Condominium Law · Comprehensive Examination in Light of Court of Cassation Decisions -2026 updated evaluation

2M Law Office · Istanbul / Tuzla · Condominium and Site Management Law

Summary

In apartment and site management, the failure of the manager to call an ordinary or extraordinary general assembly meeting creates a serious risk of loss of rights for co-owners. The Condominium Law no. 634 (KMK) provides three main avenues for co-owners in this situation: written application, a call for an extraordinary meeting with the signatures of one-third of the co-owners, and finally, a lawsuit for judicial intervention by a judge under KMK art. 33 in the Civil Court of Peace. In this article, we meticulously examine each step, applicable deadlines, and common procedural errors, in light of the settled case law of the 20th Civil Chamber and 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation.

1. Ordinary General Assembly Meeting: Time and Calling Procedure

Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 29 of Law No. 634 on Condominium Ownership, the board of condominium owners convenes at the times specified in the management plan, at least once a year; if no specific time is determined in the management plan, it convenes in the first month (January) of each calendar year. In complex structures, the ordinary meeting of the board of condominium owners must be held at least once every two years.

According to the established practice of the Supreme Court, the meeting times specified in the management plan constitute a binding contract among the condominium owners; therefore, it is not considered a regulation that the management can unilaterally disregard. Although a special notice period is not stipulated in Article 29/1 of the Condominium Ownership Law for ordinary meetings, compliance with this provision is mandatory if the management plan includes a condition such as 15 days’ prior notice.

In a decision by the Supreme Court, it was deemed sufficient for an ordinary meeting to “announce the ordinary meeting invitation, as specified in the management plan, by posting it on the entrance of the main building or on the notice board a reasonable time in advance (such as 15 days), including information on the date, place, time, and agenda.” This means that for ordinary meetings, it is not mandatory to send a separate registered letter to each owner; however, if the management plan mandates it, the rule changes.

2. Legal Remedies to Follow If the Manager Does Not Call a Meeting

The manager’s job description is regulated in Article 35 of the Condominium Ownership Law. Pursuant to subparagraph (k) of this article, the duty to call the board of condominium owners to a meeting exclusively belongs to the manager. If the manager fails to perform this duty, the condominium owners should resort to the following remedies, respectively.

2.1. First Stage: Written Application and Warning to the Management

Property owners should first request the general assembly to convene by sending a written petition to the manager or the board of directors, either through a notary or via registered mail with return receipt. This step is both a requirement of the rule of honesty and critically important for proving that “legal remedies have been exhausted” in a subsequent lawsuit.

In the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 18.06.2018, with file no. E. 2017/3417 – K. 2018/4600; it was accepted that property owners were justified in applying directly to the court in a case where they submitted petitions bearing their names and signatures to the management, requesting the renewal of block representative and board of directors elections, and the management failed to fulfill this request within a reasonable time.

The content of the written application must include the following: a request for a meeting, a proposed agenda, a reasonable period (e.g., 15 days), and a warning. that legal action will be taken if a meeting is not called within this period.

2.2. Second Stage: Extraordinary Meeting at the Request of One-Third of the Property Owners

If the manager fails to call a meeting despite a written application, Article 29/2 of the Property Ownership Law (KMK) comes into play. According to this provision, an extraordinary general meeting of property owners can be held upon the request of the manager, the auditor, or one-third of the property owners, in the event of an important reason.

When a direct call for a meeting is made by one-third of the property owners, very strict formal requirements must be adhered to; otherwise, the annulment of decisions made at the meeting is inevitable.

Mandatory Formal Requirements for Calling an Extraordinary Meeting

Calling method: A summons paper to be served to each flat owner against signature or a registered letter with return receipt must be used. Extraordinary meeting calls made by methods such as SMS, WhatsApp message, or merely posting on the apartment notice board are deemed invalid by the Supreme Court.

15-day period: There must be at least 15 days between the date the summons is served to the flat owner and the meeting date. In practice, it is often incorrectly counted as 15 days from the date the summons was given to PTT; however, the period begins to run from the date of service.

Reason for the meeting (agenda): The reason for the meeting, i.e., the agenda items, must be stated in detail and clearly in the summons paper. A decision cannot be made at the meeting on a matter not on the agenda; this is defined as the “principle of adherence to the agenda” and is mandatory.

Second meeting information: In case the quorum is not met in the first meeting, the location and date of the second meeting must be specified in the summons. The period between the two meetings cannot be less than 7 days.

Management plan priority: If the management plan stipulates a ratio lower than one-third (e.g., one-fourth) or a different calling procedure, the provisions of the management plan shall be applied first, provided that they do not contradict the Condominium Law (KMK).

