Introduction

This study has been prepared by examining the analysis responses of judicial decisions presented to find an answer to the question, “Does an empty apartment pay maintenance fees?” The examinations reveal the extent to which the obligation of condominium owners and cooperative members to contribute to common expenses (maintenance fees) is affected by whether the independent section owned is actually used or not. The study addresses the general rule, its legal basis, and exceptional circumstances mentioned in judicial decisions.Main Findings

A holistic analysis of judicial decisions clearly shows that, in immovable properties subject to the Condominium Law (KMK), an independent section being empty, unused, or not rented out, as a rule, does not exempt the condominium owner from the obligation to pay maintenance fees. Judicial precedents have adopted the principle that this obligation is based on the right of ownership and that actual use is not a primary condition.

One of the clearest statements on this matter is found in the decision of the 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, numbered 2018/10093 E., 2021/971 K., and dated 08.02.2021. In the decision, referring to the conclusion reached by the court, the following determination was made: “…that the dues must be paid by the flat owners even if the unit is not occupied, in accordance with Articles 20 and 22 of the Condominium Law (KMK), and that it is not possible to enter into a separate contract or commitment for this, as the owner of the independent section inherently has the payment obligation…”

Similarly, in the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, numbered 2013/5135 E., 2013/7587 K., and dated 06.05.2013, the first instance court’s dismissal of the case on the grounds that the apartments were “left vacant, unused, or not rented out” was found to be erroneous. The Court of Cassation stated that these reasons would not eliminate the obligation to pay dues, emphasizing that participation in common expenses is mandatory as long as ownership continues. The expert report in the decision of the 45th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice, numbered 2025/7 E., 2025/458 K., also includes the finding that “the dues were paid by the defendant co-owner … because the shops were not rented out” , which is a reflection of this general rule in practice.

Review and Evaluation

When court decisions are examined, it is seen that the fundamental basis of the obligation to pay dues is Article 20 of the Condominium Law. According to this article, condominium owners are obliged to contribute to the common expenses of the main immovable in proportion to their land shares, unless there is a different agreement among them. The law does not require the condition of “actual use of the independent section” for this obligation. Therefore, the fact that the apartment is vacant is based on the assumption that the owner indirectly benefits from common areas and facilities (security, cleaning, elevator maintenance, garden landscaping, etc.) and that the continuity of these services preserves the value of the property.

However, the decisions also point to the existence of some exceptional circumstances and different evaluations:

Management Plan and Contractual Exceptions: Condominium owners, through the management plan, which serves as the constitution of the main immovable, or through agreements they make among themselves, can introduce different regulations regarding the obligation to pay dues. In the decision numbered 2010/3847 E., 2010/8139 K. of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the situation where the management plan contained a provision stating that some independent sections “would not participate in any kind of expenses” was discussed. This indicates that the management plan can provide an exemption from dues.

Special Situations in Cooperatives: In cooperative structures, the amount and conditions of dues can be determined by general assembly decisions. In the decision numbered 2015/1298 E., 2015/2876 K. of the 23rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, it is observed that the general assembly decided to collect different amounts of dues from “occupants and property owners” and “those who do not own an apartment and do not reside”. This situation reveals that in cooperatives, the obligation to pay dues can be differentiated based on criteria such as actual use or apartment allocation.

Non-delivery of Independent Unit: In cases where the contractor completes the construction but does not deliver the apartment to the landowner or buyer, it is accepted that the contractor may be responsible for common expenses arising until delivery takes place. The 23rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation’s decision numbered 2013/1518 E., 2013/3536 K. ruled that in cases where apartments are not delivered, the responsibility for dues may belong not to the property owner, but to the contractor who holds actual possession and fails to fulfill the delivery obligation.

Conclusion

In light of current judicial decisions, the answer to the question “Does an empty apartment pay dues?” is, as a rule, “yes, it does“. The obligation to pay dues is based not on the actual use of the independent unit, but on the status of being a floor owner. According to Article 20 of the Condominium Law, the owner is obliged to contribute to common expenses even if their apartment is empty.

However, it is understood that this general rule is not absolute;

The existence of a contrary provision in the management plan of the main property,

A different dues decision being made at the cooperative’s general assembly based on occupancy status,

The independent unit not yet being delivered by the contractor

in such situations, the responsibility for dues may differ or belong to another person. Therefore, in each specific case, the management plan, cooperative general assembly decisions, and contractual relationships between the parties must be carefully examined. A writing suggestion.

Why Is Tuzla Lawyer Support Necessary?

Disputes regarding condominium ownership, site fees, and common expenses often lead to serious disagreements between apartment or site managements and property owners. Lawsuits developing around the question “Does an empty apartment pay maintenance fees?” involve technical issues that need to be evaluated not only in light of the Condominium Law but also Supreme Court and Regional Court of Justice decisions.

Especially lawsuits related to objections to maintenance fee debts, enforcement proceedings, annulment of cooperative general assembly decisions, or provisions in the management plan can cause property owners to lose rights if procedural errors are made. Therefore, in site management and maintenance fee disputes seen in regions of Istanbul such as TuzIstanbul, Tuzla lawyer, Pendik lawyer, Kartal lawyer, Maltepe lawyer, Gebze lawyer, Aydınlı lawyer, Orhanlı lawyer, Tepeören lawyer, Darıca lawyer, Bayramoğlu lawyer or Çayırova lawyer, Şekerpınar lawyer, Güzelyalı lawyer, Postane lawyer and Akfırat lawyer, working with an experienced Tuzla lawyer is of great importance.

A lawyer who is familiar with local practices can effectively protect the rights of both property owners and site managements, and develop strategic solutions in line with court decisions. This makes it possible to both avoid lengthy litigation processes and prevent financial losses.