What is the difference between lottery, allocation, delivery and title?
In cooperative disputes the expression "the unit came out in my name" is used to describe different situations. A member's presence on the lottery list, allocation of the independent unit to that member, handing over the key and registration of title in the member's name are separate acts.
| Act | Basic function | What it does not show by itself |
|---|---|---|
| Lottery | Determines, by the method of distribution, the unit that falls to the member. | Does not show that all the conditions for transfer of ownership have been met. |
| Allocation | Means that a specific unit is set aside for a specific member. | Does not show that a real right has been acquired in the land registry. |
| Actual delivery | Means that use or possession of the unit is handed over. | Does not show in every case that ownership has been transferred or that all debts have ended. |
| Title registration | As a rule, brings about the acquisition of ownership of real property. | Does not show that the underlying act can never be questioned. |
Article 705 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) regulates the registration rule for acquiring ownership of real property. Statutory exceptions are reserved. The allocation relationship in a cooperative, on the other hand, rests first of all on the law of membership. For that reason, a claim arising from a lottery record and a claim aimed at cancelling an existing land registry record cannot be framed in the same way.[5]
The 2026 amendment: in phased projects, allocation alone is not enough for transfer of title
Additional Article 6, added to the Cooperatives Law by Law No. 7579, introduced a special restriction. Housing cooperatives that complete construction and then begin construction again in phases cannot transfer the title of the relevant workplaces and dwellings, even if they have allocated them to their members, until all the construction they have carried out and plan to carry out is completed.[1]
This provision must be read as limited to the cooperative and project situation defined in the law. The same conclusion cannot be drawn for every cooperative without examining the characteristics of the project. At the same time, the approach "the lottery was held, so title must be given immediately" overlooks the current regulation in a project that falls within its scope. Old model articles of association also cannot override a statutory provision that entered into force later.
Are units always distributed by a notary lottery?
The applicable articles of association are determined first
For the method of distribution, the registered articles of association of the cooperative concerned, their amendments and the resolutions of the competent bodies must be examined. A model text found on the internet cannot be used in place of the current registered arrangement of a specific cooperative.
As an example 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, are used. Article 63 of this version provides for a lottery before a notary, with the participation of the members or their representatives, once the costs have been finalized. It regulates that the place and time of the lottery are to be notified at least fifteen days in advance by registered letter or against signature.[2]
The fifteen days here are the prior notice period in the example concerned. It is not a statutory time limit for suit that applies to all actions against the lottery result. It should also not be confused with the internal objection period concerning the appraisal (şerefiye) report.
Distribution according to preference is possible; it does not create a right of arbitrary choice
The same model provision also accepts that the principle of distributing the units according to members' preferences, in terms of type, group and other characteristics, may be adopted. In that case a lottery may not be held. A general rule such as "every allocation is invalid without a notary lottery" therefore cannot be established.[2]
However, this option is not an unlimited power allowing the management to give any unit it wishes to any person it wishes. The method must be validly determined, the wishes and rights of the members must be taken into account, and the same principles must be applied to those in the same position. Serving on the board of directors or having supported the cooperative does not provide an automatic statutory priority right to choose a unit. Such a claim is examined separately in terms of authority and equal treatment.[1]
The presence of a notary at the lottery also does not automatically cure all errors in the membership list or the unlawfulness of decisions taken earlier. First, the persons who will enter the lottery and the independent units to be distributed must be correctly identified.
Can a member be left out of the lottery?
The lottery list must reflect the current and legally valid membership status. The membership application, the acceptance decision, the transfer act, any withdrawal or expulsion process, and the member records are examined together. The absence of a name from the list alone is not conclusive proof that the person is not a member; it is also possible that the record was kept incompletely or incorrectly.
Under Article 16 of the Cooperatives Law, the membership rights and obligations of a person whose expulsion decision has not become final continue. For this reason, treating all of a person's rights as ended and leaving them out of the distribution before the membership dispute is resolved must be assessed separately. Having a dues debt also does not by itself, and without any other act, terminate membership. The existence and amount of a payment debt and its effect on the allocation or registration claim concerned are separate questions.[1]
In its decision of 29 June 2022, the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation examined the exclusion from the lottery of a person whose membership had been accepted. In the case, there was a separate exchange protocol between the member and the contractor linked to the unit that would come out in the lottery. The Chamber reversed the dismissal, stating that not admitting the member to the lottery also made the protocol unenforceable and that the exclusion was contrary to the principle of equal treatment.[3]
This decision does not say that every private protocol is necessarily valid or that no condition may be required. It shows that the cooperative must explain, with a concrete legal basis, an act that removes a member's right. The existence of a contract made with another person cannot be made a ground for automatically disregarding the right within the cooperative.
Can a valid allocation be changed later?
