The obligation of condominium owners to contribute to expenses related to common areas and facilities (water tank, etc.) and the legal validity of the claim of not benefiting.

1. Legal Framework of the Obligation to Contribute to Common Expenses

According to Article 20 of the Condominium Law No. 634 (KMK), unless there is an agreement or contract to the contrary among the condominium owners, each condominium owner is obliged to contribute to the common expenses of the main immovable property. As emphasized in the decisions of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (2011/6693 E., 2011/10421 K.) and the 20th Civil Chamber (2017/3037 E., 2017/6497 K.) K in their decisions; the operating expenses for maintenance, protection, reinforcement, repair, and common facilities are the responsibility of the condominium owners. These expenses are generally distributed proportionally to land shares.

2. Invalidity of the Claim of “Not Benefiting” or “Not Needing”

The fact that condominium owners do not wish to personally benefit from a new improvement or facility does not relieve them from the obligation to contribute to expenses. According to subparagraph (c) of Article 20 of the KMK and established Supreme Court precedents (Supreme Court 18th Civil Chamber 2014/10598 E., 2014/11446 K.K; Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber 2023/5500 E., 2024/3146 K.):

Condominium owners cannot claim that they have waived their right to use common areas or facilities.

They cannot avoid paying their share of expenses and advances by claiming that, due to the condition of their independent units, there is no need or requirement to benefit from these facilities.

For instance, it is accepted that even homeowners who do not benefit from the central heating system or those residing on the ground floor where an elevator is located are responsible for the construction and maintenance costs of these facilities, unless there is a contrary provision in the management plan (Court of Cassation 18th Civil Chamber 2010/6097 E., 2010/8413 K.).

3. Decision-Making Process and Obligation

Secondary source Court of Cassation decisions provide additional context regarding decision-making processes for the installation of facilities such as water tanks:

Innovations and Additions: As stated in the decision of the Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers (2012/547 E., 2013/209 K.), innovations and additions (Condominium Law Article 42) that facilitate more comfortable use of common areas or increase the benefit obtained, are made based on a decision taken by the majority of co-owners by number and land share. A board decision properly taken in this manner is also binding for co-owners who did not participate in the decision.

Project Modification: If the installation of a water tank requires the common area to be used for a purpose other than that shown in the project (e.g., occupation of a shelter), the written consent of four-fifths of the co-owners may be required in accordance with Condominium Law Article 19 (Court of Cassation 18th Civil Chamber 2008/10436 E., 2009/701 K.).

Management Plan: For a co-owner to be exempt from expenses, there must be an explicit provision in the management plan. If there is no exemption in the management plan, participation in expenses determined by the general assembly decision is mandatory (Court of Cassation 20th Civil Chamber 2017/4503 E., 2017/9245 K.).

4. Conclusion and Evaluation

In light of the presented court decisions, if a proper resolution is made by the board of apartment owners for the installation of a water tank in the building to counter water outages, it is not legally possible for you to avoid contributing to the expenses by claiming that you do not want to use this facility or do not need it. Article 20/c of the Condominium Law explicitly rejects such reasons for “non-utilization”. In case the expenses are not paid, enforcement proceedings may be initiated or a lawsuit may be filed by the manager or other apartment owners.

Why is Expert Legal Support Necessary? | 2M Law Office – Istanbul, Tuzla, Gebze, Pendik, Aydınlı

The obligation of apartment owners to contribute to common expenses is one of the most frequently disputed topics in Condominium Law in practice. Especially for common facility expenses such as water tanks, elevators, central systems, and similar amenities, failure to make payments with justifications like “I don’t benefit,” “I don’t need it,” or “I didn’t vote,” can lead to serious legal consequences.

When examining lawsuits filed and enforcement proceedings initiated in sites and apartments across Istanbul, especially in the Tuzla, Gebze, Pendik, and Aydınlı regions, it is observed that even the rightful party can be victimized if the process is not conducted properly.

Why is Expert Legal Support Important?

Correct application of the Condominium Law and effective reflection of Supreme Court precedents in the case file,

Reviewing the resolutions made by the board of apartment owners against the risk of annulment,

The legal execution of enforcement proceedings or litigation processes initiated for common expense receivables,

Proper interpretation of the management plan provisions to overcome exemption claims,

Preventing unnecessary prolongation of the process and increased costs is only possible with the legal support of an expert lawyer in this field.

Secure Legal Process with 2M Hukuk Law Office

2M Hukuk Law Office, based in Istanbul, provides services in common expense disputes under the Law of Condominium Ownership, especially in Tuzla, Gebze, Pendik, and Aydınlı;

Consultancy to apartment and complex managements,

Enforcement and litigation processes related to common expense receivables,

Provides expert and effective legal support in the areas of legal review of condominium owners’ board decisions and resolution of management plan disputes. To avoid loss of rights regarding common expenses and to manage the process correctly, expert lawyer support is vital.