to accept the construction works. The role of the architect is therefore limited to providing assistance and advice on the completion decision.

101. The presence of the individual co-owner is therefore extremely important in this context, since he is the direct counterparty of the contractor in the provisional and final acceptance of his privative (supra no. 56). With regard to the delivery of the common parts of the apartment building, reference should be made to the association of co-owners and its bodies (infra 2.3.1.7). However, situations may arise in which the presence of one or more individual co-owners is required at the provisional or final delivery of the common parts in order for this to be validly established. If the individual co-owner fails to comply with this obligation, the contractor must grant him a reasonable period of time by writ of bailiff. In the event that the individual co-owner still fails to comply with his appearance obligation after this period, the court will take the decision on delivery.

2.3.1.7 Association of co-owners (VME)

102. When dealing with apartment co-ownership, it is important that the functioning and organization of this special form of forced co-ownership is extremely well regulated. This is done through a legal entity, namely the association of co-owners or VME (supra no. 21).  The purpose of the VME is regulated in a mandatory manner by law and consists exclusively of the maintenance and management of the apartment building.         

103. Since the VME has powers of supervision, management and control, the VME is regarded as the custodian of the common parts within the meaning of art. 1384, first paragraph of the Civil Code. This implies that the VME can be held liable for damage caused by defects in the common parts vis-à-vis third parties. In each case, it will be up to the court to assess, based on the concrete circumstances of the case at hand, whether the VME in this case is the custodian of a defective item within the meaning of art. 1384, first paragraph of the Dutch Civil Code can be regarded. The mention of this liability is only for the sake of completeness, but this is further abstracted.

104. To achieve its purpose, the VME has four bodies. These are the general meeting of co-owners, the syndic, the board of co-ownership or the board of directors and the auditor of the accounts. Each of these bodies has specific powers that are either determined by law or regulated in the articles of association. In what follows, these various bodies are explained, mainly focusing on their importance in the context of the delivery.

2.3.1.8 General meeting of co-owners

105. The general meeting of co-owners is the highest body of the VME. Anyone who owns a plot in the apartment building is a member of this body and must participate in its meetings. The general meeting is convened by the syndic. He invites all individual co-owners to do so by registered letter.

106. The general meeting is chaired by one individual co-owner and can only validly take decisions on the condition that at the beginning of the general meeting more than half of the co-owners are present or represented. In addition, it is also required that the co-owners present own at least half of the shares in the common parts. Even if the co-owners present or represented at the beginning of the meeting represent more than three quarters of the shares in the common parts, the general meeting can take decisions in a legally valid manner.

107. It is also possible that an individual co-owner is not present in person at the meeting of the general meeting, but that he is represented by a proxy. The proxy holder will receive a power of attorney for this purpose, which will only be legally valid during one general meeting. However, this can be extended to several meetings, but a notarial power of attorney is required for this.

No agent may have more than three powers of attorney. However, it is exceptionally possible to exceed this number if the total of the votes held by the proxy holder himself, together with the votes attached to the acquired

proxies, does not exceed ten percent of the total number of votes accruing to all lots.

108. As discussed earlier, case law has already stressed the importance of clear and complete minutes of the deliberations of the general meeting (supra no. 84). It is the syndic who will be responsible for drawing up these minutes. Such reporting is particularly important when the general meeting has to vote on the completion of the common parts in the event that the building promoter, the contractor or another interested party is also a co-owner in the building. If this person would have participated in the vote, it will not be legally valid and legal action can be taken against this. If, on the other hand, participation in the vote were made possible, proceedings against the person in question for construction defects could be stopped (infra 2.4.1).

109. The general assembly is, as stated, the highest organ of the VME. However, the law does not contain a description of its powers, which means that these must be further elaborated in the articles of association. The main task of the general meeting is to deliberate and take decisions on all matters concerning the apartment co-ownership. The general meeting is therefore the decision-making body of the VME. In concrete terms, this means that it can make decisions on any matter in the interests of the common parts. The general meeting therefore has no decision-making power whatsoever with regard to private assets. This may exceptionally be the case if the decisions concerning the common parts have an unavoidable influence on the privatives. In addition, art. 577-7, §1, 1°, e) Civil Code that the general meeting can exceptionally take decisions regarding work on certain privatives that will be carried out by the VME for economic or technical reasons. However, for such decisions to be legally valid, the general meeting must decide by a two-thirds majority of the votes and provided that a special justification is available.

