The management plan is the “constitution” of a site or apartment building. The administrator has an area of authority limited by this document and the approved architectural project; permissions exceeding this limit, interventions in common areas, or practices contrary to the plan are both deemed invalid and hold the administrator personally liable. Law No. 7579, which came into force in 2026, brought significant ease to management plan amendments. In this article, we examine the binding nature of the management plan, the limits of the administrator’s administrative dispositions, the current legislative changes, and the legal remedies available against non-compliance, in light of Supreme Court decisions.
Brief Summary
The management plan is a contract binding all unit owners, their universal and particular successors and the administrator/auditors (KMK Art. 28).
The judge, provided it is not contrary to the mandatory provisions of the law in a dispute, refers primarily to the management plan.
The administrator cannot grant permission contrary to the plan and the approved project; even if granted, this does not nullify the plan’s provision. They are personally liable for unauthorized intervention in common areas (KMK Art. 35, 38).
2026 Amendment (Law No. 7579): In collective buildings, the required majority for management plan amendment was reduced from 4/5 to 2/3; contrary provisions in the plan are not applied. In ordinary (single plot) buildings, the 4/5 rule in Art. 28 continues to apply.
In case of non-compliance, every unit owner may request the intervention of the judge in accordance with KMK Art. 33.
1. Legal Nature and Binding Force of the Management Plan (Condominium Law Art. 28)
According to Condominium Law Art. 28, the management plan; is in the nature of a contract binding all condominium owners, regulating the management style of the main immovable property, its purpose and manner of use, the remuneration of managers and auditors, and other matters related to management. The plan and subsequent changes bind not only the current owners, but also their universal and particular successors (those who become owners later) and managers/auditors. The plan is indicated in the declarations section of the condominium register; due to this registration in the land registry, no one can claim “I didn’t know” about the management plan.
In the hierarchy of condominium law, the management plan is positioned between a legal provision and a decision of the board of condominium owners: This means the plan is superior to board decisions. While there is a valid management plan in the land registry, a management style contrary to the plan cannot be adopted by a decision of the board of condominium owners.
Supreme Court General Assembly of Law, E. 2002/18-551, K. 2002/568, D. 26.06.2002The management plan drawn up and signed at the establishment is in the nature of a contract binding all condominium owners and their universal/particular successors; a person who later becomes an owner cannot object to the provisions of the plan by claiming “I did not participate in the decision.” The authority to amend or annul a provision of the plan belongs to the board of condominium owners (unless it is contrary to law).
2. In a Dispute, the Judge Primarily Refers to the Management Plan
The management plan retains its validity unless it is annulled according to proper procedure or the condominium ownership ceases. Even if a provision is in tension with rights and freedoms, it continues to bind condominium owners unless annulled by a court decision.
Supreme Court General Assembly of Law, E. 2011/176, K. 2011/318, D. 18.05.2011. If it is clearly stipulated in the management plan that independent sections “shall be used solely as residences,” this restriction is valid for both personal occupancy and leasing; the restrictive provision in the plan is binding as long as it is not annulled.
3. Limit of the Manager’s Authority: Plan and Approved Project (Condominium Law Art. 35 and 38)
Condominium Law Art. 35 stipulates that the manager’s duties shall be specified in the management plan and that the manager shall act in accordance with the plan; Art. 38 regulates that the manager is responsible to the co-owners just like a proxy. These two provisions define the scope of the manager’s administrative actions.
a) Obligation to comply with plan provisions
The manager cannot grant permits contrary to the prohibitive or regulatory provisions in the management plan. Irregular permits previously granted by the manager (e.g., opening a common area for a specific use) do not override the provision in the management plan; as long as the plan remains in effect, such permits do not create acquired rights.
b) Prohibition of contravention to the project and interference with common areas
Measures taken by the manager for the protection of the main immovable property cannot include alterations contrary to the approved architectural project. A manager who interferes with common areas (e.g., hanging advertisement/signboards, installing facilities, etc.) without a clear decision or authorization from the assembly of co-owners shall be personally liable for these actions; the cessation of interference and restoration to the former state may be requested.
c) “Standard project” application
If a specific modification (e.g., enclosing a balcony) is stipulated to be carried out according to a certain “type project” in the management plan, any deviation from this system by the manager or the flat owner (e.g., installing a folding glass system instead of the stipulated sliding system) is considered a violation of the plan and may incur the penalty of restoration to its original state.
