Condominium Owners’ Assembly and Housing Complex Management: Meetings, Dues, Annulment of Resolutions and Manager Liability

The condominium owners’ assembly is the principal decision-making body of joint management in apartment buildings and housing complexes; however, not every resolution it adopts becomes valid merely because a majority was achieved. The meeting invitation, the calculation of votes and land shares, the management plan, the subject of the resolution and special majority requirements must be examined together. Law No. 7579, which entered into force on May 22, 2026, introduced significant changes, in particular regarding approval of the operating plan by the assembly, the provisional advance arrangement and amendment of the management plan in large-scale developments (toplu yapı). This guide explains, in light of current legislation and verified court decisions, the powers of owners, managers, tenants and large-scale development representatives; the determination of dues and common expenses; the auditing of the manager’s accounts; and annulment of resolutions, mediation and litigation processes. [1] [2] [3]

Management Structure in Condominium Ownership and the Legal Nature of the Condominium Owners’ Assembly

Condominium Ownership Law No. 634 (KMK) regulates together the right of private ownership of independent units, co-ownership tied to the land share and the joint management of the main property. In a property on which condominium ownership has been established, the rights of the owner of a flat, shop or office are not limited to their own independent unit; the owner also has obligations such as protecting the common areas and contributing to management expenses. To resolve management disputes, the land registry record, the approved architectural project, the management plan, the resolution book and the official records showing whether the dispute concerns a single parcel or a large-scale development must be examined first. [1]

Who makes up the condominium owners’ assembly?

The condominium owners’ assembly is the decision-making body through which the owners of independent units participate in the management of the main property; it is not itself a separate legal entity. Condominium owner status, as a rule, belongs to the person who is the owner of the independent unit according to the land registry record. Without identifying the right holder according to the land registry record, it should not be accepted that all participants at a meeting are condominium owners.

Where an independent unit has more than one owner, they take part in the assembly through a representative they jointly appoint. A minor or a person under guardianship is represented by their legal representative, and a legal entity owner by its authorized representative. The manager and the auditor, however, do not acquire condominium owner status merely because of their duties; if they are owners, they may vote separately in their status as owners. Under Art. 31 KMK, the representation mechanism and owner status must be distinguished from each other. [1]

Position of tenants, usufructuaries and other residents

A tenant or a person who uses an independent unit does not become a member of the condominium owners’ assembly merely because of the use relationship. Nevertheless, they may attend the meeting as a proxy duly authorized by the condominium owner. To the extent the management plan and the statutory framework permit, avenues for obtaining information, using common areas and requesting that use-related complaints be addressed may also be assessed separately. The tenant’s liability for common expenses, for its part, is not always the same as the liability of the condominium owner. [1]

Relationship among the condominium owners’ assembly, the manager, the auditor and the management plan

Under Art. 27 KMK, the main property is managed by the condominium owners’ assembly in accordance with the provisions of the law and the management plan. The management plan is the basic document that governs the manner of management, the purpose of use, the duties of the manager and the auditor, and the principles for sharing management expenses, and it binds the condominium owners. The manager implements the assembly’s resolutions; the auditor audits the manager’s accounts and activities. None of them can override the mandatory provisions of the law. [1]

How Are Ordinary and Extraordinary Meetings of the Condominium Owners’ Assembly Held?

When is the ordinary meeting held?

Under Art. 29 KMK, the condominium owners’ assembly meets at the times specified in the management plan, at least once a year; if no time is specified in the management plan, the meeting is, as a rule, held within the first month of each calendar year. Accordingly, there is no general rule for all apartment buildings in the form of a “requirement to meet within the first fifteen days of January.” In large-scale developments, the special provisions of the KMK and the management plan must also be examined separately. The fact that the meeting date has been determined in advance does not mean that the rights to invitation and participation may be violated. [1]

Who can request an extraordinary meeting?

