Apartment Management in Turkey: Owners' Assembly, Common Charges and the Manager's Liability

Owning a flat in a Turkish apartment building or gated site is not a property relationship that stops at your own four walls. The roof, the lift, the heating installation, the car park and the garden are held in common, and how that commonality is governed is set out in Condominium Law no. 634 (Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu) and in the building's management plan. In practice most disputes arise less from what those two documents say than from the fact that owners have never read them: an assembly convened without proper notice, a resolution never entered in the decision book, a late-payment rate fixed above the statutory ceiling, or a dwelling quietly turned into business premises.

This guide covers the questions foreign owners most often bring to us — from the quorums for convening the owners' assembly through the annulment of its resolutions, the collection of unpaid common charges, the manager's liability, and the operating-budget amendment introduced by Law no. 7579 of 7 May 2026.

1. The Two Governing Documents: The Law and the Management Plan

Every property held in condominium ownership has a management plan (yönetim planı) registered at the land registry. After stating that the plan governs the manner of management, the purpose and form of use, and the fees payable to the manager and auditors, Article 28 of the Condominium Law treats it as "a contract binding on all the owners". Three consequences follow:

• The plan binds not only those who signed it but their universal and singular successors — that is, anyone who later buys the flat, and heirs — as well as the manager and the auditors. "I never agreed to that plan" is not a defence.
• Where the plan is silent, the dispute is resolved under the Law and general provisions.
• Amending the management plan requires the votes of four-fifths of all owners (Art. 28/3). This is a much heavier threshold than an ordinary assembly majority: four-fifths of all owners, not of those attending.

The 2026 change for multi-building complexes. Law no. 7579 of 7 May 2026 replaced the words "four-fifths" in Article 70, which governs multi-building complexes (toplu yapı), with "two-thirds". Amending the management plan of such a complex now requires the votes of two-thirds of the total number of units represented by the members of the complex's board of representatives, and the provisions on interim management may likewise be changed by two-thirds of the unit owners. A paragraph added by the same amendment is unambiguous: "Provisions of management plans contrary to this article shall not be applied." An older plan stipulating a heavier threshold therefore no longer governs.

The distinction matters: in an ordinary single-parcel apartment building the four-fifths rule still applies; the two-thirds rule was introduced only for multi-building complexes.

2. The Owners' Assembly: Quorums for Meeting and for Decision

The property is governed by the owners' assembly in accordance with the contract, the management plan and the Law (Art. 32). Article 30 sets the quorums:

• First meeting: the assembly convenes with more than half of the owners by both number and land share and decides by majority of votes. The double test matters: a majority by unit count alone, or by land share alone, is not enough — both are required.
• Second meeting: if the first meeting cannot be held for want of a quorum, the second is held no later than fifteen days afterwards, and the decision quorum there is an absolute majority of those attending.
• Special quorums prevail. Where the Law prescribes its own threshold, Article 30 does not apply: opening certain businesses in a dwelling requires unanimity (Art. 24), amending the management plan four-fifths (Art. 28), and useful improvements and the appointment of a manager a majority by number and land share (Arts. 42 and 34).

The decision book is not a formality to be skipped. Under Article 32, resolutions are written into a book with consecutively numbered pages, each page stamped by a notary, and signed by all owners present. Those voting against sign while stating the reason for their dissent. That annotation is decisive later: it determines from which date the annulment period runs and whether the claimant qualifies as an owner who "voted against".

3. Annulling a Resolution of the Owners' Assembly: Deadlines and the Proper Defendant

Article 33 governs annulment actions, and the periods are forfeiture periods (hak düşürücü süre):

• An owner who attended and voted against: one month from the date of the resolution.
• An owner who did not attend: one month from learning of the resolution, and in any event six months from the date of the resolution.
• Where the resolution is void or a nullity, no time condition applies. This exception, added by Law no. 5711, is decisive in practice: a resolution contrary to a mandatory provision of the Law can be taken to court even after the one-month period has run.

Jurisdiction lies with the Civil Court of Peace (Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi) of the place where the property is situated. For a building in Kuşadası, Söke or Didim, the action is brought before the civil court of peace of that district.

Whom do you sue? The most common mistake is to name every owner individually as a defendant. Article 38/2 makes that unnecessary: actions for the annulment of resolutions of the owners' assembly, the block representatives' assembly or the complex representatives' assembly may be brought against the manager, as representative of the owners. The manager notifies all owners of the action; where the resolution is annulled, the litigation costs are met out of the common expenses.

Quite apart from the resolution itself, the authority of the body that adopted it may be in issue. Where the assembly resolution electing the manager or the board is under challenge in separate proceedings, the fate of later resolutions depends on the outcome of that case, and the Court of Cassation requires it to be treated as a preliminary question (precedent 1 below).