In summary: The manager performs the duties assigned to them by law, the management plan, and decisions of the board of flat owners. They cannot undertake tasks not assigned to them in these sources. Administrative actions exceeding their authority constitute an abuse of the agency duty in the sense of Article 38 of the Condominium Law (KMK).
4. Management Plan Amendment: Majority Ratios and the 2026 Amendment
Management plan amendments depend on the will of the board of flat owners, and a qualified majority is required. Ratios vary according to the type of building:
| Type of Amendment | Required Majority / Rule | Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| General amendment in ordinary (single-plot) buildings | 4/5 vote of condominium owners | Condominium Law art. 28 |
| Amendment in collective properties | 2/3 vote of condominium owners | Condominium Law art. 70 (2026 amendment) |
| Provisions in the plan contrary to law | Not applicable (statutory ratio prevails) | Law no. 7579 (22.05.2026) |
| Cases requiring mandatory/unanimous consent by law | Majority is not sufficient; statutory rule prevails | Supreme Court practice |
2026 Current Amendment (Law No. 7579): With Article 5 of Law No. 7579, adopted on May 7, 2026, and published and entered into force in the Official Gazette dated May 22, 2026 (No. 33261), the phrases “four-fifths” in the first and second paragraphs of Article 70 of the Condominium Law (KMK) were changed to “two-thirds” and the paragraph “Provisions of management plans contrary to this article shall not be applied.” was added to the article. Thus, in mass housing projects (and in plan provisions concerning temporary management), the majority required for a management plan amendment was reduced to 2/3; more stringent/contrary restrictive provisions in the management plan were rendered invalid against the legal ratio. The text of the law can be accessed from the Official Gazette dated May 22, 2026.
Important distinction: This 2/3 reduction is specific to mass housing projects (Art. 70). In ordinary condominium ownership consisting of a single parcel/single building, the 4/5 majority rule in Art. 28 remains in effect. The general perception that “2/3 is now sufficient everywhere” is incomplete in this respect.
The imperative provision of the law can invalidate even more stringent conditions in the management plan. Indeed, the Supreme Court accepts that even if a “unanimity” condition exists for amendment in the management plan, the qualified majority rule stipulated by law shall be applied.
Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/11838. Even if unanimity is stipulated for an amendment in the management plan, the qualified majority rule stipulated by the Condominium Law (KMK) (4/5 for that period) shall apply; it has been accepted that a more stringent condition in the plan cannot override the legal rule.
5. Procedure for Amendment: Not Manual Signature, but Board Decision
Ensuring a qualified majority alone is not sufficient; the amendment must also be made in accordance with the procedure. An amendment to the management plan should not be decided by collecting signatures door-to-door, but rather at a board meeting where the co-owners come together to discuss the matter. Otherwise, even if it has been registered in the land registry, it must be cancelled.
Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/13565. It has been found erroneous to directly register amendments to the management plan as a new management plan in the land registry without them being discussed in the co-owners’ board meeting; the amendment must be discussed and decided upon by the board in accordance with the proper procedure.
Supreme Court 18th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/3450, K. 2022/3790, D. 08.04.2022. For the management plan to be amended by judicial intervention, the provision subject to the lawsuit must be contrary to law/mandatory provisions. If there is no such contravention, the judge cannot amend the plan or add new provisions by superseding the will of the co-owners.
6. Legal Remedies Against Contraventions (Condominium Law Art. 33)
When there is an practice contrary to the management plan, the main rights of the co-owners are as follows:
Judicial Intervention (Condominium Law Art. 33): Every co-owner may request the intervention of the judge and the rectification of the contravention from the civil court of peace if there is an action contrary to the plan.
Annulment lawsuit: Annulment can always be requested for articles of the management plan that violate mandatory provisions. However, the court can only decide on annulment based on the mandatory provisions of the law, not on equity or subjective evaluation.
