Condominium and
Site Management

The amount commonly called dues may consist of different items such as staff, maintenance, repair, insurance, management and common facility expenses. The principles of equal contribution or contribution in proportion to the land share according to the type of expense under Art. 20 KMK, and the provisions of a valid different agreement, are examined together. Allocating every expense to all independent units by the same method may not be correct.

• Whether the decision on which the expense rests, the operating plan and the invoice are consistent with one another.
• The distinction between block expenses and housing complex common expenses, between use, and between expense periods.
• The amount paid, additional advance, set-off, late-payment compensation and the start of the account.

Keeping an independent unit empty, or saying that a common facility is not used, does not by itself remove the obligation to bear the expense. Special rules for luxury improvements or for facilities serving only certain units are assessed separately.

Under Arts. 35 and 37 KMK as amended by Law No. 7579, the operating plan is approved by the owners’ assembly. If there is no plan adopted by the assembly, the manager prepares a provisional plan without delay; revenue, expenses, contribution shares and advance amounts are shown. The notice and the assembly resolution accepting the plan, as is or as amended, within three months at the latest are followed together.

When an operating plan already exists, the statutory limit tied to the plan in force and to the revaluation rate announced for the previous year is taken into account in determining the amount foreseen for the provisional plan. This special regulation is not interpreted as a general ceiling that automatically ties every assembly increase in dues to the same rate.

The seven-day objection sentence in the former text of Art. 37 has been removed. When an older plan or a new resolution is reviewed, the date of the act, the notice, the transition and the applicable filing route are checked; the old time limit is not applied by rote to a current act.

Before proceedings, the capacity of the creditor, the manager’s authority, the debtor’s period, and the payment and notice records are determined. A finalized operating plan or an assembly resolution on operating expenses is separately significant under Art. 37 KMK and Art. 68 of Law No. 2004 on Enforcement and Bankruptcy (İİK). If the debt is disputed, the enforcement route and, according to the documents available, removal or annulment of the objection or other claims are assessed.

Art. 20 KMK provides for late-payment compensation of five percent per month on the unpaid part of an expense or advance. The start of application, the time the debt was learned of, the due date, the demand and the calculation are examined in the specific file. The time limit in the enforcement payment order and the time limit for annulment of an assembly resolution are kept separate. Cutting off a common service or publicly announcing the debtor’s name is not accepted as an ordinary and unlimited means of collection.

From whom the management may claim the receivable, and who will bear the expense between owner and tenant under the lease, are different matters. Under Art. 22 KMK, the tenant’s joint liability with the owner, its limitation to the amount of the rent, and the deduction of the payment made from the rent debt are examined separately.

Debts from before the date of purchase or move-in, expenses of the new period and payments for major repairs decided in advance are not treated as the same. The period in which the debt arose, the change of owner, the resolution and the payment schedule are assessed. An internal allocation in a sale or lease contract does not by itself determine the scope of statutory liability toward the management.

In an ordinary and an extraordinary meeting, the method of invitation, the agenda, the notice and the conditions of the first and second meetings are checked. The attendance list, the title deed and land share list, signatures, proxies and minutes are compared with one another. The number of owners, the number of independent units and the land share do not express the same calculation in every resolution.

The general meeting and resolution regime in Art. 30 KMK does not replace the special majorities required for election of a manager, amendment of the management plan, interference with a common area or important management matters. The voting limit of an owner with more than one unit and the conditions of representation by proxy are examined separately. The reason for and the record of a vote against a resolution may be decisive in a later filing.

The review covers whether the resolution was adopted by the competent organ, the quorum for the meeting and the resolution, mandatory rules, the management plan and the effect on the owners’ rights. Annullability, non-existence and absolute nullity are not the same legal outcome. Not every procedural defect creates the possibility of an action without a time limit.

For an owner who attended the meeting and voted against one month from the date of the resolution is taken into account; for an owner who did not attend, one month from learning of the resolution and in any case six months from the date of the resolution. In non-existence or absolute nullity, Art. 33 KMK does not require a time condition. Which category has arisen is determined with the evidence; the effect of the time spent in mediation as a condition precedent to litigation is calculated separately.

Requesting annulment of an assembly resolution does not by itself stop the implementation of the resolution or the pursuit of dues. If there is concrete harm and the conditions are met, an interim injunction is considered. The defendant, the manager’s capacity to represent, and whether the dispute arises from an organ of a large-scale development are checked.

The management plan is the basic document that determines the form of management, the order of use, the organs and the related rights and obligations, and that also concerns the owners and those who later acquire rights. It cannot override the mandatory provisions of the law. Reliance is not placed only on a meeting minute or on practice over many years without obtaining the plan and its amendments recorded in the land registry.

Art. 28 KMK provides for the vote of four-fifths of all condominium owners for amending the management plan. The calculation of the majority, the content of the resolution, notification to the registry and binding effect are assessed separately. It is not assumed that the plan can be amended by an ordinary assembly majority. The Art. 70 regime in large-scale developments is not confused with this; the invalidity of a plan provision and the annulment of an amending resolution are also separate claims.

