Property owners who are dissatisfied with the administrator often resort to the courts, saying, “the court should appoint a new administrator for us.” However, under the Condominium Law (KMK), the dismissal of an administrator and the appointment of a new administrator by the court are distinct, sequential, and conditional processes. In this article, we examine under what circumstances and by whom an administrator can be dismissed, the prerequisites for court-appointed administration, the special protection afforded to court-appointed administrators, and the compensation that may arise from wrongful dismissal, all strictly within the framework of the KMK and alongside Supreme Court decisions.
Brief Summary
The board of property owners continuously monitors the administrator’s conduct and can replace him or her at any time if there is a valid reason (KMK art. 41/1).
The continuity of administration is essential: an election decision remains valid until it is annulled; it is not automatically deemed invalid, except for cases of nullity/voidness.
While an administrator is in office, the court cannot directly appoint a new administrator. First, the situation of the current administration (dismissal or annulment of election) must be resolved.
For the court to make an appointment, there must be a management vacancy or the property owners must be unable to agree/appoint an administrator.
An administrator appointed by the court cannot be replaced by the board unless 6 months have passed since the appointment and there is a valid reason + court permission (KMK art. 34).
In cases of dismissal without a valid reason, the administrator’s right to compensation is reserved (TCO art. 512).
1. Dismissal of the Manager: Authority of the General Assembly of Flat Owners (LAO Art. 41/1)
The authority to dismiss the manager, as a rule, lies with the body that elected them —that is, the general assembly of flat owners. LAO Art. 41/1 is clear: “The general assembly of flat owners continuously supervises the manager’s conduct in this duty and can replace them at any time if a just cause arises.” This means that the assembly can dismiss the manager even without waiting for the term to expire, and even through an extraordinary meeting; provided that there is a just cause and a duly adopted assembly resolution.
Examples of just cause include; refusal to account, misusing collected dues, failing to call the general assembly of flat owners to a meeting, continuously neglecting fundamental duties such as maintenance and repair, or demonstrating behaviors that undermine trust. Just cause is evaluated in the specific case, and the burden of proof falls on the party requesting the dismissal.
2. Critical Distinction: “Dismissal” or “Annulment of Election”?
This is the most commonly confused point in practice. Both methods remove the manager from office, but their legal bases are different:
Dismissal (LAO Art. 41): It is the removal of a validly elected manager from office by a decision of the general assembly of flat owners, due to a just cause. No court intervention is required; the assembly does this itself.
Annulment of Election (LAO Art. 33): It is a lawsuit filed in the Civil Court of Peace within the forfeiture period, alleging that the manager’s election decision was contrary to procedure (e.g., that the majority of votes and land shares was not achieved).
This distinction yields practical results: If the manager’s election is valid and the only problem you have is their poor management, the path is “dismissal” (azil), not “cancellation” (iptal). If the election was invalid from the start, the path is “cancellation” (iptal). For the validity conditions of manager election (double majority), you can also refer to our article KMK Art. 34: Number and Land Share Majority in Manager Election .
3. Principle of Continuity of Management: The Election is Valid Until Annulled
In the KMK system, the continuous functioning of management is essential. A manager election decision, even if irregular, as a rule remains in force until annulled; it cannot be automatically deemed null and void without a court decision. The exception is cases of severe invalidity where the decision is tainted by nullity (yokluk) or absolute invalidity (mutlak butlan).
Antalya Regional Court of Justice, 6th Civil Chamber, File No. 2019/945, Decision No. 2019/756, 01.07.2019It has been emphasized that the continuity of management is essential in the main property; that the election of the manager/board of directors made by the flat owners in accordance with KMK Art. 34 is valid until annulled and cannot be deemed null and void.
Turkish Supreme Court, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, File No. 2019/34, Decision No. 2022/654, 17.05.2022While there is a manager election decision made by the assembly of flat owners, and if no separate annulment has been requested; the majority of the General Assembly did not approve of the judge spontaneously (ex officio) considering the quorum deficiency and deeming the decision invalid from the outset. In other words, the current election retains its validity unless a proper annulment lawsuit is filed.
