One of the disputes most frequently brought before the courts in apartment buildings and residential complexes concerns the unauthorized enclosure of roof terraces in violation of the approved project A terrace enclosed with folding glass, a winter garden built on it, a room added later, or a roof terrace occupied on the assumption that “the only access is from my apartment anyway” may at first glance seem like a simple alteration. In reality, these works simultaneously engage four separate branches of law condominium ownership law, zoning and planning law, criminal law, and neighbor/tort liability law.

The central controversy in practice comes down to a single question: Is written consent from 4/5 of the owners sufficient, or is unanimity required? In this guide, we first clarify this question through decisions of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, and then examine the most common types of interventions one by one.

Table of Contents

1. Who Owns the Roof Terrace? Common Area or Appurtenance?

Most disputes arise from a very simple confusion of concepts: confusing the right of use with the right of ownership.

Law No. 634 on Condominium Ownershipleaves no room for doubt in Article 4(c): “Roofs, chimneys, common roof terraces, rain gutters, fire escape stairs” are in all cases deemed common areas. Condominium owners hold co-ownership rights over these areas in proportion to their land shares.

What if the only access to the terrace is through my apartment?

Under KMK Art. 16/2, unless otherwise agreed, the extent of the right to use common areas is proportional to the land share. If the approved project provides access to the terrace solely through a particular independent unit, in practice that owner is recognized as having a de facto right of use However, this does not mean that ownership of the terrace has passed to that owner.

Does it change the situation if the title deed states that the terrace is an “appurtenance”?

Under KMK Art. 6, places directly allocated to an independent unit are deemed appurtenances and are recorded in the declarations section of the land registry. However, being an appurtenance does not give the owner the authority to enclose that area. Because under KMK Art. 19/1, every condominium owner is obliged to carefully preserve the architectural condition, appearance, and structural integrity of the main property Converting an area shown as an “open terrace” in the architectural project into an enclosed space is contrary to the project, regardless of whether it is an appurtenance.

For situations in which attic rooms are subject to a separate legal regime, see also: Who Holds Urban Transformation Rights in an Apartment with Attic Rooms?

2. The 12 Most Common Interventions in Practice

The recurring types of construction and alterations seen in published court decisions and in files handled by our office can be grouped under the following twelve headings.

2.1. Enclosing the terrace with a glass enclosure system (folding glass / insulated PVC glazing)

This is the most common intervention. Owners often argue that it is a “removable system, not a permanent structure.” As a rule, the Court of Cassation does not accept this defense: whether the enclosure material is transparent (glass) or opaque, whether it consists of one piece or several pieces, and whether it affects the building’s structural system or harms the surroundings does not change the outcome; the system is regarded as a fixed structure .

2.2. Adding a room / enclosed space to the terrace

Building a study, child’s room, or storage room by erecting walls. Here, there is an increase in construction floor area Therefore, the matter falls entirely outside the 4/5 regime under KMK Art. 19/2. In the dispute that was the subject of the Council of State, 6th Chamber file no. 2018/4195 E., it was held that 4/5 consent was sufficient for changing railings and for water and thermal insulation, whereas works that increase the area of the independent unit by adding an enclosed space to part of the terrace cannot be assessed under KMK Art. 19 and may be licensed only if all condominium owners in the building give unanimous consent .

2.3. Construction of a winter garden

The critical question is whether the work creates a heated space incorporated into the interior or merely a roofed open area. Winter gardens that are heated and integrated into the apartment are deemed substantial alterations because they change the calculation of construction floor area under the project annexed to the building permit.

2.4. Canopies, pergolas, awnings, and gazebos

Pergolas and canopies that are anchored to the ground and cannot be removed are regarded as “installations” and are subject to consent. Portable, unanchored awnings are assessed according to the circumstances of the specific case. For the expense and consent regime applicable to gazebo-type structures built in common areas, see: Is Building a Gazebo in a Residential Complex Garden Mandatory?