A unilateral change by the management
A unit determined by a valid allocation cannot be given to another member merely because of the management's new preference, while membership continues and the allocation has not been legally removed. In its majority decision of 1 October 2024, the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dealt with the protection of a valid allocation and continuing membership within this framework.[4]
In the file, the earlier lottery, the transfer of membership, the registration made in favor of the subsequent person and the payment obligations were discussed together. The Chamber required investigation, with regard to the principle of equal treatment, of whether the plaintiff had fulfilled the payment obligations and whether allocations had been made to the other members in the same position. This is not the conclusion that "everyone who shows an old lottery obtains title unconditionally."
It should also be stated that the decision contains a dissenting opinion. The dissent gave different weight to the continuation of membership, the payment situation and the consequences of individualization (ferdileşme, the conversion of the cooperative's overall title into title for individual units). The assessment on protection of the allocation reported in this article is the majority reasoning of the decision.[4]
A new general assembly resolution or a project change
The general assembly's adoption of a new resolution does not mean that it can remove existing allocations without any limit. The new resolution must be separately reviewed for authority, equal treatment, good faith and previously formed rights. The invalidity of an earlier lottery and the later alteration of a valid allocation are different problems.
A project revision must also be made concrete. A change only in the number of the independent unit is not necessarily a change of unit. By contrast, if the floor, facade, area or actual position changes while the number stays the same, the unit set aside for the right holder may differ materially. A joint examination of the old and new projects is therefore important.
Can members exchange their units among themselves?
Article 62 of the model articles of association examined provides that members may exchange the units that fall to them with the units of other members, provided that written notice is given to the board of directors. The registered provision applicable in the specific cooperative must be checked separately.[2]
In an exchange, at a minimum the intention of both parties, the clear identity of the independent units exchanged, to whom the appraisal (şerefiye) difference belongs, any outstanding debts and the delivery status should be determined in writing. One party's statement "I gave up that unit" should not be treated as a completed exchange without examining the other party's acceptance and the arrangement of the cooperative's records.
This act is not the same as a transfer of the membership share. Two persons may exchange the units set aside for them while remaining members; in another transaction, the membership is transferred in its entirety to a third person. If the titles have already been registered in the members' names, the formal requirements and registration rules for the transfer of ownership of real property now also apply. A simple notice given to the cooperative does not change the existing title holders.[1][5]
What is examined if the same unit has been allocated to two persons?
First, it must be established that the documents really relate to the same independent unit. The project number, the door number and the independent unit number in the land registry may have been kept in different systems. Then the dates of the allocations, the resolutions on which they are based, the membership statuses and any transfers are examined.
An earlier-dated document does not in every case give a superior right by itself, just as a board of directors resolution drawn up later does not automatically eliminate a previous valid allocation. The legal validity of the documents and the right on which each rests must be assessed. The need for investigation in the 2024 Court of Cassation decision also shows this multi-sided review.[4]
If the real property has been registered in the name of a third person, how the action is to be framed against the current title holder becomes important. The rules on reliance on the land registry, good faith and unlawful registration in Articles 1023 and 1024 of the TMK are assessed separately. On the explanation "I have my old lottery document," a conclusion of cancellation of title cannot be reached directly without examining the legal position of the third person.[5]
Which action and interim protection can be requested?
The claim must be directed at the real result of the dispute
A member who wants to be included in a distribution list, a person whose membership is disputed, and a person who wants the title of the unit allocated in their name do not make the same claim. Depending on the case, declaration of membership or of the allocation right, annulment of the lottery or of the relevant resolution, removal of interference, performance, or cancellation of title and registration may come onto the agenda. If performance is not possible, the conditions of loss and damages are examined separately; in terms of breach of contract, Article 112 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) is important.[6]
If annulment of a general assembly resolution is requested, the one-month period and the conditions for suit in Article 53 of the Cooperatives Law must be observed. By contrast, the same one-month period cannot be applied automatically to every lottery or allocation dispute without examining the nature of the claim. The subject of the objection, the underlying act and the result sought must be determined separately.[1]
The commercial nature of actions arising from the Cooperatives Law is the basis for determining the competent court. As to venue, Article 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK) on actions based on the membership relationship and Article 12 on actions concerning real rights in real property should be assessed together, on the basis of the parties and nature of the action. A single result should not be given for all files by looking only at the cooperative's head office or only at the place where the real property is located.[1][7]
Mediation as a condition for bringing a commercial action may arise for a claim for damages or a receivable whose subject is a sum of money. Claims that only dispute the allocation right or the validity of a resolution should not be treated as the same as a monetary action. Whether any other special condition for bringing the action exists is also investigated according to the specific claim.[8]
Protection may be needed before the unit changes hands
If, while the dispute continues, there is a risk that the independent unit will be reallocated or transferred, an interim injunction may be requested when its conditions are met. The request must clearly show which unit is to be protected with respect to which transaction, and the danger that delay would create. Filing an action alone does not stop land registry transactions; nor is granting the request automatic.[7]
For a proportionate injunction, it is important to write the block, parcel, building and independent unit identity correctly. A vague request affecting all of the cooperative's real property may unnecessarily restrict the rights of other members. Security, enforcement and objection periods should also be followed according to the type of decision issued.
Which documents should be in the application file?