4. Conditions for Appointing a Manager Through the Court (KMK Art. 34)
Article 34 of the Condominium Law (KMK) makes the court’s intervention exceptional and conditional: “If the condominium owners cannot agree on the management of the main property or cannot convene and appoint a manager,” upon the application of one of the condominium owners and, if possible, after hearing the others, the Civil Court of Peace of the location where the property is situated appoints a manager. From this, three basic conditions emerge:
a) Management vacuum or inability to agree/appoint
For the court to make an appointment, there must either be a management vacuum present, or the condominium owners must have been unable to elect a manager despite the legal conditions being met (inability to agree, inability to appoint with the necessary majority). This condition is not considered met if there is a valid manager currently in office.
b) An existing valid manager prevents court appointment
If there is a manager elected by the condominium owners’ board and currently in office, the Civil Court of Peace cannot directly appoint a new manager. If a lawsuit for the cancellation of the current election has not been filed within the stipulated time, this election retains its validity, and the court cannot make a new appointment. Therefore, the legal status of the current management (dismissal or annulment) must first be resolved.
Supreme Court (Closed) 20th Civil Chamber, E. 2017/3662, K. 2017/8840, 02.11.2017 It has been stated that in a lawsuit filed for the appointment of a manager under Article 34 of the KMK, the court must obtain the land registry records, management plan, meeting minutes, and attendance lists, examine whether the existing manager election was conducted in accordance with Article 34 of the KMK, and rule according to the outcome. If there is a valid election, the court cannot make an appointment on its own initiative.
Court of Appeals General Assembly of Civil Chambers, E. 2013/18-353, K. 2013/1569, 13.11.2013It has been stated that the provisions regarding meeting and decision quorums are imperative and related to public order; that a legally valid decision for the election of a manager cannot be made without securing a majority of votes and shares; and that such decisions may be subject to nullity/absolute voidness sanctions in cases of severe defect.
c) Procedure: First application to the general assembly of flat owners
As a rule, it is expected that the process should first go through the general assembly of flat owners before resorting to court. A flat owner who wishes to appoint a new manager or change the existing manager must first ensure that the assembly convenes and makes a decision; only if the assembly cannot convene or make a decision should they then apply to the court. Even if the court annuls the assembly’s decision, it may primarily leave the election of a new manager to the assembly; in any case, it is not obliged to make an appointment on its own.
5. Does the Management Remain Vacant if the Election is Annulled?
No. In accordance with the principle of continuity in the Condominium Law (KMK), in the event of the annulment of the general assembly of flat owners’ decision, the former manager’s duty continues until a new manager is elected. The election of a new manager primarily belongs to the general assembly of flat owners; if the assembly cannot make an election, an appointment can be requested from the court in accordance with KMK Article 34.
Court of Appeals 18th Civil Chamber, E. 2014/5261, K. 2014/9875, 05.06.2014The ruling was affirmed, stating that in the event of the annulment of the general assembly of flat owners’ decision, the former manager’s duty will continue until a new manager is elected; and that the manager election will be carried out by the assembly, and if no election can be made, an appointment of a manager can be requested from the court in accordance with KMK Article 34.
6. Status of the Court-Appointed Manager and 6-Month Protection
The manager appointed by the court has all the powers and is subject to the same responsibilities as the manager appointed by the unit owners. However, Article 34 of the Condominium Law (KMK) grants a special stability protection to this manager: “The manager appointed by the court of peace cannot be replaced by the board of unit owners unless six months have passed since this appointment. However, if there is a just cause, the court of peace that appointed him may permit the replacement.”
This provision has two practical consequences: Firstly, the board cannot unilaterally replace this manager before 6 months have passed. Secondly, even if there is a just cause, permission must be obtained from the court that made the appointment for the change. On the other hand, if the manager appointed by the court resigns voluntarily, the request for dismissal becomes moot, and a new appointment comes into question to ensure the management is not left vacant.
7. Unjust Dismissal and Compensation: Consequences of the Agency Relationship (TBK Art. 512)
The relationship between the manager and the unit owners is an agency relationship in accordance with Article 38 of the Condominium Law (KMK). Within the framework of Article 512 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), parties can unilaterally terminate this relationship at any time; however, in a dismissal made at an inappropriate time, the other party’s right to compensation for damages arising therefrom may come into question. In other words, in dismissals made without just cause or by disregarding the terms/conditions in the contract, the manager’s right to compensation is reserved. Therefore, when making a dismissal decision, concretely presenting a just cause reduces the future risk of compensation.
