I. Basic Rules Regarding the Election of the Board of Directors

1) The election of the board of directors must be held after it has been determined that the quorum for the meeting has been met and after the general assembly has been opened.

This order is mandatory; otherwise, the general assembly may be deemed null and void. (Associations Regulation Art. 15; Professional Associations and Federations Bylaws Art. 25; Supreme Court 11th Civil Chamber, 2016/11805 E., 2016/9753 K.)

2) Proceeding to the election of the board before the meeting is opened constitutes an irregularity.
The order of Opening → roll call → quorum determination → board election must be preserved. (Supreme Court 11th Civil Chamber, 2016/11805 E., 2016/9753 K.)

3) In practice, the election of the board of directors can be made as the second or third item on the agenda; however, it must absolutely be after the opening and roll call. (Ankara 9th Commercial Court, 2020/637 E., 2021/478 K.; Bakırköy 3rd Commercial Court, 2023/100 E., 2024/376 K.)

4) Members of the board of directors are elected by the votes of those attending the general assembly; candidate lists or proposals are voted on.
(İzmir 1st Commercial Court, 2024/258 E., 2025/779 K.)

5) The decision quorum for the election of the board is determined based on the number of those participating in the vote, not the total number in the attendance list. (Supreme Court 23rd Civil Chamber, 2015/6627 E., 2015/— K.)

7) The general assembly meeting chairperson and the board of directors (committee) are elected from among those attending the meeting.
There is no obligation for the board chairperson and members to be property owners.

8)Since there is no special regulation regarding the council in the Condominium Law, the provisions in the management plan are primarily applied.
If there is a regulation regarding the council in the management plan, this provision is binding.

9)If there is no prohibition in the management plan, the council; can be selected from among condominium owners or their representatives, from among board members whether they are owners or not, or from among professional site managers, consultants, lawyers, or third parties knowledgeable about the legislation.

10)The participation of board members in the council does not, by itself, constitute an illegality.
It is possible if there is no explicit prohibition in the management plan.

11)In the Condominium Law, there is no clear and mandatory regulation regarding how many people the council shall consist of. Therefore, the number of members of the council is primarily determined by the provisions in the management plan registered in the land registry, and if there is no regulation in the management plan, by the will of the general assembly. In practice and established jurisprudence, especially in sites with many independent sections, it is accepted that the council should consist of at least three people (a council chairman, a secretary member, and a treasurer member).

II. Rules Regarding the Council’s Management of the General Assembly

1)After the council is elected, it completely takes over the conduct and management of the general assembly.
(Antalya 1st Civil Court of First Instance, Case No. 2023/255, Decision No. 2024/331)

2) The Presiding Committee; opens agenda items for discussion in order, manages requests to speak, puts motions to a vote, and determines the results.
(Antalya 1st Civil Court of First Instance, 2023/255 P., 2024/331 D.)

3) General assembly decisions are, as a rule, taken by a majority vote of those present at the meeting.
(Kayseri 2nd Civil Court of First Instance, 2023/610 P., 2025/500 D.)

4) The Presiding Committee may take measures such as identity checks, badge controls, and attendance verification to ensure votes are conducted properly.
(Izmir 1st Civil Court of First Instance, 2024/258 P., 2025/779 D.)

5) Open voting is the principle; however, upon the request of more than half of those present, a secret ballot may be adopted.
(Izmir 1st Civil Court of First Instance, 2024/258 P., 2025/779 D.)

6) In case of an objection to the voting result, the Presiding Committee may recount the votes; recounting does not constitute a procedural irregularity.
(Bakırköy 3rd Civil Court of First Instance, 2023/100 P., 2024/376 D.)

7) One of the most important duties of the Presiding Committee is to ensure that the meeting minutes are prepared to reflect the truth.
(Supreme Court 11th Civil Chamber, 2016/11805 P., 2016/9753 D.)

8) Failure to clearly show the discussions, votes, and the number of votes for and against (acceptance-rejection) in the minutes may lead to the nullity of the general assembly.
(Supreme Court 11th Civil Chamber, 2016/11805 P., 2016/9753 D.)

9)The Chair’s failure to grant the right to speak or its arbitrary rejection of recount requests may be subject to a claim of unlawfulness in annulment lawsuits.
(Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 17th Civil Chamber, 2021/1484 E., 2025/832 K.)

III. Rules Regarding Objections and Dissenting Opinions

1)As a rule, for the annulment of general assembly decisions, the dissenting opinion must be recorded in the minutes..
(Law No. 1163, Art. 53/1)

2)Partners/members who attended the meeting but did not record a dissenting opinion do not have the right to file an annulment lawsuit..
(Bakırköy 4th Commercial Court of First Instance, 2021/1039 E., 2022/635 K.; Kayseri 2nd Commercial Court of First Instance, 2021/671 E., 2022/756 K.)