2.5. Raising the roof, changing the roof form, or incorporating the attic into the apartment

Removing the existing roof to add a floor, or constructing a full floor instead of a setback floor, falls directly within KMK Art. 44 and requires the unanimous decision of the condominium owners’ assembly, the re-determination of land shares in accordance with the statutory procedure and unanimously, and the establishment of construction servitude for the new independent unit. Even changing only the form of the roof —for example, constructing a flat terrace roof where the approved project provides for a pitched timber roof—is considered contrary to the project and requires an amendment project (see the General Assembly of Civil Chambers decision in Section 3).

2.6. Adding a kitchen, WC, shower, or barbecue/fireplace to the terrace

Adding plumbing and a chimney requires penetrating common columns/beams and waterproofing, raising both a conflict with the approved project and the prohibition in KMK Art. 19/2 against “installations capable of damaging the main structure.” Smoke and odor may also trigger KMK Art. 18 (duty not to cause disturbance) and TMK Art. 737 (prohibition of excessive interference).

2.7. Jacuzzi, decorative pool, heavy planters, and soil-filled landscaping

The main risk here is not aesthetic but structural. The terrace slab is not designed to carry continuous water loads and fill weights that were not contemplated in the project. If leakage or cracking occurs, liability may be imposed on the building owner regardless of fault (TBK Art. 69). For the decision quorum required to construct a pool in a common area, see: Adding a Pool to a Residential Complex Later: Is Unanimous Consent Required?

2.8. Opening a separate staircase, door, or elevator access to the terrace

Closing the common stairwell, cutting the roof slab to create an internal staircase, or installing an external metal staircase to the terrace requires an amendment project and unanimous consent because it both affects the load-bearing system and effectively allocates common space for exclusive use.

2.9. Air-conditioning outdoor unit, solar panel, satellite dish, and base station

Any installation that requires puncturing the roof covering is subject to consent. Leasing the roof to third parties (for a base station or advertising board) is, under KMK Art. 45, an “important management matter” requiring unanimity . For details, see: Is It Legal to Place Advertising on a Building Façade or Roof?

2.10. Changing the route of rain gutters and drains

Rain gutters are common areas under KMK Art. 4/c. Changing the route of gutters and drains during an enclosure project commonly gives rise to compensation claims when it causes water accumulation and leakage in lower-floor units.

2.11. Using or leasing the terrace for commercial purposes

Operating a top-floor terrace as a café, terrace restaurant, or event space raises both the prohibited-use regime under KMK Art. 24 and the issue of allocating a common area for the exclusive benefit of one owner.

2.12. De facto occupation of a common roof terrace

Locking the door, erecting fences, or placing permanent furniture and storage items. Even if no construction is carried out, such conduct may be subject to an action for prevention of interference because it deprives other owners of their right to use the common area.

3. Unanimity or 4/5? What Does the General Assembly of Civil Chambers Say?

Much of the information circulating online is incorrect on this point. Some sources say “4/5 is enough,” while others say “unanimity is required.” The correct answer rests on a two-part distinction that the Court of Cassation has maintained for decades and that has been expressly formulated in two decisions of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers.

3.1. The wording of the law: in 2007 the threshold was reduced from unanimity to 4/5

KMK Art. 19/2 was amended by Article 8 of Law No. 5711 dated 14.11.2007. Before the amendment, construction, repairs, and installations in common areas required the consent of all condominium owners whereas the amended text reduced the threshold to four-fifths . The provision currently in force reads as follows:

3.2. However, the 4/5 rule applies only to works that “do not require a substantial project amendment”

3.3. If an amendment project is required, even a single owner can stop the process

3.4. The key rule often overlooked: 4/5 consent does not legalize non-compliance with the project

In the same General Assembly decision (2020/646), the limit of the 4/5 rule was stated as follows: under paragraph 2 as amended by Law No. 5711, written consent from at least four-fifths of all condominium owners must be obtained and the work must not be contrary to the approved architectural project or zoning legislation provided that construction, repairs, installations, and alterations may be carried out in common areas.