If an important reason arises, the assembly may hold an extraordinary meeting at the request of the manager, the auditor or one-third of the condominium owners. Art. 29 KMK provides that all owners must be informed at least fifteen days before the meeting, with the reason for the meeting also stated, by an invitation delivered against signature or by registered letter. Clarity regarding the agenda, the place and time of the meeting and the information on the second meeting is important in the procedural review. The statutory authority to call the meeting and the procedure must also be examined separately in the specific case. [1]

What should the invitation and the agenda contain?

For a duly held meeting, the invitation must state whether the meeting is ordinary or extraordinary, its date, time, place and agenda, and, if the quorum is not reached at the first meeting, the date and place of the second meeting. Sufficient information must be provided, especially on matters affecting the owners’ financial or real rights, such as the election of a manager, additional dues or advances, the operating plan, leasing of a common area, extensive alterations and amendment of the management plan.

To prove the invitation, records of acknowledgment of receipt against signature, registered mail details, the announcement provisions of the management plan and, where necessary, records of authorization and delivery of electronic notifications must be kept. The mere fact that a message was sent to a WhatsApp group should not be accepted in every case as equivalent to the notification method required by law.

Time between the first and second meetings

If a second meeting is to be held because the majority required at the first meeting could not be achieved, there must be at least seven and at most fifteen days between the two meetings. Even though no special meeting quorum is required for the second meeting, the qualified decision majorities prescribed by law depending on the subject of the resolution do not disappear. Disregarding this difference can lead to invalid assembly resolutions and to actions filed later. [1]

Meeting and Decision Quorums of the Condominium Owners’ Assembly

The double majority at the first meeting

Under Art. 30 KMK, for the first meeting to be opened, more than half of the condominium owners in terms of both number and land share must be present at the meeting. The majority based on the number of condominium owners and the land share majority differ from each other; a meeting should not be opened merely by looking at the number of independent units present in the hall. If one person has more than one independent unit, the limitations in Art. 31 KMK are also taken into account in calculating votes. [1]

Which resolutions can be adopted at the second meeting?

If the quorum for the first meeting is not reached, ordinary resolutions may be adopted at a duly convened second meeting by an absolute majority of those attending. However, on matters such as the election of a manager, amendment of the management plan, certain transactions concerning common areas and improvements, the special decision quorum required by law is preserved. For example, the statutory requirement of two-thirds, four-fifths or unanimity does not lapse automatically because only a small number of owners is present at the second meeting.

Owners’ voting rights and the limit on proxies

As a rule, each condominium owner has one vote per independent unit. If the same person has more than one independent unit, they have a separate vote for each; however, the total of their votes cannot exceed one-third of all votes. A condominium owner may cast their vote through a proxy; the limitations in Art. 31 KMK must also be observed regarding the number of votes a proxy may represent. For this reason, the list of participants and votes should show not only names but also the independent unit, the land share, the authority of representation and the number of votes that may be cast. [1]

Decision quorums by subject

This table is a preliminary check. Whether the same work qualifies as “maintenance,” a “useful improvement,” an “architectural project change” or a “disposition of a common area” may make it subject to different articles of the law and different majorities. What is decisive is not the title of the resolution but the legal consequence it actually produces. [1] [2]

The 2026 Amendment: A New Framework for Dues and the Operating Plan

Who now approves the operating plan?

Law No. 7579, which entered into force on May 22, 2026, amended Art. 37 KMK. Accordingly, the operating plan is approved at the general assembly of condominium owners. If there is no operating plan adopted by the condominium owners’ assembly, the manager prepares a provisional operating plan without delay. Notice of the provisional plan is given and, within three months at the latest, a resolution is adopted at the condominium owners’ assembly to accept it as is or as amended. The manager cannot postpone indefinitely the duty to submit the provisional plan to the assembly. [2]

While this arrangement limits the arbitrary determination of dues, it does not mean that the manager can never request an advance for maintenance, security and necessary management expenses. Art. 35(d) KMK was also amended for this purpose, and the duty relating to collecting advances until the operating plan is approved was reorganized. The consistency of resolutions and collection steps with actual expense needs must be documented. [1] [2]

