What is the şerefiye charge; why are not all flats treated as the same?
Şerefiye means taking value differences between units into account in the financial calculation. Where one of two flats of the same floor area faces an open view and the other faces heavy noise, this shows that their economic values may not be the same. Nevertheless, unchanging rules such as "a higher floor is always more valuable" or "a south facade increases the price by a certain percentage in every project" cannot be established. Value must be explained by the characteristics of the specific building and the relevant market conditions.
The principle of equality in Article 23 of the Cooperatives Law does not require distributing units of different value at the same price without any review. The same criterion must be applied to those in the same position and, to those in different positions, a criterion whose difference can be explained. The function of a şerefiye study is likewise not to create an arbitrary privilege but to produce a comparable and reasoned distribution.[1]
A şerefiye discussion therefore cannot be settled by the sentence "too much was demanded for my flat." What characteristics the other units were assessed by, whether the criterion used was applied consistently to everyone, and how the total cost was shared are examined together.
First, the legal nature of the money requested must be determined
The name şerefiye does not by itself determine the real nature of the collection. Additional financing needed to complete construction, a common expense, an amount arising from late payment, or a special equalization that is to be created among some members may all be requested under the same heading. Their authority, calculation and objection conditions are not the same.
| Amount requested | Basic question of the review |
|---|---|
| Şerefiye based on the value difference between units | By what method and data have the characteristics of the flats been compared? |
| Dues tied to an increase in construction cost | How have the spending need, the competent resolution and the distribution among members been determined? |
| A later final cost difference | What is the relationship between the earlier provisional calculation and the new expenses? |
| A special charge collected so that payments are made to some members | What are its legal basis, purpose and distribution criterion? |
This distinction is clear in the decision of the 23rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation of 22 February 2013. The "additional şerefiye" in the file was a special charge that it was decided to collect from those who drew good units and give to the owners of basement and ground-floor units. The Chamber assessed that the dispute was not the same as an ordinary şerefiye difference between dwellings, and asked that it be checked by expert examination whether the charge rested on scientific criteria and a fair distribution.[3]
The decision does not show that the same result will emerge in every şerefiye dispute. What it shows is that the transaction behind the name used must be examined. The action and the defense cannot be framed only according to the heading on a collection receipt.
Which articles of association apply; who does the calculation?
The sample text on the internet and the registered text must be distinguished
First, the articles of association of the cooperative concerned registered in the trade registry, their amendments and any adaptation acts must be examined. The text of another cooperative or an old internet sample may not show all the provisions of the present cooperative. The mandatory provisions of the law, however, take precedence over the articles of association.[1]
In describing a model arrangement in this article, the Model Articles of Association of a Housing Construction Cooperative (Konut Yapı Kooperatifi Örnek Anasözleşmesi), published in the file bearing the date code 16 December 2024 on the website of the Nevşehir Provincial Directorate of the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, is taken as the basis. In this version, the determination of the unit prices is regulated in Article 62. That older court decisions tie the same subject to Article 61 may result from the existence of different models and registered texts. A provision should not be carried over to all cooperatives on the basis of an article number.[2]
The role of the technical board and the role of the management are not the same
The model arrangement examined provides that, after the technical report showing that the buildings have been completed in accordance with the project or after the occupancy permit, a technical board of at least three persons is formed within the framework of a general assembly resolution. The board calculates the cost falling to the members on the basis of the land, infrastructure, superstructure, construction, common areas and facilities, and general expenses. Value differences arising from location are also part of the calculation.[2]
A management statement merely saying "the market has risen, everyone will pay this much more" does not replace this technical and legal review. That the general assembly has taken a decision also does not by itself eliminate a material error in the data used, the changing of criteria from person to person, or the exceeding of the limits of authority.
What questions should an auditable şerefiye report answer?
A good review contains more than a one-column debt list showing the result. The headings below are control questions that can be used to evaluate a specific report; they are not a mandatory and unchanging scoring table for every project.
Is the unit correctly identified?