In the case subject to the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 20.12.2017, numbered E. 2017/1160 – K. 2017/10825; the extraordinary meeting was held without notifying all floor owners 15 days in advance, either by signature or registered letter, as stipulated in Article 29/2 of the Condominium Law (KMK). Consequently, some floor owners could not attend the meeting at all, and the principle of adherence to the agenda was not followed. The decision clearly states that failure to comply with the 15-day notice period is, as a rule, a reason for annulment.

2.3. Third Stage: Intervention of the Judge in the Civil Court of Peace

In cases where the management fails to issue a notice, or the floor owners cannot secure a one-third majority, or the notification process is blocked, Article 33 of the Condominium Law comes into play as a last resort. Pursuant to this provision, floor owners can apply to the Civil Court of Peace where the main property is located, requesting the judge’s intervention.

Limit of the Court’s Authority: Appointment of a Representative/Trustee

The judge’s authority in this scope is extremely limited. The court cannot directly remove the manager or appoint a person of its own choosing as manager. According to the consistent practice of the Court of Cassation, the judge can only appoint a limited authority representative (trustee) who is authorized to issue a notice for an extraordinary general meeting to be held and to conduct the meeting. Since the primary will must manifest in the board of floor owners, the manager will still be elected personally by the floor owners.

This principle was clearly emphasized in the decisions of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation numbered 2017/3417 K. and 2017/6203 K.: “A direct request for the appointment of a manager by the court or the dismissal of the existing manager cannot be made. First, the board of floor owners must be approached, or legal remedies for convening the board must be exhausted.”

Competent and Authorized Court

Article 33 of the Condominium Law (KMK) explicitly designates the Civil Court of Peace at the location of the immovable property as competent. However, in practice, an exception must be noted: in some cases where the site has not yet transitioned to collective building management, and condominium ownership has not been established (only floor easement exists), the Court of Cassation may overturn a decision, stating that the competent court is the Civil Court of First Instance, not the Civil Court of Peace. Therefore, before filing a lawsuit, the land registry status of the immovable property must be thoroughly examined.

3. Annulment of Improperly or Uncalled Meetings

If the manager or the condominium owners hold a meeting without adhering to the procedural rules explained above, a lawsuit can be filed in the Civil Court of Peace for the annulment of the decisions made at that meeting.

3.1. Grounds for Annulment

Failure to issue the call to all condominium owners against signature or via registered mail with return receipt

Failure to comply with the 15-day notice period for extraordinary meetings

Exclusion of some condominium owners from the meeting or failure to issue a call

Failure to state the reason for the meeting (agenda) in the notice

Making decisions on matters not included in the agenda (violation of the principle of adherence to the agenda)

Failure to indicate the place and date of the second meeting in the notice, despite the quorum not being met in the first meeting

Failure to meet the quorums (majority in terms of number and land share)

3.2. Time Limits for Filing an Annulment Lawsuit

The periods stipulated in Article 33 of the Condominium Law (KMK) are peremptory (statutory limitation) and are observed ex officio (automatically) by the court:

Condominium owner who attended the meeting and cast a dissenting vote: Must file a lawsuit within 1 month from the date of the decision.

Owner who did not attend the meeting: Must file a lawsuit within 1 month from learning of the decision and, in any case, within 6 months from the date of the decision.

Decisions voided by absence or absolute nullity: No time limit is sought; a lawsuit can be filed at any time.

3.3. Important Exception: An Owner Who Attended the Meeting Cannot Request Annulment

As emphasized in the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, numbered 2017/3072 K.; a condominium owner who personally attended the meeting despite an irregular call cannot demand annulment solely on the grounds of the irregularity of the call. AHowever, they can always raise objections regarding the content of the decision (such as quorum, being off-agenda, or illegality). Therefore, it is of great importance for an owner who believes the call was irregular, if they attend the meeting, to explicitly record a “dissenting vote” in the decision book.

4. Practical Roadmap: What to Do Step by Step?

If the manager does not call a meeting, we recommend that you follow these steps in order to avoid loss of rights as condominium owners:

Step 1 — Written application: Submit a request to the management for a meeting call, including the agenda and a reasonable timeframe, via a notary warning or a registered letter with return receipt.

Step 2 — Secure one-third proportion: If the management does not make a call within a reasonable timeframe, collect the signatures of at least 1/3 of the condominium owners. If a lower proportion is specified in the management plan, that proportion will be taken as a basis.

Step 3 — Make a proper call: Send a call to all condominium owners, at least 15 days before the meeting, containing the agenda and information about the second meeting, either by obtaining a signature or via a registered letter with return receipt.

Step 4 — Hold the meeting and record the minutes: Ensure that the quorum (majority in terms of number and land share) is met. Enter the decisions into the minute book.