110. One of the matters that concern the common interests of the apartment co-ownership concerns the delivery of the common parts. It is the general meeting that will decide whether to accept the construction works and consequently deliver them, or whether to refuse them. 

It is also the general meeting that will, if necessary, formulate comments and/or reservations. Although the general meeting is formally the contractor's counterparty during the delivery, in practice the general meeting often proceeds to granting an authorization with regard to the decision on delivery (infra 3.3).  If the apartment building contains a large number of lots, all individual co-owners must sit in the general meeting. If each of these co-owners were to participate in the tour of the building and the signing of the delivery report, this would be a hell of a hassle, both in practical and administrative terms.

This authorization is usually granted to the syndic  (infra 2.3.1.9), although the general meeting can also opt to charge a committee or commission with the delivery (infra 3.3)._cc781905- 5cde-3194-bb3b-136bad5cf58d_

2.3.1.9 Syndic

111. The VME not only has the general meeting as a decision-making body, but also has an executive and representative body. The Apartment Act provides in a mandatory manner that a property manager must be appointed as the organic representative of the VME. The syndic is usually appointed in the internal rules of procedure or is appointed by the first general meeting. In the absence thereof, it is also possible that an individual co-owner or an interested third party requests the court to appoint a syndic.

In order for the syndic to be appointed in a legally valid manner, the modalities and relations between the syndic and the VME must be laid down in a written agreement. An extract of this deed must be posted at the entrance of the building where the VME's head office is located, within eight days of the date on which its assignment commences.

The syndic's term of office may not exceed three years, although it may be renewed by means of a decision of the general meeting.

112. Previously, the Apartment Act provided that the syndic could be appointed in the regulations of co-ownership. If this was the case, there was a statutory syndic. However, the Law of 18 June 2018 has made a number of changes to the Apartment Law (supra no. 18), as a result of which the appointment of the syndic must now be made in the internal regulations. The previously determined regulation regarding statutory syndici can be applied mi mutatis mutandis. In practice, a statutory syndic is usually appointed by the building promoter so that he can observe the organization and management of the apartment building during its construction. 

It will usually be a trusted person of the building promoter who must lead the completion of the construction works in the interest of the future co-owners. It is important here, however, that the mandate of this statutory syndic ends at the first general meeting. The general meeting will then have to proceed to the appointment of a new syndic.

113. The general meeting has the right to choose when appointing the syndic and can therefore choose to appoint one of the individual co-owners or to opt for a professional syndic. A professional property manager is a natural or legal person who independently manages real estate in co-ownership.

114. The syndic has no discretionary powers, but only has the powers assigned to him under the Apartment Act, the rules of co-ownership or by a special decision of the general meeting.

Irrespective of what the regulations of co-ownership or a decision of the general meeting stipulates, the syndic has the following legal powers, among others: to execute or have executed the decisions of the general meeting, to take protective measures and acts of provisional management and finally to represent of the VME, both in law and with regard to the management of the common affairs.

With regard to the power of representation, it should be noted that the syndic does not act as an agent of the VME. In this context, the Court of Cassation has already confirmed that the syndic does not have to prove that he is acting pursuant to an explicit power of attorney or decision of the general meeting. It acts as an organ of a legal person, being the VME. 

115 Art. 577-8, §4, 3° Civil Code stipulates that the syndic must implement the decisions of the general meeting (or have them implemented). However, this implies that a legally valid decision of the general meeting must already be available. During the discussion of 2.3.1.8 it was already mentioned that the decision to hand over the common parts rests with the general meeting. Usually, however, the general meeting will authorize the syndic to implement this delivery decision. 

The property manager will therefore have to manage the technical and complex delivery on behalf of the general meeting (infra chapter III). 

Please note: the syndic is not a site supervisor and is therefore not obliged to supervise the works that are carried out with regard to the co-ownership for which he is responsible, nor must he appoint a third party for this purpose.

116. The delivery of the common parts takes place in the same way as the delivery of the private parts. The contractor is regarded as the initiator of the delivery, only he will now have to address the request for delivery to the property manager instead of to the individual co-owners separately (supra no. 58). It is important, however, that the syndic should not undergo this passively. If the contractor does not send a request for delivery to the syndic or does not do so in time, he will have to take the initiative himself and, if necessary, he will have to contact the contractor. It is the property manager's task to strive for clarity in the collective interest of the individual co-owners and a wait-and-see attitude is not appreciated.

117. In practice, the property manager will almost always prepare the delivery of the common parts and organize a tour of the construction works in advance. If the property manager does not have the necessary technical and construction knowledge, he can be assisted by a construction expert. To do so, he must, of course, obtain permission from the general meeting. If necessary, he can be assisted by an architect or a construction engineer and the co-ownership council can also provide assistance insofar as possible.