The revaluation limit for the provisional operating plan

Under the additional provision introduced by Law No. 7579, if there is an existing operating plan that remains in force, the amount provided for in the provisional operating plan is determined so that it cannot be increased by more than the revaluation rate announced for the previous year under the Tax Procedure Law (Vergi Usul Kanunu). This provision should not be explained as an absolute and general ceiling on increases in dues for every new annual operating plan lawfully adopted by the condominium owners’ assembly. Which plan period and which revaluation rate the calculation is based on must also be shown separately. [2]

About the former seven-day objection to the operating plan

The former text of Art. 37 KMK contained a sentence providing for review by the assembly if an objection was made within seven days of notification to the plan prepared by the manager. Law No. 7579 repealed this sentence. Accordingly, the explanation in older writings that “an objection must be made within seven days to every new operating plan” cannot be maintained unchanged for the new period. The current regulation is based on bringing the provisional plan before the assembly within three months and on approval by the assembly. For this reason, the date of the dispute and the type of plan must be examined together. [2]

What should the operating plan contain?

The operating plan should set out the estimated income and expenses of the main property for one year, the share falling to each owner under Art. 20 KMK and the advances to be requested for the estimated expenses. For an accountable plan, the type of expenses, the period, the allocation criterion, the existing balance, anticipated contracts, bank accounts and the payment schedule should be shown clearly. Confusing estimated expenses with expenses actually incurred aggravates the dispute.

How Are Dues and Common Expenses Shared?

Distinguishing equal sharing from sharing by land share

Art. 20 KMK, taking into account the management plan and the statutory framework, introduces different sharing principles depending on the type of common expense. As a rule, equal contribution is provided for doorkeeper, boiler attendant, gardener and watchman expenses; as a rule, contribution in proportion to the land share is provided for other common expenses and the advances collected for them. In a dispute, however, the provisions of the management plan on the allocation of expenses, the limits permitted by law, the nature of the expense and the specific use situation must be assessed together. [1]

Are dues payable if the flat is empty or a common facility is not used?

As a rule, the fact that an independent unit is not used does not by itself remove its owner’s obligation to contribute to common expenses. An owner is not exempted from a debt arising from the law and the management plan by saying “I don’t use the elevator,” “I don’t use the pool” or “my flat is empty.” Nevertheless, to whom certain expense items belong, actual use as opposed to the owner’s ownership-based liability, and special provisions of the management plan must be examined separately.

Is the tenant liable for dues?

Art. 22 KMK regulates the liability, together with the condominium owner, of persons residing permanently in an independent unit on the basis of a lease agreement for certain common expense and advance debts; the tenant’s liability is linked to the limit of the amount of rent they are obliged to pay, and the payment they make is deducted from the rent debt. This regulation does not mean that every special fixed-asset (demirbaş) expense can be imposed directly and without limit on the tenant instead of the owner. The claim under condominium ownership law and the internal relationship arising from the lease agreement must be assessed separately. [1]

Late-payment compensation, enforcement proceedings and mortgage for unpaid dues

Against a condominium owner who does not pay their share of common expenses or advances, litigation and enforcement proceedings may be available under Art. 20 and 22 KMK. The law provides for late-payment compensation calculated at five percent per month for the days of delay in payment; the period to which it applies, the nature of the principal debt, the determination of the payment date and the specific dispute must also be examined separately. For the manager to initiate proceedings, actual authority and the basis of the receivable must be documented. Under Art. 22 KMK, a statutory mortgage right may come into play when its conditions are met. [1]

Election, Term of Office and Powers of the Manager

When and by what majority is a manager appointed?

Under Art. 34 KMK, the appointment of a manager is mandatory if the main property has eight or more independent units. The manager may be elected from among the condominium owners or from outside. Appointment requires a majority of the condominium owners in terms of both number and land share. The manager is reappointed every year at the statutory annual meeting; the previous manager may be re-elected. A special provision on meeting times in the management plan does not change the mandatory election quorum under the law. [1]

What happens if the condominium owners cannot elect a manager?

