It is commonly accepted that in Cyprus thousands of apartments are located in communal buildings with problematic or non-existent management. Elevators with dubious maintenance, utilities with chronic uncollected debts, management committees - where they exist - that are activated only when something "breaks", and buildings without real management.
Preventive maintenance and timely repairs are often the exception rather than the rule. The problem is not only technical or administrative. It is also a matter of fairness between co-owners. When the defaulter does not have a substantial consequence, when his debt remains interest-free and when the other owners are forced to fill the gap so that the building is not left without insurance, maintenance or basic services, then the system does not simply tolerate inconsistency; rewards it. The recent tragedy in Limassol, with the collapse of part of an apartment building, reminded in the most painful way that the aging of the building stock, inadequate maintenance, chronic debts and administrative inertia are not theoretical issues. They concern security, property and ultimately human life itself.
The bill for the management of communal buildings is, undoubtedly, necessary and must proceed immediately. The discussion, however, should not be limited to whether it will be voted on, but should focus on whether the proposed framework can really work. Because there is a recurring weakness in the legislative process: We identify a problem, create new structures or load an existing one with additional powers, we establish a system of procedures, applications, approvals, objections and fines, and instead of a simple, intelligent and efficient system, we often end up with a bureaucratic model with many obligations and limited efficiency.
If the new law on communal buildings requires that an Agency approves each management committee, checks the minutes of each general meeting, deals with disputes between owners and initiates any compliance procedure itself, then it is doomed to fail. Not because he lacks will. But because no public mechanism has the ability, nor should it manage, on a daily basis, thousands of small private cases or disputes.
A well-designed law in the management of communal buildings, especially when it concerns more than 70,000 communal buildings, which are actually growing rapidly, must be to a greater extent self-implementing. This is not a slogan. It is a matter of proper planning. The law must answer simple but crucial questions in advance: what if no application is submitted? What happens if a management committee is not elected, if no one informs the competent service or if an owner systematically delays the common expenses? The answer cannot always be "the Service will intervene". The solution must be integrated into the law itself, through mechanisms that are automatically activated and lead to compliance without the need for administrative intervention each time.
The following proposals do not overturn the philosophy of the bill before the Parliament, which includes important and positive regulations. They concern further targeted improvements that need to be incorporated in its article-by-article discussion, without affecting the timetable for its adoption, given the urgency of the issue.
1. Digital register of communal buildings. ETEK's proposal is to create a digital register of communal buildings – not an electronic file of applications, or a platform for posting documents, but a digital infrastructure on which the entire management system of these buildings will operate. The register should be interconnected with the Land Registry or IPPODAMOS so that each jointly owned building has a unique identification number, each management committee is declared electronically and every notification, certificate, payment certificate or update of data is issued and processed through standardized digital procedures.
2. Temporary digital folders. The registration of buildings or management committees should not be left to the initiative of the owners. The law should provide for the automatic creation of temporary electronic files for each communally owned building, utilizing the already available data of the public records. The owners or the management committees will then be asked to confirm, supplement or correct this information within a reasonable period of time. The reverse approach - that is, to expect thousands of buildings to submit applications for initial registration from the beginning - will almost certainly lead to bottlenecks at the start of the implementation of the law, delays and ultimately a prolonged period of inactivity.
3. Declarative and not approving registration. The registration of the management committee must be declarative and not approval. Once the required information has been completed and the necessary documents have been submitted, the committee should be considered registered. The Service may carry out random checks, request corrections and intervene in exceptional cases or serious irregularities. However, it is neither necessary nor functional to manage or approve everything, or to require its intervention in order to achieve satisfactory compliance on a large scale.
4. The building must not remain headless. The law must ensure that no communal building is left without a management body. Where there is no registered management committee, a temporary management mechanism should be automatically activated, based on objective and pre-defined criteria – for example, the owners with the highest participation rates. Thus, the continuity of management is ensured without the need for prior intervention or decision of the competent Service.
5.Smart settings with automatic consequences,. Inaction or non-compliance cannot be dealt with only when an authority decides to act. The law must provide for clear and automated consistency mechanisms in advance. If, for example, a building remains for twelve months without a management committee, an increase in the relevant municipal or other local tax, e.g. the real estate tax, provided for by the new law, should be activated. If the monthly payment of common or other necessary expenses is delayed for more than two months, the new law should provide for a reasonable one-off charge, which the management committee will be able to impose without any other formalities. . Accordingly, the non-timely payment of the annual registration fee of the management committee should entail an increase provided for by the new law. At the same time, automatic consequences must be accompanied by safeguards: information, the right to correct obvious errors, an objection procedure and mechanisms to protect against inaccurate or incorrect information in the register.
6. Professional management with rules
The new law must also recognise and strengthen the role of professional managers. Many communally owned buildings - especially large, mixed-use buildings or with a significant number of absent owners - cannot operate effectively on a voluntary basis. The market can offer practical solutions, but these must operate within a clear framework of rules: a written contract, transparency, record-keeping obligations and defined limits of liability. The final responsibility for the decisions and operation of the building must remain with the management committee, but the day-to-day administrative and technical management can and must be organized in a professional manner.
Communally owned buildings do not yet need a legislative framework that will only work when the administration is activated. They need a modern law with smart regulations, digital infrastructure, presumptions, automatic consequences, targeted intervention, incentives, disincentives and general supervision. A law that works satisfactorily without requiring intervention from any Service. Only in this way can the management of communal buildings be transformed from a field of inertia and conflict into an effective mechanism for the protection of safety, property and quality of life. At the same time, such planning avoids the usual trap of creating structures, numerous places and additional administrative costs, which are ultimately passed on to citizens.
*President of ETEK
