Introduction

One of the frequently encountered issues in the management of collective living areas that leads to legal debates is whether individuals who are not unit owners can be elected to the Collective Building Representatives Board. This study examines the question of whether non-unit owners can be elected to the membership of the “Collective Building Representatives Board” , an important organ of collective building management, in light of presented legal texts and Supreme Court decisions. The Representatives Board is a representative body that reflects the will of the unit owners in this complex structure and has significant powers. The study aims to offer a holistic perspective by examining the Supreme Court’s different approaches to the subject, the role of the Management Plan, the limits of authority of the elected person, and solutions for potential disputes, based on the Condominium Law No. 634 (KMK).

1.Formation of the Board of Representatives and the Role of the Management Plan

The existence and formation of the Board of Representatives are fundamentally dependent on the collective building’s “management plan.” The Condominium Law (KMK), instead of setting a mandatory rule on this matter, has adopted a flexible structure. Unless otherwise specified in the management plan (as a supplementary legal rule), the board consists of block managers and representatives of non-block structures. Article 69 of the KMK stipulates that the duties of the collective building homeowners’ board can be assigned to the collective building board of representatives. Similar to the formation of island boards of representatives, the formation of collective building boards of representatives requires a provision to that effect in the collective building management plan. The number of members of the collective building board of representatives and how they are elected are specified in the management plan, taking into account the characteristics of the collective building.

Eligibility of Non-Homeowners to be Elected as “Manager”: The Condominium Law (KMK) and jurisprudence explicitly state that Article 34 of the KMK, which is valid for classical condominium ownership, also applies to collective buildings (by reference to KMK Article 74). This article allows homeowners to elect an external party as a manager.

Ability to Elect a “Representative” from Outside: The most critical finding is that the possibility of electing a manager from outside may also be valid for the election of a representative. With a special provision to be included in the management plan, the condition for a member of the board of representatives to be a property owner may not be sought. In this case, in collective buildings as well, provisions may be included in the management plan for blocks or non-block-type structures to appoint a person from among themselves, or someone other than the independent section owners within that scope, as a manager or representative; similarly, it is also possible to introduce certain special conditions regarding being a manager or representative in the management plan.

Distinction Between Manager/Representative and Representation Authority: The Board of Representatives, by default, consists of block managers. Since a block manager can be elected from outside, indirectly, a non-property owner member (in the capacity of a block manager) can be present in the Board of Representatives. More importantly, the law states that the management plan may also allow for the election of an external person, other than the block manager or building representative, specifically to serve on the Board of Representatives.

2. Is There No Prohibitory Provision in the Law Regarding the Election of External Members to the Collective Building Board of Representatives? 

In the Condominium Law (KMK), there is no mandatory provision stating that a member of the Board of Representatives must necessarily be a floor owner. On the contrary, the legislator, in KMK art. 69, largely left this area to the will of the floor owners, i.e., to the management plan, with phrases such as “unless otherwise regulated in the management plan” and “how they will be elected will be specified in the management plan”. This flexibility, when combined with the spirit of KMK art. 34, which allows for the election of an external manager, and the reference in KMK art. 74, paves the way for individuals who are not floor owners to also be elected as representatives.

KMK’s 69/last paragraph contains the provision: “This authority may be granted to the collective building representatives board in the management plan. Unless otherwise regulated in the management plan, the collective building representatives board consists of block managers elected by the independent section owners in each block in block structures, and representatives elected by the independent section owners of structures that are not block-type. The number of members of the collective building representatives board and how they will be elected are specified in the management plan, taking into account the characteristics of the collective building. “ According to this article, there is no impediment for a person who is not a floor owner to be elected to the collective building representatives board. Unless an impediment is placed in the management plan, an external person who is not a floor owner can also be elected to the collective building representatives board.

3. Disputes and Solutions in the Election of Members to the Board of Representatives 

Inadequacy of the Management Plan: The biggest source of disagreement arises when the management plan is silent or ambiguous on this matter. The legislator’s failure to stipulate any regulation regarding issues such as how representatives will be elected can lead to disruptions in the management of collective structures. However, even if the management plan does not contain a clarification on this matter, it will still be possible to elect representatives from outside, as there is no legal impediment to electing external representatives.