3)The Chair should ask if there are any objections or dissenting opinions after each agenda item or at the end of the meeting.
(Bakırköy 4th Commercial Court of First Instance, 2021/1039 E., 2022/635 K.; Antalya 1st Commercial Court of First Instance, 2021/412 E., 2023/66 K.)

4)If persons who should not have attended the meeting participate in the vote, and this participation affects the outcome, the requirement for a dissenting opinion may not be sought.
(Court of Cassation 23rd Civil Chamber, 2015/6627 E., 2015/— K.)

5)Claims that the Presiding Committee did not listen to objections or did not record them in the minutes must be proven with evidence such as witness testimonies and camera recordings.
(Kayseri Regional Court of Justice 6th Civil Chamber, 2022/2750 E., 2022/2729 K.)

IV. Rules Regarding Voting by Proxy and Supervision

1)Property owners can freely cast their votes in the general assembly through an authorized proxy. The assembly presidium is obliged to audit the validity of proxies; however, this auditing authority is limited to proxies presented during the meeting.
This right, recognized by Condominium Law No. 634, is a fundamental right to participation and representation and is inviolable in its essence. (Condominium Law No. 634, Art. 31)

The duty of the presidium is to formally check whether the proxy was submitted at the time of the meeting, whether it was issued in the name of the represented property owner, and whether there is any obvious forgery.
(Kayseri 2nd Civil Court of First Instance, 2023/610 E., 2025/500 K.)

2)The authority of the assembly presidium to audit proxies is limited to “the moment of the meeting.”
Collecting proxies days before the meeting, submitting them to the management office, having them approved, or subjecting them to pre-examination is not within the scope of the presidium’s authority. Such practices turn the presidium into an administrative and judicial authority in a manner not foreseen by law.

3)In the event of detecting irregular or duplicate proxies, the presidium may re-evaluate the result by deducting these votes.
However, this re-evaluation is limited only to situations that can be concretely and clearly identified during the meeting. (Bakırköy 3rd Civil Court of First Instance, 2023/100 E., 2024/376 K.)

4) If invalid proxies reduce the meeting or quorum, the decisions taken may be void or subject to annulment.
In this case, the legal outcome is determined by the effect of the proxy’s invalidity on the decision.
(Supreme Court 11th Civil Chamber, 2009/3958 P., 2010/10323 D.; Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber, 2017/2634 P., 2018/1986 D.)

5)Members of the board of directors can use the votes of the owners they represent, based on proxies received from other unit owners, even in their own discharge of liability.
6) Failure to submit proxy documents to the board during voting may be subject to a claim of unlawfulness.
This situation is evaluated within the scope of the board’s supervisory duty at the time of the meeting. (Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber, 2017/4740 P., 2017/10436 D.)

7)It is good and lawful practice for the board to explain the rules for voting by proxy at the beginning of the meeting.
However, this explanation cannot result in the creation of new conditions not foreseen in the law or the restriction of the right of representation.
(Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals 17th Civil Chamber, 2021/1484 P., 2025/832 D.)

8)The Condominium Law does not foresee any limitations regarding how a proxy should be given, what formal requirements it should meet, or whether it should be notified in advance.
The legislator aimed for the right of representation by proxy to be exercised freely; it deliberately left this area to the freedom of form.
(Condominium Law Art.31 – literal and teleological interpretation)

9) As a rule, power of attorney contracts are not subject to any specific form.
Written form, notarization, prior notification, or any administrative procedure are not required; they are validly established by the agreement of the parties’ wills.
(Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Art. 502 et seq.; Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber, 2017/2756 E., 2018/4282 K.)

10) In condominium relations, the provisions of the Code of Obligations regarding power of attorney contracts apply exactly.
There is no exception in condominium legislation that abolishes or restricts this freedom.
(Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber, 2017/2756 E., 2018/4282 K.)

11) Even if a person attending a meeting representing a condominium owner does not have a written power of attorney, the representation is valid unless objected to by the represented owner.
The legal existence of representation is based on will, not form.
(Supreme Court 18th Civil Chamber, 2007/10272 E., 2007/10513 K.)

12) For the validity of a power of attorney relationship, notarization, prior notification, or a “pre-approval” by the management cannot be required.
Such conditions are not stipulated in law and are restrictive of the right of representation.
(Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber, 2017/2756 E., 2018/4282 K.)

13) Restrictions such as requiring the power of attorney to be submitted to the management office and approved at least 7 days before the meeting through the management plan are limitations not found in law.
(Condominium Law Art. 31; Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 502 et seq.)

14) The inclusion of a provision in the management plan such as “proxies that are not confirmed or do not bear an approval stamp will not be considered on the day of the meeting” is of a nature that overrides the will of the flat owner and is null and void.

15) Such regulations that make it difficult to exercise the right of representation recognized by law, tie it to a specific form, and eliminate its essence do not produce legal consequences; they should be considered null and void.(condominium, related to ownership articles.