Introduction

This study was prepared to find an answer to the question, “Are ground floor residents exempt from elevator maintenance fees?” through an analysis of the decisions presented by the Court of Cassation, Council of State, Regional Courts of Justice, and Courts of First Instance. The examinations focused on the provisions of the Condominium Law (KMK) and how these provisions are interpreted in judicial decisions. The report outlines the general rule, exceptions, and important distinctions that need to be considered in practice regarding this matter.

In light of the judicial decisions examined, there is no definitive and single answer regarding the exemption of ground floor residents from elevator expenses. The issue is primarily evaluated along two main axes: the general provision of the Condominium Law and the management plan of the main property, which introduces an exception to this provision.

General Rule: Obligation to Participate: Pursuant to Article 20 of the Condominium Law, the elevator is a common facility, and all floor owners are obliged to contribute to the expenses related to common areas and facilities. The Supreme Court consistently emphasizes that a floor owner cannot avoid contributing to this expense by claiming not to use or not to need to use the common facility. This principle was clearly stated in the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, numbered 2014/20786 E., 2015/10588 K.: “Floor owners cannot avoid paying these expenses and advance shares by renouncing their right to use common areas or facilities, or by claiming that they do not need or require to benefit from them due to the condition of their independent section.” Therefore, unless there is a contrary provision in the management plan, ground floor residents are also obliged to contribute to elevator expenses.

Exception: Provisions of the Management Plan: The management plan, which serves as a binding contract for floor owners, may contain special provisions regarding participation in expenses, provided it does not conflict with the mandatory provisions of the Condominium Law (KMK). Court decisions acknowledge that if the management plan contains a clear exemption clause such as “owners of units located on the ground floor do not participate in the maintenance and operation expenses of the elevator,” this provision is valid, and ground floor owners cannot be held responsible for the related expenses. In the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, numbered 2017/3604 E., 2018/6112 K., it was stated, “given that it was determined that the plaintiff was not responsible for the elevator maintenance expenses in accordance with the relevant provision of the management plan pertaining to the main property, and there was no error in the court’s decision to partially accept the case,” thereby confirming the binding nature of the management plan.

Important Distinctions: Nature of the Expense: The Court of Appeals considers the nature of the expense when interpreting the exemption provisions in the management plan. The exemption generally covers routine maintenance and operating expenses. However, expenses such as the renewal (modernization) or initial installation (construction) of an elevator are considered investments that increase the value of the main property, and there are rulings stating that all floor owners should be held responsible for such expenses. This distinction was clearly set forth in the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals, numbered 2013/1165 E., 2013/3650 K.: “the provision that owners of independent units on the ground floor shall not participate in the maintenance and operating expenses of the elevator refers, as explained in the expert report, to routine maintenance and operating expenses, and the unavoidable renewal of elevators and their associated components is outside the scope of this provision.”

When the reviewed decisions are evaluated as a whole, it is clear that the first answer to the question “Does the ground floor pay elevator fees?” should be sought in the main property’s management plan. The management plan is the primary legal source in this matter.

If there is a clear and explicit provision in the management plan stating that ground floor owners are exempt from elevator expenses, this provision takes precedence over decisions of the board of floor owners and general statutory provisions. Yhe 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals’s decision numbered 2013/2726 E., 2013/3008 K., found that despite an exemption provision in the management plan, the inclusion of elevator expenses in the fee decision made by the board of floor owners was unlawful, and the decision was overturned.

However, if there is no such exemption clause in the management plan, or if no management plan exists at all, the general rule in Article 20 of the Condominium Law (KMK) comes into play. In this case, it becomes irrelevant whether the ground floor owner actually uses the elevator, and an obligation arises to contribute to the expense in proportion to their land share (or at a different participation rate specified in the management plan). Article 20 of the Condominium Law (KMK), also referenced in the Constitutional Court’s decision dated 18/9/2014, forms the basis of this obligation.

In practice, the most frequent cause of disputes is the scope of the exemption. Court of Appeals decisions make an important distinction between “maintenance and operating expenses” and “renewal and construction expenses”. While maintenance and operating expenses (periodic service, cleaning, electricity, minor repairs, etc.) may fall within the scope of the exemption in the management plan; situations such as the complete replacement of the elevator, its technological upgrade, or its subsequent addition to the building are considered “beneficial innovations and additions” that permanently increase the building’s value. It is accepted that all condominium owners should contribute to such large investment-requiring expenses in proportion to their land shares, unless there is a very clear provision to the contrary in the management plan.

Conclusion

The answer to the question of whether ground floor residents are exempt from elevator fees varies depending on the situation:

If There Is a Clear Exemption in the Management Plan: If there is a clear provision in the management plan of the main property stating that ground floor owners will be exempt from elevator expenses (generally maintenance and operating), then these owners are exempt from the relevant expenses.

If There Is No Provision in the Management Plan: If there is no special regulation regarding the matter in the management plan, according to Article 20 of the Condominium Law, ground floor owners are also obliged to contribute to elevator expenses, just like all other floor owners. Their non-use of the elevator does not remove this obligation.

The Type of Expense is Important: The scope of the exemption provision in the management plan should be carefully examined. The exemption typically applies to routine maintenance and operating expenses. For major investment costs such as the renovation, modernization, or initial installation of the elevator, ground floor owners may also need to contribute, on the grounds that it increases the value of the main property. An article suggestion.

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?

As seen regarding elevator dues and the participation of floor owners in expenses, the provisions of the Condominium Law, management plan regulations, and court decisions can lead to different outcomes. Since the content of the management plan varies for each building and complex, whether ground floor residents are exempt from elevator expenses should be evaluated separately for each specific case.

At this point, obtaining support from an expert lawyer is of great importance to prevent loss of rights. Especially in Istanbul, floor owners and site managements living in areas such as Tuzla, Gebze, Pendik, Tepeören, İçmeler, Postane, İstasyon can manage the process correctly by working with an experienced lawyer in their field when faced with disputes.

Professional support provided by a lawyer offers legal assurance both during the litigation process and in resolving disputes between site management and owners. Otherwise, wrong decisions made or incomplete applications can lead to unnecessary expenses and loss of time.