If the condominium owners cannot agree on the management of the main property or cannot meet and appoint a manager, the civil court of peace (sulh hukuk mahkemesi) where the main property is located may appoint a manager upon the application of one of the condominium owners. Regarding replacement of a manager appointed by the court, the special conditions in Art. 34 KMK and the six-month protection are assessed. A court appointment does not entirely remove the owners’ statutory management obligations. [1]

Which tasks can the manager perform without an assembly resolution?

Within the scope of the ordinary management tasks listed in Art. 35 KMK, the manager has duties such as implementing assembly resolutions, protecting the property, taking necessary maintenance and repair measures, managing building insurance and certain operating expenses, collection, payments, notifications and carrying out the necessary proceedings. However, transactions that go beyond ordinary management, create a permanent right over a common area, require a special majority by law or exceed the limits of authority do not become valid with the manager’s signature alone. The nature of the transaction, the management plan and the relevant special decision majority are decisive. [1] [2]

In which account should the manager collect dues?

Under Art. 35 KMK, the manager opens an account at a reputable bank, showing their status as manager, for the money and advances they collect. Incoming and outgoing transactions, the bases for payments, the powers of the manager/assembly and any signature requirements must be auditable. Mixing personal cash flows with joint management accounts creates a serious risk in terms of the duty to account and liability.

Liability of the Manager and the Auditor, Review of Books and Accounts

Why is the manager liable like an agent?

Under Art. 38 KMK, the manager is liable to the condominium owners like an agent. This liability comes into play regarding the consistency of expenditures with assembly resolutions and the management plan, the necessity of service contracts, the recording of collections, the protection of common areas and allegations of unlawful payments. Not every erroneous transaction automatically gives rise to compensation; breach of duty, damage, causation and the specific conditions must also be proven. [1]

Which books and documents must the manager keep?

Under Art. 32 and 36 KMK, resolutions, meeting minutes, formal notices, summaries of notifications and management expenses must be entered in the books in accordance with procedure; supporting invoices, contracts and other documents must be kept. The notarial formalities and year-end closing of the resolution book must also be carried out. The view that “keeping only the resolution book is sufficient, other financial documents are not important” is wrong. The statutory obligation to keep a resolution book does not remove the need to document expenditures and collections. [1]

Does release (ibra) end all of the manager’s liability?

The general assembly’s release of the manager is important for the transactions of the period and the acceptance of known accounts; however, it cannot be said that it creates automatic and unlimited immunity for transactions that fall outside the scope of the release or that are concealed, fraudulent or come to light later. Whether the release was placed on the agenda, which accounts were submitted and the explicit content of the resolution are important. The party claiming that the management accounts were approved must submit the release minutes and the supporting records.

What are the auditor’s powers?

Under Art. 41 KMK, the condominium owners’ assembly may continuously audit whether the manager performs their duties. The duties of the auditor or the audit board are carried out within the framework of the management plan, assembly resolutions and the statutory framework. Bank records, service contracts, invoices, payment lists, personnel expenses, unusual advances and the use of common areas must be clearly shown in reports.

How Should Resolutions of the Condominium Owners’ Assembly Be Recorded and Notified?

Assembly resolutions should be entered in the resolution book, dated and in clear terms; the identities of those attending the meeting, their authority of representation, the votes for and against, the required decision quorums and the financial and legal content of the resolutions adopted should be understandable. The conditions under which an off-agenda resolution can be adopted and its relationship with the management plan and the meeting invitation are also examined separately. Vague or inconsistent meeting minutes, or minutes without an operative part, not only make implementation difficult but also affect subsequent judicial review. [1] [4]

The fact that a condominium owner did not attend the meeting does not mean that the resolution adopted will in every case be ineffective against them. However, for an owner who did not attend the meeting, the date of learning of the resolution may affect the time limit for bringing an annulment action (hak düşürücü süre). Since notification records and the fact of actual knowledge may be decisive in a dispute, they should be kept in accordance with procedure.