3.5. Municipal approval alone is not sufficient either

This two-layer requirement was expressly stated in the decision of the Court of Cassation, 18th Civil Chamber dated 07.04.2016, E. 2015/8942, K. 2016/5843 (the Special Chamber reversal underlying General Assembly decision 2020/646): “For a later change to be made to the architectural project forming the basis for the establishment of construction servitude or condominium ownership, and for an amendment project to be prepared in relation to that change, the amendment project must be approved by the municipality and the written consent of all independent-unit owners must exist on the date the project is approved.” See also, to the same effect: Court of Cassation, 18th Civil Chamber, E. 2012/12421, K. 2013/3181.

3.6. Application to roof terraces: decision tree

3.7. Comparison of quorum regimes

For a comprehensive comparison of the procedures and quorums required for alterations to common areas, see also: Can Alterations Be Made to Common Areas of a Building?

4. Liability under Condominium Ownership Law

4.1. Restoration to the original condition and prevention of interference

Against enclosure works carried out without the required consent, any condominium owner who is adversely affected may apply to the Civil Court of Peace under KMK Art. 33 and request judicial intervention and restoration of the structure to its original condition. After hearing the interested parties, the judge immediately decides in accordance with the Law, the management plan, and equity, and orders compliance within a short period to be determined by the court.

4.2. Municipal approval and an occupancy permit do not replace the consent of condominium owners

The fact that an amendment project has been approved by the municipality, that an occupancy permit has been obtained, or that fees have been paid does not replace the consent arising from the ownership rights of condominium owners. Condominium ownership law and zoning law are independent of one another as two separate review mechanisms; the administrative authority does not adjudicate the co-ownership rights of private-law persons.

4.3. Why does a Building Registration Certificate (zoning amnesty) not protect you?

In other words, a Building Registration Certificate may suspend administrative sanctions and the enforcement of a demolition order; however, it does not eliminate the obligation to restore the property to its original condition arising from condominium ownership law, nor the right of other condominium owners to bring an action.

4.4. The defense: “I did not carry out the work; I bought the apartment like this”

This is a critical warning for those purchasing an apartment with a terrace floor: the risk of demolition is borne not by the seller but by the new owner . The buyer’s right of recourse against the seller under provisions governing defects is a separate matter to be pursued in a different action.

4.5. The defense: “No one objected for years”

An interference with a common area is a continuing wrongful act. Therefore, claims for restoration to the original condition and prevention of interference are, as a rule, not subject to a limitation period or forfeiture period; what matters is that the interference is continuing as of the filing date. The prolonged silence of other owners does not, by itself, constitute implied consent.

4.6. The most severe consequence: transfer of ownership (KMK Art. 25)

Where an owner fails to perform their debts and obligations to such an extent that the rights of the other owners become intolerable, the other owners may, by a majority in number and land shares, resolve to bring an action seeking transfer of ownership of that independent unit. Under KMK Art. 25/3-(b), persisting for one year in failing to perform debts and obligations despite an order issued by the Civil Court of Peace under Art. 33 is deemed, in all cases, to constitute intolerability.

In addition, under the final paragraph of KMK Art. 33, the same court may impose an administrative fine on those who fail to comply with the judgment within the period set by the judge.

5. Legal Action and Procedure: Mediation, Competent Court, Evidence

5.1. Mediation first: it is a mandatory precondition to filing suit

By Law No. 7445, Article 18/B(c) was added to Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes. Under that provision, as of 1 September 2023, applying to a mediator before filing suit is a mandatory condition for actions arising from Law No. 634 on Condominium Ownership. The same provision also covers disputes arising from neighboring rights.

An action for restoration to the original condition filed without first completing the mediation stage is dismissed on procedural grounds without examination of the merits. Therefore, the sequence notice → mediation application → final mediation record → lawsuit must be followed.