The block, parcel, building, floor and independent unit number and the actual location must confirm one another. Especially in project revisions, the old flat number must be matched with the new number. An amount calculated on the wrong facade or floor is the price of the wrong unit even if it is arithmetically correct.
Have the physical characteristics been measured by the same method?
Net and gross areas, the nature of balconies or terraces, annexes, restrictions on use and the interior features of the unit must not be confused with one another. Using the net area of one flat and the gross area of another in the same comparison distorts the result. Whether a feature shown in the project was actually realized should also be investigated.
On what observation is the value difference based?
Floor, facade, sunlight, view, ease of transport, noise, privacy, relationship with common areas and environmental effects must be explained concretely. The labels "good flat" or "bad flat" are not a calculation by themselves. If weight is given to a feature, it must be shown why it is regarded as value-increasing or value-reducing.
Has the same feature been counted twice?
For example, a view advantage may have been assessed again under the headings "facade," "location" and also separately "view." This repetition may cause the same advantage to produce more than one price increase. The report should explain how the criteria are separated from one another.
Are the date of comparison and the total calculation consistent?
The comparables and the valuation date should be stated. Comparing prices formed in different periods without adjustment is misleading. Also, the sum of the amounts per member should be consistent with the cost and distribution method used. It should be checked whether the same expense has been added both to the basic cost and separately under the şerefiye heading.
The Court of Cassation's 2013 decision particularly dwelt on the facade, location and all characteristics of the unit and its comparison with comparable flats. A reasoned and auditable report is therefore also sought in the court's examination.[3]
Hypothetical calculation: how is the price difference made visible?
Suppose that the total cost to be distributed for three units of equal size is TL 9,000,000. The basic share is TL 3,000,000 for each unit. Let us assume that an equalization method accepted as suited to the specific project reflects the value difference between the units as follows:
| Unit | Basic cost share | Hypothetical value adjustment | Adjusted share |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | TL 3,000,000 | +TL 150,000 | TL 3,150,000 |
| B | TL 3,000,000 | TL 0 | TL 3,000,000 |
| C | TL 3,000,000 | −TL 150,000 | TL 2,850,000 |
| Total | TL 9,000,000 | TL 0 | TL 9,000,000 |
This table is not a statutory formula or a mandatory rate. It only shows how the difference between units can be related to the total distribution in a particular equalization model. In a real file, the method is determined according to the articles of association, the competent resolution, the characteristics of the units and the cost calculation.
For example, if it is found that the open view relied on for the value adjustment of unit A does not exist in the project, or that the reduction applied to unit C is unjustified, the objection should not be directed only at the person's own line. How the same criterion is applied to all flats should be investigated. The strength of the objection comes not from preferring another amount but from showing the error.
How, and within what period, is the şerefiye charge objected to?
What do the fifteen days in the sample articles of association mean?
In Article 62 of the sample examined, it is regulated that the technical board's provisional cost report is given to the management after notarial certification as to the accuracy of its date and signatures, and is notified by the management to the members by notary, registered letter or delivery against signature. A fifteen-day internal objection period from notification and a revaluation by a new board of three persons upon objection are provided.[2]
These fifteen days are not a general time limit for suit written in the law for all cooperatives and for every kind of şerefiye action. First, whether the same provision exists in the registered articles of association, which report was notified and whether the notification complied with the provision must be determined. The consequence tied to the lapse of the period in the model is serious; nevertheless, before examining the text to be applied and the nature of the act, it cannot be said "now no right remains."
Notarial certification also does not mean that the economic and technical content of the report was found correct. The subject of the certification in the sample text is the date of preparation and the signatures. The content is reviewed separately.
The objection should not be left as abstract dissatisfaction
In the objection, the date of the report, the date of notification, the independent unit concerned, the amount in dispute and the reason for the error must be stated clearly. Objections such as a wrong area, incorrect floor information, scoring the same feature twice or an unsuitable choice of comparables can be explained under separate headings. Supporting items such as the project, photographs, measurements and a comparison table should be attached; if the whole report has not been provided, this deficiency should also be recorded.