That there is more than one block does not mean that all the properties are automatically a large-scale development within the meaning of the KMK. The parcels, the site plan, the land registry links and the management plan are examined. The scope of duties of the block assembly and of the assembly of representatives of the island (ada) or the large-scale development, and which sections a facility serves, are determined.

After May 22, 2026, under Art. 70, amending the management plan requires the vote of two-thirds of the total number of independent units represented by the members of the large-scale development assembly of representatives. For plan provisions concerning the temporary management, two-thirds of the owners of independent units in the large-scale development area is provided for. A plan provision contrary to the law is not applied; both cannot be reduced to a single “two-thirds of those attending the meeting” calculation.

Expenses assigned only to one block or to certain structures and expenses serving the whole complex are calculated separately. The legal allocation of a facility and the units that benefit from it matter as much as its physical location.

Under Art. 34 KMK, appointing a manager is mandatory where there are eight or more independent units. The election of the manager is assessed in terms of both the number of owners and the majority of land shares. The management plan, the term of office, the election minutes, the manager’s fee and the appointment of an outside manager are checked; organ rules specific to large-scale developments are reserved.

If the owners cannot agree or cannot appoint a manager, appointment of a manager by the civil court of peace (sulh hukuk mahkemesi) may be requested under the statutory conditions. Removal is distinguished from claims for accounts, damages and delivery of documents. The powers of an elected manager do not mean that the manager can alone decide on every major expenditure or change to a common area.

The manager is liable to the condominium owners like an agent. Income and expense records, bank movements, ledgers, invoices, receipts, contracts and spending decisions are examined as a whole. A difference between the money collected and the amount shown in the accounts, expenses without documents or acts beyond authority must be made concrete.

• The scope of the obligations of document review and accountability.
• Election of an auditor, reports, term of office and the effect of a release (ibra) resolution.
• Delivery of ledgers, keys, accounts and digital access by the former management.

The right to review accounts does not give unlimited access to all personal data of staff or other residents; the necessary masking and secure sharing are assessed. For a claim for damages, breach, fault, damage and causal link; for an allegation of a criminal offense, a concrete act and evidence are additionally required.

Choosing a management company does not entirely remove the statutory duties of the assembly and of the manager. The party to the contract, the signatory’s authority of representation, the scope of services, fee increases, term, access to accounts and the oversight arrangement must be set out clearly. Management services and the supply of cleaning, security, maintenance or software are not the same contractual relationship.

Termination, contractual penalty, liability, insurance, subcontractors, data security and handover provisions are examined. The end of access to the company’s bank account or application records should not halt the operation of the management. The competent court and the type of mediation in a dispute with the company are not determined automatically merely because the word “housing complex” appears.

In employing staff, the capacity of employer, the authority to hire and to terminate, the employment contract, working hours, wages, overtime and social security records are assessed. Severance and notice pay, leave, occupational health and safety, and the conditions of use of the caretaker’s (kapıcı) apartment are also significant.

Outsourcing a service to another company does not remove all labor risks. The principal employer–subcontractor relationship, the records of the service provider and the concrete conditions of liability are examined. The allocation of staff expenses among the owners and the addressee and procedure of an employee’s claim are different questions; a separate assessment may be needed for the labor court and for mediation as a condition precedent to litigation.

The nature of the roof, terrace, garden, parking lot, shelter, caretaker’s unit, corridor, elevator, load-bearing element and common facilities is determined by the title deed, the project and the law. That an area can be reached only from a certain unit, or that one person has used it for years, does not by itself create a right of ownership. An appurtenance of an independent unit is distinguished from a common area.

Where a storage room or garden is closed off, a common passage is obstructed, a terrace is added to a unit or a common facility is used for another purpose, the date of the change, who made it, the permission and the valid allocation of use are investigated. Alongside whether a management decision is valid in terms of authority and majority, whether it affects personal rights also matters.

The claim may be framed as removal of the interference, restoration in conformity with the project, securing the use of the common area or, if the conditions are met, compensation of the loss. The authority to sue and to represent, the person who caused the interference, and the positions of the owner and other interested persons are determined. A usage fee or compensation for unjust occupation (ecrimisil) does not arise automatically in every case; the special conditions are examined.

Before litigation, photographs, technical measurements, the approved project and correspondence must be preserved, and the points to be put to the on-site examination and the expert must be determined. Instead of merely saying “restore it to its former condition”, it matters to describe in a workable way the work to be done. A municipal act, a zoning penalty and the private-law claims of the condominium owners may have separate consequences.

Compulsory maintenance, useful improvement, luxury facility, construction in a common area and structural strengthening are not subject to the same majority and expense rule. The written consent regime in Art. 19 KMK and the exception for a court determination concerning urgent repair or strengthening, and the conditions for improvement and expense in Arts. 42–43, are examined separately.

In a roof leak, an exterior facade, an elevator, fire safety, water installation, a pool, a heating system or an energy-efficiency investment, technical necessity, the project, offers, the budget and decision-making authority are assessed together. Owner consent does not replace the required municipal permit or technical approval. The special statutory regime of risky buildings and urban regeneration is not equated with ordinary apartment building decisions.