Step 5 — Civil Court of Peace: If these avenues are blocked, apply to the Civil Court of Peace to request the appointment of a representative/trustee for an extraordinary general assembly under Article 33 of the Condominium Law (KMK).

Frequently Asked Questions

Question 1: What can condominium owners do if the apartment manager never calls the ordinary general assembly?

Condominium owners should first apply to the management with a written petition requesting a meeting. If no result is achieved within a reasonable period, one-third of the condominium owners can directly call for an extraordinary general assembly with their own signatures, in accordance with Article 29/2 of the Condominium Law (KMK). If this avenue also cannot be utilized, an application can be made to the Civil Court of Peace under Article 33 of the Condominium Law (KMK) to request the appointment of a representative to conduct the meeting. In densely populated areas such as Istanbul, Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, and Gebze, proceeding with an experienced lawyer in the field of condominium law consultancy from the beginning of this process is the safest way to prevent loss of rights.

Question 2: What happens if an extraordinary meeting of the condominium owners’ board is held without adhering to the 15-day notice period?

The 15-day notice period stipulated in Article 29/2 of the Condominium Law (KMK) is mandatory. As emphasized in the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation numbered 2017/1160 – 2017/10825, failure to comply with this period is generally a reason for the annulment of decisions made. The period begins to run not from the date the notice was given to PTT, but from the date it was delivered to the flat owner. However, an owner who personally attends the meeting despite an improper notice and does not file a dissenting vote cannot demand annulment solely on the grounds of procedural irregularity of the notice. Therefore, when you receive such a notice, the step to be taken is to consult with an experienced lawyer and either not attend at all or attend and cast a dissenting vote, and then file an annulment lawsuit within the statutory period.

Question 3: Can the appointment of a manager or the dismissal of an existing manager be directly requested from the court?

No. According to the established jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, a request for the appointment of a manager or the dismissal of an existing manager directly from the court is not heard unless the statutory notice procedures for convening the board of flat owners have been exhausted. If these procedures prove unsuccessful, the court may appoint a limited-authority representative (trustee/receiver) solely to ensure that an extraordinary general meeting is held. The judge cannot substitute the will of the flat owners; they merely facilitate the healthy expression of this will. In any case, the election of the manager is conducted by the board of flat owners.

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?

Disputes related to apartment and site management are a technical field where even a very minor procedural error can lead to almost irreversible loss of rights, especially in densely populated areas of Istanbul’s Anatolian Side such as Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Ümraniye, and Gebze.

The most common sources of error we encounter in practice are: procedural errors in calls, inaccuracies in majority and land share calculations, incorrect evaluation of conflicts between the management plan and legal provisions, incorrect determination of the competent and authorized court (e.g., Civil Court of Peace instead of Civil Court of First Instance, or vice versa), neglect of the principle of adherence to the agenda, and, most critically, missing the 1-month to 6-month forfeiture periods.

A single erroneous summons, a missing agenda item, or a cancellation lawsuit whose deadline has been missed can actually validate decisions that were taken unlawfully. This can cause residents to endure years of management irregularities, exorbitant fee increases, erroneous common expense distributions, or unlawful manager elections.

It is precisely for this reason that, from the very first written application stage of the process, it is of vital importance to proceed with a lawyer specialized in condominium law, who is knowledgeable about the current decisions of the 20th and 18th Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court of Appeals, and who closely follows regional practices in particular.

2M Law Office, with its office based in Tuzla, has a regular and active practice in condominium law and site management consultancy, primarily in the Istanbul Anatolian Side, including Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Gebze, and surrounding areas. Our office provides comprehensive legal support to both individual condominium owners and site and apartment managements in all legal processes arising from condominium ownership, including the preparation of ordinary and extraordinary general assembly calls, review and revision of management plans, manager liability lawsuits, lawsuits for the annulment of condominium owners’ board decisions, requests for judicial intervention under Article 33 of the Condominium Law (KMK m. 33), and common expense and fee disputes.

We provide professional legal services with a proactive approach from the outset to homeowners seeking a lawyer in Tuzla and apartment/site managements needing a site consultant in Istanbul, ensuring no loss of rights, no missed deadlines, and full compliance with procedural rules. To receive legal consultancy on this matter or to schedule an appointment for your specific dispute, you can contact us through our contact page.

Keywords: Condominium ownership consultancy Tuzla, Istanbul site consultant, Tuzla lawyer, 2M Law Office, homeowners’ board meeting, extraordinary general assembly call, removal of manager, Condominium Law Article 29, Condominium Law Article 33, judicial intervention, annulment of homeowners’ board decisions, apartment management lawyer, site management legal consultancy.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice for a specific dispute. Since the circumstances of each case are different, you should consult a lawyer for an assessment specific to your situation.