4. The Manager: Appointment, Duties and Liability

Appointing a manager is compulsory where the property has eight or more independent units (Art. 34/2). The manager is appointed by a majority of the owners by both number and land share and is reappointed each year at the assembly's statutory annual meeting; the outgoing manager may be reappointed. If the owners cannot agree or cannot convene to appoint one, the civil court of peace appoints a manager on the application of any owner. A court-appointed manager cannot be replaced by the assembly until six months have passed since the appointment; if good cause arises, the appointing court may permit an earlier replacement.

The manager's duties are listed in Article 35. The principal ones: carrying out the assembly's resolutions; taking the measures needed for the preservation, maintenance and repair of the property; insuring it; collecting advances until the operating budget is approved; bringing actions and enforcement proceedings against owners in default and registering the statutory mortgage; holding collected funds in an account at a reputable bank opened in the manager's own name but showing the capacity of manager of the property; and arranging the monthly maintenance and annual inspections of the lifts.

The manager is liable to the owners exactly as an agent (vekil) (Art. 38/1). The assembly continuously supervises the manager's conduct and may replace them at any time for good cause; where the management plan sets no time for auditing the accounts, the audit is carried out every three months (Art. 41). The manager's name and business and home address must be displayed in a frame at the building entrance; failing that, an administrative fine is imposed on application (Art. 34, final paragraph).

Where a manager ought to have been appointed but was not, the matter does not simply lapse: under the paragraph added to Article 35 by Law no. 6645, the owners are jointly responsible for having the listed tasks carried out. "We have no manager" is therefore no answer to a failure to service the lift.

5. Common Charges (Aidat) and the 5% Monthly Late-Payment Compensation

Article 20 divides common expenses into two categories, applicable unless the owners agree otherwise:

• In equal shares: the costs of the caretaker, boiler operator, gardener and watchman, and advances collected for them. The size of the flat is irrelevant here.
• In proportion to land share: insurance premiums; the maintenance, preservation, strengthening and repair costs of all common areas; other expenses such as the manager's salary; and the operating costs of common installations, together with advances for them.

You cannot escape the charge by renouncing use. Article 20(c) is explicit: an owner may not refuse to pay their share of expenses and advances by renouncing the right to use the common areas or installations, or by asserting that, given the position of their own unit, they have no need to benefit from them. "I live on the ground floor and never use the lift" is not an answer.

Late-payment compensation is 5% per month. An owner who fails to pay the full amount of expenses and advances owes late-payment compensation calculated at 5% per month for the days of delay (Art. 20/2). That rate was reduced from 10% to 5% by Law no. 5711 in 2007. The assembly cannot raise it by majority vote — precedent 2 below is directly on this point.

The tenant is liable, but only up to a limit. Under Article 22, a person who continuously benefits from a unit under a lease, a right of habitation or another ground is jointly and severally liable with the owner for the expense and advance debt and for late-payment compensation. However, the tenant's liability is limited to the amount of rent payable, and any payment made is deducted from the rent debt. If the debt still cannot be recovered, a statutory mortgage in favour of the other owners is registered over the defaulting owner's unit for the amount determined by the court, on the written application of the manager or, failing that, of any owner.

6. The Operating Budget and the 2026 Amendment by Law no. 7579

The amount of the common charge is not set arbitrarily; its basis is the operating budget (işletme projesi). Article 37 lists what it must show: estimated income and expenditure for one year's management of the property; the estimated amount falling to each owner out of total expenses under the Article 20 rules; and the advance payable by each owner on the same basis.

Law no. 7579 of 7 May 2026 amended this article in three respects:

• The approving body and the deadline were clarified. The operating budget is approved at the general meeting of owners. Where no budget approved by the assembly exists, the manager draws up an interim operating budget without delay, to hold until approval by the assembly within three months at the latest.
• A decision is now compulsory after notification. The budget is notified to the owners, or to those actually benefiting from a unit, against signature or by registered letter, and a resolution accepting it as it stands or with amendments must be adopted at a general meeting within three months at the latest. This prevents an interim budget drawn up by the manager from remaining in force indefinitely.
• A ceiling was placed on the interim budget. Where an operating budget already exists, the amount provided for in the interim budget may not exceed the amount of the budget in force — effective from the beginning of the calendar year — by more than the revaluation rate determined and published under repeated Article 298 of the Tax Procedure Law for the preceding year. In practical terms: a manager cannot raise charges at will through an interim budget adopted without an assembly resolution.

The operating budget is an enforcement document. Finalised operating budgets, and assembly resolutions concerning operating expenses, count as documents within Article 68/1 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. That classification allows the creditor to apply to have the debtor's objection set aside; an operating budget that was not duly notified loses this force.