118. Once the tour of the building has taken place together with the contractor, the syndic must report to the general meeting on the state of the structures and any shortcomings.  If the works are in a state of completion, he must request approval from the general meeting to allow the delivery to proceed. The general meeting must vote on this by an absolute majority of the co-owners present or represented. Once the syndic has obtained this approval, he can sign the report of delivery of the common parts.

119. Although the syndic's interest in the delivery mainly lies in the delivery of the common parts, he can also play a role in the delivery of the privatives. The final delivery of the common parts must take place before the final delivery of the privatives. It will therefore be up to the syndic to ensure, on the one hand, that he has signed the official report of the delivery of the common parts and, on the other hand, that the common parts can be safely put into use with a view to the delivery of the private assets.

In addition, the syndic must also point out to the individual co-owners that they must inform him in writing of the fact that they intend to move into their private property. If not, the contractor or building promoter could assume that this commissioning counts as tacit delivery of the common parts.

120. Since the syndic acts as the legal representative of the VME, it is also possible that the syndic violates his acquired powers. If this is the case, a liability claim can be brought against the property manager. The mention of the syndic's liability is rather for the sake of completeness, but this is further abstracted.

121. In summary, it can therefore be said that the property manager, as the executive and representative body of the VME, plays an important role in the context of delivery. This is mainly reflected in the delivery of the common parts, but its role should also not be underestimated in relation to the delivery of the private parts. The figure of the property manager is further discussed in the next chapter in the context of the powers of attorney upon delivery (infra 3.3.4).

2.3.1.10 Board of co-ownership or board of directors

122. If the syndic has too much freedom to carry out his assignments, this may possibly affect the joint interests of the apartment co-owners. That is why the Apartment Act provides for the establishment of the co-ownership council or the management board.

The creation of a co-ownership council is done through a decision of the general assembly at their first meeting. However, this decision is only mandatory if the apartment building consists of at least twenty lots. If the building has a smaller number of lots, the general meeting can also optionally proceed to the establishment of a co-ownership council. In addition, it often happens that the rules of co-ownership provide for the establishment of this council and, exceptionally, the court can order the establishment of the co-ownership council.

123. The co-ownership council's main task is to ensure that the syndic carries out his assignments properly and can therefore be regarded as an internal control or supervisory body. Please note: this assignment does not, however, make the co-ownership council the guardian of the syndic.

The co-ownership council does not have any management or decision-making powers, nor can it undertake the audit of the accounts of the VME, as this is part of the task of the auditor of the accounts (infra 2.3.1.11). The council does not have legal personality or power of representation. This implies that it cannot act in court and cannot perform legal acts that can be attributed to the VME.

In addition to this statutory supervisory power, the co-ownership board may also receive a number of delegated powers from the general meeting. However, it must concern precisely defined assignments with a maximum duration of one year. Examples of such delegated powers can be the signing of the syndic contract, the intervention in the execution of certain authentic deeds concerning the apartment co-ownership  or the delivery of the common parts on behalf of the VME.

124. There is therefore no specific task for the co-ownership council in the context of delivery. However, this can be changed if the general meeting instructs the co-ownership council to proceed with the delivery of the common parts on behalf of the association of co-owners. This is further examined in the chapter dealing with powers of attorney (infra 3.3.5).

2.3.1.11 Auditor of the accounts

125. A last party involved in the apartment co-ownership is the Commissioner of the Accounts. A statutory auditor in a legal entity is an independent person who is appointed by the general meeting of that legal entity because he has the required expertise to review the accounts and books of the legal entity and report thereon to the general meeting. Every year, a commissioner of the accounts is appointed within the association of co-owners for apartment co-ownership. This person can be one of the co-owners, although this does not necessarily have to be the case. Since the provisions of the Apartment Act are mandatory, the appointment of a supervisory director is not optional, but an annual obligation for the general meeting.

126. The auditor of the accounts has the task of checking the books and accounts of the VME. Its obligations and powers must be laid down in the rules of internal order and are therefore not legal, but assigned powers.

After examining the VME's accounts and accounts, the statutory auditor must draw up an audit report and submit it to the general meeting.296

127. As regards the handover of the apartment building, the commissioner of the account is thus irrelevant. This figure will also be discussed in the next chapter, in which it will be examined whether the supervisory director can possibly be designated as proxy holder with a view to delivery (infra 3.3.6).