8. Table of Precedent Decisions
The following decisions outline the framework for the dismissal and court appointment process under the Condominium Law (KMK). It is recommended to confirm each entry with its current text before publication or litigation.
| Decision | Principle |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court General Assembly Appl. 2019/34, Dec. 2022/654 (17.05.2022) | Unless an annulment lawsuit is filed, the existing manager election is valid; as a rule, the judge cannot ex officio observe the lack of quorum and deem the decision non-existent. |
| Supreme Court General Assembly Appl. 2013/18-353, Dec. 2013/1569 (13.11.2013) | Quorum rules are mandatory; an election made without securing the majority of numbers and shares may be subject to nullity/absolute invalidity due to a severe defect. |
| Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber (Abolished) Appl. 2017/3662, Dec. 2017/8840 (02.11.2017) | In a lawsuit for the appointment of a manager, the court must investigate whether the existing election complies with Article 34 of the Condominium Law (KMK); if there is a valid election, it cannot make an appointment. |
| Supreme Court 18th Civil Chamber Appl. 2014/5261, Dec. 2014/9875 (05.06.2014) | Upon annulment of a board decision, the former manager’s duty continues until a new one is elected; if unable to be elected, an appointment is requested from the court under Article 34. |
| Antalya Regional Court of Appeals 6th Civil Chamber Appl. 2019/945, Dec. 2019/756 (01.07.2019) | Continuity of management is essential; the election decision is valid until annulled and cannot be deemed non-existent. |
Application roadmap:
If the problem is the manager’s bad management: document a just cause in accordance with Article 41 of the Condominium Law (KMK) and obtain a decision of dismissal from the board of flat owners.
If the problem is the election’s invalidity from the outset: file an annulment lawsuit in the Civil Court of Peace within the deadlines specified in Article 33 of the Condominium Law (KMK).
If the board cannot convene/make a decision: request an appointment from the court in accordance with Article 34 of the Condominium Law (KMK) — but first demonstrate that the condition of a management vacancy/inability to appoint has been met.
If you will change a manager appointed by the court: pay attention to the 6-month period and the condition of court permission.
If the dismissal is not based on a just cause: take into account the risk of compensation (Turkish Code of Obligations Article 512).
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Is it mandatory to go to court to dismiss the manager?
No. A validly elected manager can always be dismissed by the board of flat owners by its own decision, if there is a just cause, in accordance with Article 41/1 of the Condominium Law (KMK). Legal action (going to court) comes into play in cases where the election was invalid from the outset (annulment) or where there is a management vacancy (appointment under Article 34).
Can the court appoint a new manager while there is an existing manager in office?
As a rule, no. While there is a valid manager in office, elected by the board of flat owners, the court cannot directly appoint a new manager. First, the situation of the existing management (dismissal or annulment of the election) must be resolved. If a lawsuit for the annulment of the current election has not been filed within the stipulated period, the election remains valid.
If the election is canceled, will the apartment be left without management?
No. Due to the principle of continuity of management, in case the board’s decision is canceled, the former manager’s duty continues until a new manager is elected. The new election primarily belongs to the board of apartment owners; if the board cannot elect one, an appointment can be requested from the court under KMK Art. 34.
Can a manager appointed by the court be changed immediately?
No. According to KMK Art. 34, a manager appointed by the civil court of peace cannot be changed by the board unless 6 months have passed since the appointment. Even if there is a valid reason during this period, permission must be obtained from the appointing court for the change.
Can a manager dismissed without a just cause claim compensation?
The relationship between the manager and the apartment owners is in the nature of an agency (proxy). According to TBK Art. 512, the relationship can be terminated at any time; however, in case of dismissal at an inappropriate time and without a just cause, the manager’s right to compensation for the resulting damages is reserved.
Our Other Articles on This Topic
- Legal Procedures to Follow for Changing a Site Manager and Appointing a New One
- KMK Article 34: Number and Land Share (Double) Majority in Manager Elections
- Can an Apartment Manager Grant Power of Attorney to a Lawyer?
Why is Expert Legal Support Necessary?
The dismissal of a manager depends on correctly determining whether it requires removal, the annulment of an election, or an appointment by the court. Choosing the wrong path can lead to the dismissal of the case due to “the obstacle of the current manager” or time limits, or even compensation risk in unfair dismissals. Documenting just cause, properly obtaining a board decision, not missing the deadlines specified in Article 33 of the Property Ownership Law (KMK), and observing the 6-month rule for court-appointed managers requires technical meticulousness.
2M Law Firm, provides support in litigation strategy, preparation of board decision texts, and petition processes for apartment and site residents and their managements in cases of condominium and site management law, manager dismissal, and annulment of homeowner association decisions; in the Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe and Gebze/Kocaeli areas. For an evaluation regarding your specific case: 2mhukuk.com
This article is for general informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice or legal services. Each dispute should be evaluated under its specific circumstances.