How Is the Management Plan Amended? The Distinction Between a Single Parcel and a Large-Scale Development

Art. 28 KMK: Four-fifths majority for the general management plan

In a classic condominium ownership relationship, under Art. 28 KMK, amending the management plan requires the vote of four-fifths of all condominium owners. Four-fifths of those merely attending the meeting is not sufficient. The land registry record of the management plan and the date of amendment, the number of owners, the authority of those participating in the resolution and the actual scope of the amendment in question must be checked. [1]

Art. 70 KMK: Two-thirds majority in large-scale developments from 2026

Article 5 of Law No. 7579 changed the four-fifths majority wording in the first and second paragraphs of Art. 70 KMK to two-thirds. Amending the management plan of a large-scale development requires the votes 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 on temporary management, the votes of two-thirds of the owners of independent units in the large-scale development area are required. It is also provided that management plan provisions contrary to this article will not be applied. This amendment does not by itself remove the classic management plan quorum in Art. 28 KMK. [1] [2]

Is having more than one parcel under one housing complex name enough?

No. The existence of buildings on more than one parcel in the land registry, the mere use of the name “housing complex” (site) or the joint collection of dues does not show that all the conditions of the KMK’s large-scale development provisions are met. Within the framework of Art. 66–74 KMK, the approved site plan, common facilities and connections, land registry records and the large-scale development management plan must be investigated. Legal status may directly affect the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, the authority of representation and the correct defendant. [1] [5]

Use and Leasing of Common Areas and Changes Contrary to the Project

On the basis of which documents is a common area determined?

Under Art. 4 and 16 KMK, the land registry and the approved architectural project form the basis for determining common areas; actual use of the property alone does not change its legal nature. With respect to the building entrance, courtyard, load-bearing system, roof, stairs, installations, certain parking areas and common facilities, the distinction between an annex to an independent unit and a common area must be determined from the specific project.

What majority does leasing a common area require?

Art. 45 KMK regulates unanimity of all condominium owners for the leasing of common areas, together with significant dispositions such as encumbering the main property with rights, dividing the land and transferring ownership of the divided part. Neither the manager nor the majority can override the mandatory quorum of the law by a provision of the management plan. The decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi) dated March 23, 2026 particularly illustrates this distinction in the review of a dispute concerning long-term leasing of a common area and interference contrary to the project. [1] [6]

Can an owner use a common area alone?

Condominium owners have co-ownership rights tied to the land share in the common areas; however, this does not mean that a specific part of a common area can be allocated exclusively to one owner on the basis of a square-meter calculation. In the decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated March 23, 2026, E. 2025/10357, K. 2026/4721, it was explained that the review of an interference in a common area requires going back to the project and the management plan, and that it was not correct to deduct the square meters falling to the share and order prevention of encroachment for the remaining part. [6]

When can alterations in an independent unit be restricted?

An owner may carry out work in their own independent unit that does not violate the law, the management plan, the approved project, the load-bearing system or rights relating to common facilities. By contrast, work such as interfering with the load-bearing system, changing common areas, affecting the exterior facade and installations, or changing the purpose of use may be subject to different approval, permit or project rules. The generalization that “an owner cannot carry out any interior alteration without the consent of the other owners” is not correct. The work must be assessed separately, according to its technical nature, under Art. 19, 24 and 42 KMK and the relevant zoning legislation. [1]

Annulment Action Against a Resolution of the Condominium Owners’ Assembly

Who can file an annulment action?

Under Art. 33 KMK, a condominium owner who attended the meeting and voted against the resolution and a condominium owner who did not attend the meeting may apply for annulment of the resolution under the conditions provided by law. The right of action of persons who voted in favor, who are not owners at all or whose owner status has not been proven must be assessed according to the applicable procedural and substantive rules. The court must first examine land registry ownership, attendance at the meeting and the record of dissent. The decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) dated February 11, 2026 indicates that this examination must not be left incomplete. [5]

How is the time limit for filing an action calculated?