7. Alterations to Common Areas, Improvements and Heating Conversion

The opening sentence of Article 42 is categorical: owners may not make alterations to the common areas of the property on their own initiative. Improvements and additions serving to put the common areas in better order, to make their use easier and more comfortable, or to increase the benefit derived from them, are carried out upon a resolution passed by a majority of the owners by number and land share. The costs are borne by those benefiting, in proportion to the benefit.

Accessibility works follow a special procedure. Where it is necessary for the life of a person with a disability, the amendment of the project is discussed and resolved by a majority by number and land share at a meeting to be held by the owners within three months at the latest. If the meeting cannot be held within that period or the request is not carried, then, on the application of the owner concerned, the works are carried out in accordance with an approved project amendment or sketch obtained from the relevant authorities on the basis of a committee report certifying that the safety of the building is not endangered. The authorities must conclude such applications within six months.

Heating conversion has two different quorums. Thermal insulation, conversion of the fuel used by the heating system, and conversion from central to individual heating or vice versa are as a rule carried out by a majority by number and land share. However, in buildings with a total construction area of two thousand square metres or more, converting central heating to individual heating requires unanimity. The costs of such common works are borne in proportion to land share. Where conversion is resolved upon, provisions of the management plan contrary to that resolution are deemed amended — no separate amendment of the plan is needed.

8. Using a Dwelling as Business Premises: The Unanimity Requirement

Article 24 contains two distinct prohibitions, and they should not be conflated:

• Absolute prohibition (Art. 24/1): in a unit registered as a dwelling, workplace or commercial premises, establishments such as hospitals, dispensaries, clinics, polyclinics and pharmaceutical laboratories may not be set up; agreements of the owners to the contrary are void. Not even unanimity overcomes this. Consulting rooms (muayenehane) that do not amount to a dispensary, clinic or polyclinic fall outside the prohibition.
• Subject to unanimity (Art. 24/2): in a unit registered as a dwelling, places of entertainment and assembly such as cinemas, theatres, coffee houses, casinos, night clubs, bars, clubs and dance halls; food and catering premises such as bakeries, restaurants, patisseries and dairies; and workshops, dye-houses, printing works, shops, galleries and bazaars, may be opened only by a resolution adopted unanimously by the owners' assembly.

A transitional provision introduced by Law no. 6111 must also be taken into account for law offices in dwellings and for the offices of professionals within the scope of Law no. 3568. A unanimous resolution is annotated on the pages of all units in the condominium register, on the application of the manager or of any owner; the annotation makes it enforceable against subsequent purchasers.

A question we are asked often: if the building has in fact become offices, can the last remaining residential owner still sue? The Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation has answered it squarely (precedent 3 below).

9. Intolerability and Compulsory Transfer of a Unit (Art. 25)

If an owner, by failing to perform their obligations under the Law, infringes the rights of the other owners to a degree that becomes intolerable for them, the others may ask the judge to order the transfer of ownership of that unit to them. The Law deems intolerability to exist in any event in three cases:

• Causing enforcement or court proceedings to be brought against them three times within two calendar years for failure to pay their share of common expenses and advances;
• Persisting continuously for one year in infringing the other owners' rights by failing to perform the obligations laid down in the Law, despite an order made by the civil judge of peace under Article 33;
• Using the unit as a brothel, gambling house or similar place, thereby acting contrary to morality and decency.

Unless otherwise agreed, bringing the transfer action depends on a resolution of the other owners passed by a majority by number and land share. Before giving judgment, the judge allows the claimants a reasonable period to deposit the transfer price in a three-month term account at a bank, to be paid to the entitled party in due course. The right of action lapses if not exercised within six months of learning of the resolution to sue and, in any event, within five years of the right arising.

10. A Practical Checklist

In apartment and site disputes, the outcome is usually determined by procedure rather than by the substantive argument. The following are the most frequent — and most easily avoidable — defects we see in the files brought to us:

• Is the decision book notarised? The evidential weight of resolutions entered in an uncertified book is open to challenge.
• Was notice given properly and can it be proved? To whom, when and how the meeting was convened must be documented; this is scrutinised particularly closely for extraordinary meetings.
• Is there an attendance list and an agenda? A resolution on a matter not on the agenda risks annulment.
• Was the dissent recorded? Under Article 32, the dissenting owner must sign stating the reason; this determines both standing and the deadline in an annulment action.
• Was the operating budget notified? A budget not notified against signature or by registered letter loses its force as an Article 68 document.
• Is the late-payment rate within the statutory limit? Rates above 5% per month are invalid.
• Is the action in time and against the right party? If the one-month period has been missed, consider separately whether the resolution is void or a nullity.

Frequently Asked Questions

For legal advice on apartment and site management disputes, see our Real Estate Law and Enforcement & Bankruptcy Law pages, or request an appointment through our Contact page.