Solution: The first source to consult for resolving disputes is the Management Plan. The management plan serves as the constitution of the collective structure. If the plan clearly specifies the qualifications of representatives (e.g., condition of being a homeowner, professionalism, education, etc.) and the election procedure, these provisions must be followed. In cases where the plan is insufficient, the supplementary legal rules of the Condominium Law (KMK) (Articles 69, 71, 74, and the reference to Article 34) come into play, and external representatives may be elected.

Conclusion

The examined decisions and texts clearly demonstrate that there is no provision in the Condominium Law (Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu) that directly prohibits the election of a non-owner to the board of representatives of a collective building (toplu yapı). The key role belongs to the management plan, which is the “constitution” of the collective building. If there is an explicit provision allowing it in the management plan, it is legally possible for a non-owner, or even a representative of a legal entity, such as a professional management company, to be elected as a member of the Board of Representatives. If the management plan is silent on this matter, then the provision in Article 69/last paragraph of the KMK (Condominium Law) will be taken into account: “This authority may be given to the board of representatives of the collective building in the management plan. Unless otherwise regulated in the management plan, the board of representatives of the collective building shall consist of block managers elected by the owners of independent sections in each block within block structures, and representatives elected by the owners of independent sections in non-block structures. The number of members of the collective building’s board of representatives and how they will be elected shall be specified in the management plan, taking into account the characteristics of the collective building. “ Since this article does not contain a provision prohibiting the election of external members to the board of representatives of the collective building, the election of external representatives will be possible. Furthermore, the matter will need to be interpreted within the framework of the general and supplementary provisions of the KMK (especially Article 34, which permits the election of external managers), which will generally leave the door open for external elections.

Based on the presented sources, it is understood that the legislator prioritizes flexibility and freedom of will in the management of collective structures, rather than rigid rules. This approach is positive as it allows each collective structure to form a management model suitable for its unique dynamics and needs. The inclusion of professionals who are not property owners (lawyers, financial advisors, real estate experts, etc.) in the board can increase the quality and transparency of the management.

However, this flexibility also carries a potential risk. A management plan that is not sufficiently detailed and carefully prepared can lead to representation problems, confusion of authority, and serious legal disputes, as stated in the texts. Therefore, the healthiest way is for the management plan, either when the collective structure is established or afterwards, to clearly and thoroughly regulate matters such as who will constitute the Board of Representatives, the qualifications required for members (e.g., being a property owner, having a specific profession, experience), the election procedure, and the term of office, leaving no room for doubt. This is the most effective way to prevent potential disputes from the outset. A thesis suggestion.

Why is Tuzla Lawyer Support Necessary?

The question of whether non-condominium owners can be elected to the Board of Representatives in collective housing projects is a technical area requiring legal expertise, due to the open-to-interpretation provisions of the Condominium Law, the diversity of management plans, and the differing approaches in Supreme Court decisions. A wrong step taken in this regard can lead to serious disputes such as lawsuits for annulment in apartment or site management, allegations of exceeding authority, and management crises. Therefore, especially to correctly structure the process from the beginning and to draw a framework in accordance with legislation when revising management plans, obtaining expert support is of great importance.

In a region like Tuzla, where urbanization is rapidly increasing and multi-block collective housing projects are common, working with a Tuzla lawyer who is knowledgeable about the provisions of the Condominium Law, closely follows Supreme Court decisions, and is familiar with local court practices provides a great advantage in both preventing loss of rights and conducting the process quickly and smoothly. Similarly, working with the support of a Pendik lawyer, Kartal lawyer, Maltepe lawyer, Aydınlı lawyer, Orhanlı lawyer, Tepeören lawyer, Çayırova lawyer, or Gebze lawyer not only protects the legal framework but also increases harmony within the apartment complex and trust in the management.

Through professional support, the correct structuring of the board of representatives, establishing a legal basis for electing external representatives, and the legal updating of the management plan can be ensured. Especially if there are deficiencies in the management plan, the guidance of an experienced lawyer will make the process secure from both a legal and practical perspective for the re-arrangement of these plans without leading to disputes.