The application must reach the cooperative and its date must be provable. An oral conversation or a general discussion in a messaging group does not by itself take the place of the place of application prescribed by the articles of association. Why the new report issued as a result of the objection accepted or rejected the earlier objections should also be examined.
In its decision of 3 December 2014, the 23rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation did not find it sufficient to reach a result directly through an expert calculation without investigating whether the determination and finalization procedure in the articles of association applicable to the dispute had been operated. This decision shows that the court stage does not make the valid procedure within the cooperative unimportant.[4]
Does the payment obligation continue while objecting?
Article 62 of the sample articles of association also provides that an objection cannot delay payment of instalments. For this reason, the fact that the report has been objected to or that an action has been filed should not be interpreted as all payments stopping automatically.[2]
On the other hand, this rule does not mean that every amount that has not legally arisen or that has been wrongly calculated is an undisputed debt. First the basis of the debt, its maturity, the notification, the amount and any interim protection requested are assessed. Separating undisputed dues from a dispute concerning only the şerefiye difference may reduce unnecessary default and collection problems.
If payment is to be made, it may be considered to record the objection and the right of refund requested clearly. However, a mere "reservation of rights" (ihtirazi kayıt) wording does not in every case create a right of refund. The legal ground of the payment and the route of action to be chosen should be examined separately. If enforcement proceedings have been started, the periods tied to the enforcement document run separately from the internal objection period in the articles of association.
What can be done if the şerefiye calculation results in a difference in the member's favor?
A şerefiye dispute does not arise only when additional money is requested from members. Where, according to valid calculations and resolutions, the member's total obligation decreases while the payments made exceed this amount, crediting the excess payment to the account, set-off against another debt if the conditions are met, or refund may also be discussed. For this, the registered articles of association, resolutions of the competent bodies, the provisional or final nature of the report, its notification, the outcome of the objections and the payment statement should be examined together. The Court of Cassation decision of 3 December 2014, which emphasizes that the determination and finalization procedure must be investigated, also shows the importance of not skipping these stages.[2][4]
Applying a negative value adjustment to a unit in the hypothetical table above does not mean that the same amount will immediately be paid in cash to that member. The difference may only reduce the remaining payment burden; how much the member paid before, and whether the account has become final and given rise to a receivable that has fallen due, must be determined. Requesting from the management first a written account statement and the underlying resolution, and then having the difference recorded or, if the conditions are met, requesting payment, provides a clearer dispute framework. A member should not, on their own, stop all dues on the basis of an account that has not become final.
With what claim is the court approached?
The route of action is chosen according to the real subject of the dispute. If the unlawfulness of the general assembly resolution that determines the şerefiye principles is asserted, the one-month period in Article 53 of the Cooperatives Law and the relevant conditions for suit come onto the agenda separately. Application of the technical calculation, the allegation that no debt exists, recovery of an excess payment or the cooperative's collection claim call for different reviews.[1]
Actions arising from the Cooperatives Law are commercial in nature. In actions for a receivable, damages, annulment of objection, negative declaration and restitution whose subject is a sum of money, mediation as a condition for bringing the action under Article 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) must be taken into account. A mere annulment of a general assembly resolution and a monetary dispute are not the same in this respect.[1][5]
In the file, the registered articles of association, resolutions of the competent bodies, the first and later technical reports, notification documents, the written objection, unit projects, the allocation list, cost records and the payment statement are generally important. The questions for the expert examination to be requested from the court should also be concrete. If, instead of "Is the price correct?", it is shown which measurement, comparable or distribution is in dispute, the examination will be more informative.
If it is necessary to establish in advance the physical characteristics that may be changed, or a situation that may later disappear, preservation of evidence may be considered, when its conditions exist, under Article 400 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK). Requesting interim legal protection with respect to collection or another act is subject to separate conditions; the filing of an action is not sufficient.[6]
Court fees, expert, on-site inspection and litigation costs vary according to the claim chosen. Correcting only a small difference and disputing a comprehensive cost calculation and a general assembly resolution do not create the same workload. Limitation and preclusive periods should also be examined according to the nature of the claim; a single period should not be applied to all disputes.