In a fire, a flood, a failure of a common facility or harm to a third party, the insured of the policy, its scope, exclusions, coverage and notice obligations are examined. Compulsory earthquake insurance is not regarded as a general liability policy covering all building and common area damage.

The management’s maintenance obligation, the fault of the service provider, the claim of the injured person and the insurer’s reasons for payment or rejection may give rise to different relationships. The incident report, photographs, the loss adjuster’s report, the repair invoice and the date of notice are preserved. Applying to the insurer does not in every case stop the time limit of another action or proceeding.

In noise, odor, vibration, obstruction of a common passage, keeping animals or heavy visitor traffic, the concrete use, the management plan and neighborly obligations are assessed. Not every complaint by itself leads to interference or eviction; the source of the disturbance, its continuity and lawfully obtained evidence matter.

A request for transfer of an independent unit under Art. 25 KMK is an exceptional and severe route. The intolerable violation of the other owners’ rights, the necessary resolution, the special conditions and the statutory time limits for bringing an action are checked separately. This route is not the same as the eviction of a tenant or intervention by the judge.

Use of a unit that appears as a residence in the title deed as a workplace, office, accommodation or for another purpose is examined together with Art. 24 KMK, the management plan, the approved project and the permit regime. That unanimity or a special condition is required for some uses does not mean that all changes of use are subject to the same rule.

In rentals for tourism purposes of one hundred days or less, the permit, decision and sanction regime of Law No. 7464 is assessed separately. High-quality residences and other exceptions are examined according to the status of the file. A tourism permit certificate does not by itself remove the management plan and neighborly obligations; the advertisement, the actual operation and subletting are also investigated.

In cameras, card access, visitor records, license plate recognition and the management application, the responsibility for the data, the purpose of processing, the legal basis and proportionality are determined. That a decision has been taken does not by itself make all data processing lawful. Having regard to the inside of independent units and private life, the viewing angle, the notice, access and the retention period are regulated.

The use of voice or biometric data requires stricter review. Posting a debt list in a common area, sharing in resident groups, handing over recordings on request and transfer to a software company are assessed separately. The management’s transparency and the privacy of third parties must be protected together.

Whether a parking space is an appurtenance in the title deed, a common area or a validly allocated area affects the right of use. Numbering, guest vehicles, access for disabled persons and the passage arrangement must be consistent with the project and the management plan. Adding a charging unit to a parking lot is not treated merely as placing a device in an empty space.

Common or personal use, the nature as a fixed installation, electrical capacity, fire safety, the project and the necessary permits are examined together with the resolution majority, measurement of consumption, sharing of expenses and liability. Solar energy, roof equipment and common internet/communication facilities may also involve different technical and legal conditions. A single permit or majority rule is not given for all installations.

A servitude of floor ownership is established, tied to the land share, for the independent units of a structure to be built or under construction; condominium ownership, by contrast, relates to completed units suitable for separate use. The nature recorded in the title deed, the occupancy permit and the actual situation are assessed together. For management provisions to apply in a structure under a servitude of floor ownership, the conditions of Art. 17 are examined separately.

Establishment, change of type, transition to condominium ownership, appurtenance and unit records are dealt with together with the necessary projects and technical documents. The current transactional requirements relating to the electronic architectural project and three-dimensional digital building model practice of the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre (TKGM) are checked. The destruction of the main structure or the termination of condominium ownership may have different registry and entitlement consequences.

The land share is determined not only by the square meters of the independent unit but in proportion to its value on the date condominium ownership or the servitude of floor ownership was established. Location, floor, orientation, purpose of use, area and other value factors are examined. A disproportionate share given at establishment and a later market movement or alteration are not the same problem.

The action affects the rights of the owners of the relevant independent units; the formation of the parties and the relation of the shares within the whole are important. The establishment project, earlier title deed records and value factors are assessed through a technical expert examination. Although correction of the land share is connected with the allocation of expenses and with rights in a transformation, it does not automatically produce the same result in every matter.

There may be a difference among the independent unit number, its nature, the storage room or parking appurtenance, the area and the actual use. A record error is examined separately from unauthorized construction or the incorporation of a common area into a unit. The title deed, the approved architectural project, the site plan, alteration and occupancy documents are compared.

Whether the correction can be made by an administrative/land registry transaction, and whether it requires owner consent, a new project, a permit or an action, is determined. Not every non-conformity can be resolved like a simple name or number correction. Related claims arising from the sale, credit, delivery or the contractor’s liability are dealt with separately.

In newly delivered housing complexes, the basis, duties and term of the temporary management are examined under the management plan and the large-scale development provisions of the KMK. The contractor’s sale documents or a service company contract are not treated as an authority that extends the statutory term of duty indefinitely.

The handover of common facilities, defects and deficiencies, warranty/maintenance documents, existing contracts, fixtures, bank balance and digital records should be dealt with by record. A change of management and the contractor’s liability for defects are separate relationships. Representation and duty are checked without assuming that the management can automatically pursue all the owners’ personal contractual claims.