To resolve the dispute, instead of piling up documents, it should be determined which fact each document shows:
• Membership application, acceptance or transfer documents: show in what capacity the person claims the right.
• Registered articles of association and general assembly resolutions: show the method of distribution and the basis of authority.
• Lottery call, attendance and lottery records: show who took part in the act and how it was carried out.
• Old and new projects and allocation lists: show the physical and recorded identity of the disputed unit.
• Payment statements and notices: show the basis of the alleged failure of performance.
• Current land registry record and transaction documents: show the current owner of the unit and the order of transfers.
Fees, an expert examination, an on-site inspection where necessary and injunction security may affect the cost of applying. Correctly identifying the parties and the claims affects not only the result but also the procedural costs. A complaint to the Ministry does not replace the necessary judicial application and the follow-up of the relevant time limits.
A hypothetical example: the same number, a different unit
Suppose that a member draws in the lottery the south-facing unit numbered 7 in Block A. After a project revision, the management wishes to deliver a different unit, which still bears "number 7" but is on the north facade. In this situation, keeping the same number is not enough to show that the allocation is being implemented as it was.
First the project at the date of the lottery and the new project are compared. If the change is only in numbering, the problem is one thing; if it alters the position and value of the unit, it is another. The member's consent to the change, the authority for the decision and the method applied to the other members are examined. That the appraisal (şerefiye) amount has been recalculated also does not by itself prove that a different unit has been validly allocated to the person.
In this example the question "Which unit?" must be separated from the question "How much is the difference in value?" If only the calculation of the price is objected to, the main issue of protecting the unit actually wanted may be left incomplete. The claim and the interim protection must be directed at the legal result the person really wants.
Conclusion
In lottery and allocation disputes, what is decisive is not merely the presence of a name or a unit number on a list. A valid membership, the correct method of distribution, the legal basis of the allocation act, the payment status and the existing land registry record must be examined together. Protection of a valid allocation and transfer of ownership are separate stages; the restriction on phased projects introduced in 2026 has reinforced this distinction in a current way. A correct application states clearly which right over which unit is to be protected and also takes the rights of the other members into account.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does drawing a unit in the lottery require title to be given immediately?
Not by itself. Allocation and transfer of title are different acts. Together with the payment and individualization conditions, in phased projects that fall within its scope the restriction in Additional Article 6 of the Cooperatives Law must also be examined.[1][4][5]
Can a unit not be allocated without a notary lottery?
The model articles of association examined also include an option of distribution according to members' preferences, on certain principles. However, an arbitrary choice cannot be made without regard to the applicable registered text, the competent decision and the principle of equal treatment.[1][2]
If I have a dues debt, am I automatically left out of the lottery?
A debt does not automatically terminate membership. Membership status, the finality of any expulsion decision and the effect of the payment debt on the claimed right must be examined separately. The valid basis of the cooperative's act must be shown.[1][4]
Can the management give the unit that came out for me to another member?
While a valid allocation and continuing membership exist, this result cannot be reached solely by the management's preference. The legal status of the earlier allocation, the member's consent and the validity of any new act should be investigated.[4]
Can I exchange units with another member?
The model text examined allows an exchange among members with written notice to the management. The registered provision and the parties' obligations must be checked. If titles have been issued, the formal requirements and registration conditions for transfer of ownership apply separately.[2][5]
In a lottery dispute, is suit always to be filed within one month?
The one-month period is the basic rule for the route of annulment of a general assembly resolution. It is not transferred automatically to other allocation, membership, performance or title claims merely because the subject is the lottery. The legal nature of the act and the claim must be determined.[1]
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. 8, 14, 16, 23, 42, 53, 98–99 and Additional Art. 6 added by Art. 6 of Law No. 7579. 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. 62–65. 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] 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi), 29.06.2022, E.2022/953, K.2022/3739. Failure to admit to the lottery a member whose membership was accepted, and the principle of equal treatment. Full text: https://app.dejure.ai/dokuman/eb27cd75-05dd-49dc-88a5-4410024f3019 (citation and full text verified: 22.10.2026).
[4] 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi), 01.10.2024, E.2023/2282, K.2024/3068. Earlier valid allocation, membership, payment obligations and title claim; the majority reasoning and the dissent were examined together. Full text: https://app.dejure.ai/dokuman/6a12f8c0-954f-4e33-b8eb-849c189f59cf (citation and full text verified: 22.10.2026).
[5] Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (4721 sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu), adopted 22.11.2001, Official Gazette 08.12.2001, No. 24607; especially Arts. 705–706 and 1023–1024. Current official text: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.4721.pdf (accessed 22.10.2026).
[6] Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu), adopted 11.01.2011, Official Gazette 04.02.2011, No. 27836; especially Art. 112. Current official text: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6098.pdf (accessed 22.10.2026).
[7] Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), adopted 12.01.2011, Official Gazette 04.02.2011, No. 27836; especially Arts. 12, 14 and 389–397. Current official text: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6100.pdf (accessed 22.10.2026).
[8] 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).