Condominium and Site Management Disputes in Türkiye: Owners' Rights and Remedies

Owners who disagree with a management board's decisions, a common charge assessment, or the use of shared facilities have specific legal remedies under Turkish condominium law, including challenging assembly resolutions in court and disputing unpaid or overcharged common expenses. Ignoring notices or refusing to pay is not an effective response; the correct route is to use the available objection and court procedures.

Properties organised under condominium ownership (kat mülkiyeti) or condominium easement in Türkiye are managed collectively through an owners' assembly and, usually, an elected manager or management board. Disputes arise over common expense (aidat) assessments, unequal allocation of shared costs, decisions on renovations or shared facilities, restrictions on use of units (including short-term rental bans), and the validity of assembly meetings and resolutions. Foreign owners who are frequently absent are particularly exposed to decisions made without their effective participation.

The Condominium Law regulates the rights and obligations of unit owners, the powers of the management board and manager, the calculation and enforcement of common expenses, and the procedure for assembly meetings and resolutions. It also allows owners to challenge resolutions that are contrary to law, the management plan, or good faith, and provides enforcement mechanisms, including registering a lien on a unit for unpaid common charges in serious cases.

Turkish courts examine whether assembly meetings were properly convened and quorum requirements met, whether resolutions comply with the management plan and the Condominium Law, and whether common expense allocations reflect the shares and use rights set out in the title deed and management plan. Courts also assess whether a manager or board exceeded its authority, for example by imposing restrictions not authorised by the management plan or by resolutions that were not properly adopted.

A frequent point of debate is the allocation of common expenses between owners with unequal unit sizes, unequal use of shared facilities (such as a shared pool, elevator or security service), and owners who are absent for most of the year. Another debate concerns the extent to which a management plan or assembly resolution can restrict an owner's use of their own unit, such as bans on short-term rentals, which Turkish practice generally treats as permissible if adopted through the proper procedure and consistent with the Condominium Law.

An owner who wishes to challenge a resolution must generally show that the resolution was adopted in breach of the law, the management plan, or good faith, or that proper notice and quorum requirements were not met. An owner disputing a common expense demand should verify the calculation against the management plan's allocation formula and request supporting documentation from the manager or board before escalating.

Turkish condominium law imposes a short limitation period for challenging assembly resolutions, running from the date of the resolution for owners who attended and objected, and from the date of learning of the resolution for those who did not attend. Because this period is short, an owner who disagrees with a resolution should seek legal advice promptly rather than waiting to see how matters develop.

Disputes over condominium resolutions, common expenses and management authority are generally heard by the civil courts of peace at the location of the property. Enforcement of unpaid common expenses can also proceed through enforcement (icra) offices once a payment obligation is established.

• the title deed and condominium easement/ownership records for the unit;
• the management plan (yönetim planı) applicable to the building or site;
• minutes and attendance records of the relevant assembly meeting;
• common expense statements, invoices and payment records;
• any written notices, warnings or correspondence from the manager or board;
• evidence of the owner's absence or lack of proper notification, if relevant.

Owners frequently assume that non-payment of common charges can simply be resolved later, without realising that unpaid amounts can accrue interest and, in serious cases, support a lien registration against the unit. Another common mistake is failing to request the management plan and understand the allocation formula before disputing a charge. Absent foreign owners sometimes only learn of a resolution long after the short challenge period has started running, which can make a legal challenge time-barred if action is delayed further.

Condominium disputes are highly dependent on the specific management plan and the paper trail of meetings and notices. We generally recommend that foreign owners request and keep a copy of the management plan and appoint a reliable local point of contact or representative to receive notices. Where a resolution or charge is disputed, prompt review of the underlying documents allows an assessment of whether a formal challenge, a request for correction, or another route is the most effective option.