Parties to the lawsuit: These lawsuits are filed not against the management or the Land Registry Directorate, but against all apartment owners whose rights will be directly affected.
Time limit: Since decisions on changes to the management plan made without achieving the qualified majority required by law are considered null and void ab initio, their annulment is not subject to a statute of limitations.
7. Table of Precedent Decisions
The decisions below illustrate the framework regarding the binding nature of the management plan and the amendment procedure. It is recommended to verify each entry with its current text before publication/litigation.
| Decision | Principle |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers File No. 2002/18-551, Decision No. 2002/568 (26.06.2002) | The management plan binds the floor owners and their universal/singular successors; a successor cannot claim “I did not participate”. The authority to amend/cancel rests with the board of floor owners. |
| Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers File No. 2011/176, Decision No. 2011/318 (18.05.2011) | Restrictive provisions in the plan, such as “residential use only”, are binding for both occupancy and rental purposes unless cancelled. |
| Supreme Court 18th Civil Chamber File No. 2022/3450, Decision No. 2022/3790 (08.04.2022) | A judge can only intervene if the plan provision is contrary to law/mandatory provision; they cannot override the will of the floor owners. |
| Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber File No. 2022/13565 | An amendment cannot be registered in the title deed without being discussed in the board; a handwritten signature is not sufficient. |
| Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber File No. 2022/11838 | Even if the plan requires unanimity, the qualified majority rule stipulated by law applies. |
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Can the manager grant permission for a sign/facility in a common area contrary to the management plan?
No. The manager cannot grant permission contrary to the plan and the approved project. The manager is personally responsible for interventions made in common areas without the explicit decision or authorization of the board of condominium owners; the cessation of the intervention and restoration to the previous state can be demanded. An irregular permission granted by the manager does not nullify the provision of the plan.
In 2026, did the majority required for a management plan amendment change?
Yes. With Law No. 7579 (Official Gazette dated May 22, 2026), in Article 70 of the Condominium Law, the 4/5 majority required for mass housing projects was reduced to 2/3, and it was stipulated that contradictory provisions in the plan would not be applied. However, in ordinary condominium ownership consisting of a single parcel/single building, the 4/5 rule in Article 28 remains in effect.
Is it sufficient to collect signatures by hand for a management plan amendment?
No. Even if a qualified majority is achieved, the amendment must be deliberated and decided upon at the board of condominium owners meeting. An amendment made by collecting signatures by hand and not discussed at the meeting is subject to annulment, even if registered in the land registry.
If a provision in the management plan is deemed unfair/burdensome, can the judge change it?
The judge cannot freely change the plan by substituting the will of the condominium owners. Intervention is only possible if the relevant provision clearly contradicts the imperative rules of the law; annulment cannot be granted based on a subjective equity assessment.
In case of a contradiction with the management plan, which court should be applied to?
Pursuant to Article 33 of the Condominium Law (KMK), each condominium owner may request the intervention of a judge from the civil court of peace where the main property is located, in order to remedy the non-compliance. Annulment lawsuits, however, are filed not against the management, but against all condominium owners whose rights are affected.
Resources and Our Related Articles
Official sources: Condominium Law No. 634 (mevzuat.gov.tr) · Law No. 7579 (Official Gazette 22.05.2026)
Condominium Law Article 34: Numerical and Land Share (Double) Majority in Manager Election
Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?
Lawsuits regarding violations of the management plan are based on technical distinctions such as the binding nature of the plan, the administrator’s scope of authority, the correct majority ratio (4/5 in ordinary structures, 2/3 in collective structures), procedure (deliberation in the board), and the proper establishment of the parties to the lawsuit. Accurately determining which structure the 2026 amendment applies to and precisely formulating the request for annulment based on mandatory provisions influences the outcome of the case.
2M Hukuk Law Office provides support to residents and managements of apartments and sites throughout Istanbul, especially along the Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe and Gebze/Kocaeli line, regarding condominium law and site management law, amendment and annulment of management plans, and lawsuits to be filed against the administrator’s administrative actions. For an assessment 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