Conclusion
The legal strength of a şerefiye calculation does not arise from the size of the figure requested or from the management's explanation. Valid authority, correct unit information, an objective criterion, a consistent distribution and the procedure in the applicable articles of association must be present together. The objection too should show which of these elements is missing. The fifteen-day internal objection in the sample articles of association, the one-month time limit for suit against a general assembly resolution and the separate conditions of monetary claims should not be confused with one another. In this way the discussion leaves behind a vague allegation of an "excessive charge" and becomes an auditable legal and technical review.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the şerefiye charge be collected equally from all members?
The purpose and calculation of the act must be examined. If there is a value difference between the units, applying the same amount to everyone raises the question of whether the differences were really assessed. Ensuring equality does not mean requesting the same figure in every case.[1][2]
Is there a fixed percentage in the law for şerefiye?
The legislation and the sample articles of association examined in this article do not set a single percentage valid for all projects. The rates used must be explained by the characteristics of the specific unit, the method and the valuation data.[1][2]
Should I file a suit within fifteen days against the şerefiye report?
The fifteen days in the sample articles of association are the internal period for objecting to the report within the cooperative. Its application in a specific file depends on the registered articles of association and valid notification. The conditions of an action to annul a general assembly resolution or for a monetary receivable are examined separately.[1][2]
Does notarial certification of the report prevent an objection to the calculation?
No. In the example examined, notarial certification concerns the date of preparation and the accuracy of the signatures. Errors in area, facade, comparables, cost and distribution do not become correct because of this certification.[2]
Can I stop all dues because I objected to the şerefiye?
An objection does not stop all payments automatically. In the sample text examined, it is written that instalments cannot be delayed. The disputed difference and the other payment obligations and, if any, the conditions for interim protection must be examined separately.[2]
If the general assembly accepted the price, can the court not examine the calculation?
A general assembly resolution does not cure every calculation error. However, annulment of the resolution, an objection to the technical calculation and an action for the debt or for a refund are not the same legal route. The Court of Cassation considers it necessary, according to the nature of the specific dispute, to examine both the procedure in the articles of association and the technical accuracy of the price.[3][4]
Sources and Legal Basis
[1] Cooperatives Law No. 1163 (1163 sayılı Kooperatifler Kanunu), adopted 24.04.1969, Official Gazette 10.05.1969, No. 13195; especially Arts. 3–5, 23, 42, 53, 98–99. Current official text: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.1163.pdf (accessed 22.10.2026).
[2] Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change (Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı), Nevşehir Provincial Directorate, Model Articles of Association of a Housing Construction Cooperative; the version bearing the date label 20241216102608 in its file name, especially Arts. 62–64. Official source: https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/nevsehir/menu/konut-yapi-kooperatifi-ornek-anasozlesmesi-1_20241216102608.pdf (the relevant provisions were checked on the indexed text belonging to the official domain: 22.10.2026; the registered articles of association that apply must be examined separately).
[3] 23rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 23. Hukuk Dairesi), 22.02.2013, E.2012/6772, K.2013/1029. The nature of the charge called additional şerefiye, expert examination and review of a fair distribution. Full text: https://app.dejure.ai/dokuman/202209-1506-4620-20126772-20131029-e1e00fca-5e0c-4603-9914-061a3479f57f (citation and full text verified: 22.10.2026).
[4] 23rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 23. Hukuk Dairesi), 03.12.2014, E.2014/3543, K.2014/7813. Investigation, in housing cost and şerefiye charges, of the determination and finalization procedure in the articles of association applicable to the dispute. Full text: https://app.dejure.ai/dokuman/202209-1523-1957-20143543-20147813-5e6d61df-473b-4948-ab29-5492ca266279 (citation and full text verified: 22.10.2026).
[5] Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu), adopted 13.01.2011, Official Gazette 14.02.2011, No. 27846; especially Arts. 5 and 5/A. Current official text: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6102.pdf (accessed 22.10.2026).
[6] Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), adopted 12.01.2011, Official Gazette 04.02.2011, No. 27836; especially Arts. 389–397 and 400–405. Current official text: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6100.pdf (accessed 22.10.2026).