A condominium owner who attended the meeting and voted against may file an annulment action within one month from the date of the resolution; a condominium owner who did not attend may do so within one month from the date they learned of the resolution and in any case within six months from the date of the resolution. Art. 33 KMK also provides that no time-limit requirement applies where resolutions are deemed non-existent or void due to absolute nullity (mutlak butlan). This exception for serious defects does not apply automatically to every defect in the invitation. [1] [4]

The difference between non-existence, absolute nullity and annullability

Annullability concerns the removal, within the time limit, of an existing assembly resolution because it is contrary to the law, the management plan or the principle of good faith. Non-existence and absolute nullity, on the other hand, are more limited situations, such as the resolution never having come into being in the legal order or being void because of a serious violation of mandatory law. The mere fact that the meeting invitation was late or that a signature is missing does not, without a specific examination, render all resolutions non-existent. Court of Cassation practice requires a detailed assessment of the land registry, the management plan, the invitation documents, the attendance list, proxies and the resolution book. [4]

How are the court with subject-matter jurisdiction and the correct defendant determined?

In disputes over annulment of resolutions arising from the KMK, the principal court with subject-matter jurisdiction is the civil court of peace; however, whether a de facto housing complex established on more than one parcel qualifies as a large-scale development within the meaning of the KMK may affect jurisdiction and party status. In actions for annulment of a resolution of the condominium owners’ assembly, Art. 38 KMK provides that the action may be directed against the manager on behalf of the condominium owners. Whether the action has actually been directed against the correct person in their status as manager, the term of office and the authority of representation must be checked. [1] [5]

In the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation dated February 11, 2026, E. 2025/377, K. 2026/57, it was accepted that, in a housing complex consisting of more than one parcel but where the conditions for a large-scale development within the meaning of the KMK were disputed, the contractual representation and party status of the defendant management structure must be investigated separately, in addition to the plaintiff’s owner status and legal interest. The decision does not mean that every management in a housing complex automatically acquires legal personality. Since the Civil General Assembly decision was rendered before Law No. 7579, the former majority ratio of Art. 70 KMK in the text of the decision should not be used as the current norm. [5]

Is mediation mandatory before an action is filed?

Under Art. 18/B/1-c of Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, in disputes arising from Condominium Ownership Law No. 634, recourse to mediation before filing an action is a procedural prerequisite. Whether the specific dispute actually falls within this scope and the exceptions must be assessed. During mediation, the statutory provisions on suspension/non-running regarding the statute of limitations and the time limit for bringing an action must also be observed separately. An application left to the last day of the time limits for bringing an action carries serious risk because of errors concerning the parties, the subject of the dispute or procedure. [3]

Which documents are needed for the action?

• Land registry record, list of independent units, land shares and a current list of owners.
• The current management plan in the land registry and, if any, amendments and large-scale development documents.
• Meeting invitation, acknowledgment of receipt against signature, postal records and the agenda.
• Dates of the first/second meetings, attendance list, powers of attorney and the breakdown of votes.
• Resolution book, the relevant meeting minutes and records of objection/dissent.
• In dues and operating plan disputes: budget, bank receipts, payment lists, invoices and contracts.
• In common area disputes: approved architectural project, photographs, municipal documents, technical reports and, where necessary, an on-site examination.
• Mediation application records, the final report and documents on learning/notification that affect the time limit.

The legal effect of these documents in the file must be assessed together with the date of the contested resolution and the legislative period in which it was adopted. [1] [3] [4]

Protection of Personal Data in Housing Complex Management and the 2026 KVKK Decision

Apartment building and housing complex managements may process the names and surnames, telephone numbers, independent units, payment and debt information of owners and tenants in connection with their duties. However, the existence of a legal basis for processing does not mean that the data may be disclosed to everyone in every medium. The principle decision of the Personal Data Protection Board (Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurulu) dated February 18, 2026 and numbered 2026/348 found unlawful the disclosure to unrelated persons of the names, flat numbers and debt information of those owing dues by posting them in common areas such as elevators, building entrances or corridors. It stated that managements must remove such lists and use only secure notification channels accessible to the persons concerned. [7]

This principle does not mean that dues receivables cannot be collected. Exercising the right to a receivable and accounting to the other condominium owners is distinct from unnecessarily exposing the debtor’s personal data. Closed e-mail or authorized messaging channels are not automatically deemed lawful either; access control, limitation to necessary data and security requirements must be assessed separately. [7]

Common Mistakes and Legal Risks in Management Disputes

• Wrong decision quorum: Believing that statutory unanimity or a qualified majority falls away at the second meeting.
• Acting under the old law: Applying the repealed seven-day objection procedure to an operating plan after May 2026 and the former four-fifths ratio to a large-scale development plan.
• Wrong housing complex status: Automatically treating multiple parcels as a large-scale development because they have a single management board.
• Wrong defendant: Directing the action against the manager personally or against the manager of the wrong period.
• Incomplete invitation and minutes: Failing to preserve the agenda, receipts, proxies and land share breakdowns.
• Incorrect allocation of dues: Dividing all amounts by square meters or the number of flats without separating the expense items.
• Unauthorized common area transaction: Disregarding the mandatory unanimity requirement in reliance on the management plan or the assembly majority.
• Time limit for bringing an action: Filing for annulment of a resolution late in reliance on the date of learning and the mediation process.
• Disclosure of personal data: Posting the list of debtors in elevators, entrances and common notice boards.

Order of Review in Specific Disputes: A Checklist for Owners and Managers

When examining the legal validity of a resolution or the manager’s liability, the following should be examined in order: first the single parcel/large-scale development status of the property, then the land registry and the management plan, next the invitation/meeting/vote and land share records, after that the subject of the transaction and the special quorum, and finally the procedural prerequisite, the time limit, the correct party and the evidence. This prevents acting as if a correct decision had been made merely on the basis of the appearance of a “majority” at the meeting.

Related articles: Unauthorized electricity in apartment buildings, shared meters and vehicle charging; Refusal of an alteration permit and of a request to change the purpose of use; Objection to the sale of land shares in urban transformation; Respect for private life and protection of personal data.

Conclusion

Although the condominium owners’ assembly is the principal decision-making body of apartment building and housing complex management, not every majority is competent to decide on every matter. Duly made invitations, meeting and decision quorums; the management plan; whether the property qualifies as a large-scale development; and the legal subject of the resolution must be examined together. The provisions on the operating plan and the large-scale development management plan amended in 2026 by Law No. 7579 make it necessary to question older texts, especially in dues and management disputes. The approach that prevents loss of rights consists of obtaining the correct documents, identifying the correct party and the procedural prerequisite, not missing the statutory time limit and keeping financial records auditable.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the apartment building meeting held every year in January?

If the management plan specifies a meeting time, that time is the basis; if not, under Art. 29 KMK, the ordinary meeting is held within the first month of each calendar year. There is no general time limit applicable to all apartment buildings in the form of meeting within the first fifteen days of January. The special provisions on large-scale developments must also be examined separately. [1]

If only three owners attend the second meeting, can any resolution be adopted?

No. Even though the ordinary meeting quorum is not required at the second meeting, the special decision majorities prescribed by law for the election of a manager, amendment of the plan and dispositions of common areas are preserved. [1]

Can a person who is not a condominium owner vote as a proxy?

Yes; a condominium owner may duly appoint a representative. However, representing ownership and acquiring condominium owner status are not the same thing. The proxy’s authority of representation and the statutory voting limits must be checked. [1]

How many votes are needed to elect a manager?

A majority of the condominium owners in terms of both number and land share is required. This special quorum is also required at the second meeting. [1]

By what percentage can dues be increased in 2026?

No single statutory percentage has been set for all dues. The revaluation rate limit in the May 2026 amendment is a special rule concerning the amount of the provisional operating plan where an existing plan is in place. The operating plan adopted by the assembly must be distinguished from the provisional plan. [2]

Can the manager finalize the new operating plan alone?

No. Under the current Art. 37 KMK, the operating plan must be approved by the assembly. If there is no plan adopted by the assembly, the manager draws up a provisional plan and conducts the assembly approval process within three months at the latest. [2]

Is the tenant liable without limit for all fixed-asset expenses?

No. The liability under Art. 22 KMK is assessed taking into account the rent amount limit and the relationship with the lease agreement; not every cost can be imposed automatically and without limit on the tenant. [1]

Is unanimity required if a common area is to be leased?

Leasing of a common area within the scope of Art. 45 KMK requires the unanimity of all condominium owners. A contrary provision in the management plan does not in every case remove this mandatory requirement. [1] [6]

Is there a difference between a single-parcel and a multi-parcel housing complex?

Yes. Whether the KMK’s large-scale development provisions have come into play is determined from the land registry, the approved site plan, the relationships between the parcels and the management plan. Litigation strategy, including subject-matter jurisdiction and party status, may change. [1] [5]

What is the time limit for objecting to a resolution of the condominium owners’ assembly?

For an owner who voted against the resolution at the meeting, the rule is one month from the date of the resolution; for an owner who did not attend, one month from learning of it and in any case six months from the date of the resolution. In cases of non-existence and absolute nullity, the law does not impose a time-limit requirement. [1] [4]

Do you have to go to mediation before filing an action?

In disputes arising from the KMK that fall within the scope of Art. 18/B of Law No. 6325, mediation is a procedural prerequisite. The right of action and the time limit should be assessed according to the nature of the specific dispute. [3]

Can a list of those owing dues be posted in the elevator?

No. The principle decision of the Personal Data Protection Board numbered 2026/348 requires that such public announcements be ended and that only suitable channels accessible to the persons concerned be used. [7]

If the manager is released, is it impossible to file an action later?

No. The scope of the release, the known/actually submitted accounts, acts identified later and the specific conditions of liability must be examined. Release alone is not general immunity against all claims.

If no manager can be elected, can a manager be requested from the court?

Yes. Under Art. 34 KMK, under the statutory conditions, the appointment of a manager may be requested from the civil court of peace where the main property is located. [1]

Sources and legal bases

1. Condominium Ownership Law No. 634 (Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu), in particular Articles 4, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27–45, 66–74. Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı) UYAP Legislation and Case Law Program, current consolidated text. Ministry of Justice legislation text
2. Law No. 7579 Amending the Land Registry Law, Certain Laws and Decree Law No. 375 (Tapu Kanunu ile Bazı Kanunlarda ve 375 Sayılı Kanun Hükmünde Kararnamede Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun), Articles 3–5 and 31; Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) dated May 22, 2026, No. 33261. Official Gazette
3. Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Art. 18/A and Art. 18/B/1-c. Official legislation
4. Court of Cassation, 20th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 20. Hukuk Dairesi), October 31, 2018, E. 2017/2734, K. 2018/6934; review of the invitation, agenda, attendance list, proxies, land registry, management plan, decision quorum, time limit and non-existence/nullity in the annulment of assembly resolutions. Full text of the decision (account access may be required)
5. Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, February 11, 2026, E. 2025/377, K. 2026/57; legal status in the case of multiple parcels, plaintiff/defendant status, management plan and authority of representation. Full text of the decision (account access may be required)
6. Court of Cassation, 5th Civil Chamber, March 23, 2026, E. 2025/10357, K. 2026/4721; leasing of common areas, use contrary to the project, party status and the effect of Art. 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK). Full text of the decision (account access may be required)
7. Personal Data Protection Board, Principle Decision No. 2026/348 dated February 18, 2026 and the Authority’s statement on the subject; posting lists of dues debts containing personal data in common areas. KVKK public announcement