5.2. Court with subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction

Under KMK Additional Art. 1, jurisdiction over actions arising from this Law belongs to the Civil Court of Peace and under Art. 33 the territorially competent court is the court of the place where the main property is located. Actions seeking annulment of municipal acts (construction stop report, municipal executive committee demolition decision, administrative fine) fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative court. The two branches of jurisdiction arising from the same event proceed independently.

5.3. Who may bring the action, and against whom?

• Claimant: Each condominium owner may file the action individually; no resolution of the owners’ assembly is required. The manager may also file an action if authorized by the condominium owners’ assembly (KMK Art. 35).
• Defendant: The current ownerof the independent unit. Even if the work was carried out by a previous owner, the action is directed against the current owner. Under KMK Art. 18/2, tenants and permanent users are also jointly and severally liable together with condominium owners.

5.4. The evidence that determines the outcome of the case: the approved architectural project

In these cases, the determining reference is not the factual situation but the approved architectural project in the municipal archive. The key evidence to be collected includes:

• The approved architectural project, building permit, and any amendment projects to be obtained from the relevant municipality
• Land registry record, construction servitude/condominium ownership register, and declarations section (for appurtenance records)
• The management plan registered in the land registry
• The notarized condominium owners’ assembly decision book and any consent declarations
• Reports and records of the municipal zoning directorate/municipal police, the construction stop report, and the municipal executive committee decision
• On-site inspection and expert examination by a civil engineer/architect — particularly regarding any increase in floor area and whether an amendment project is required . This expert report is the key to the quorum dispute.

5.5. Interim injunction and enforceability of the judgment

If the work is still ongoing, an interim injunction should be requested to stop construction in order to prevent damage that would be difficult to remedy. In addition, the operative part of the judgment must state which work is to be removed and to what extent, with sufficient clarity to avoid uncertainty during enforcement ; otherwise, the judgment may become unenforceable at the enforcement stage.

5.6. If annulment of an owners’ assembly decision is sought, the time limits must not be missed

If the condominium owners’ assembly has improperly “authorized” the terrace enclosure, then under KMK Art. 33/1 an owner who attended the meeting and voted against the decision must bring an annulment action within one month from the date of the decision, while an owner who did not attend the meeting must bring the action within one month of learning of the decision and in any event within six months from the date of the decision before the Civil Court of Peace. No time limit applies where the decision is deemed legally nonexistent or absolutely null and void. Recording a dissenting opinion at the meeting is critical to preserving the right to sue.

6. Sanctions under Administrative and Zoning Law

6.1. Construction stop report, sealing, and demolition decision

Under Law No. 3194, the Zoning Law, Article 32, when unlicensed work or work contrary to the permit and its annexes is identified, the current state of construction is recorded in an official report and the structure is sealed, stopping construction. From the date of the construction stop report, within one month a permit must be obtained or the non-compliance must be remedied. If this is not done, the municipal executive committee (or the provincial administrative board outside municipal boundaries) issues a demolition decision, and demolition costs are recovered from the person concerned.

6.2. Administrative fine

Under Zoning Law Art. 42, an administrative fine is imposed for each square meter of non-compliant construction, calculated according to the class and category of the structure and the nature of the violation. Additional increase grounds are prescribed for cases such as adding an illegal floor, creating unlicensed enclosed floor area, or using a building without an occupancy permit. Fine amounts are updated annually by the revaluation rate.

6.3. 60-day time limit for challenging administrative acts

A sealing/construction stop report, municipal executive committee demolition decision, and administrative fine are final and enforceable administrative acts. An annulment action must be filed within 60 days before the administrative court from the date of service, and a stay of execution should be requested where the conditions are met. If this period is missed, even a favorable result in a condominium ownership action will not prevent demolition.

7. Criminal Liability: Is Enclosing a Terrace a Crime?

Under Law No. 5237, the Turkish Penal Code, Article 184: “Any person who constructs or causes the construction of a building without obtaining a building permit or in violation of the building permit shall be punished by imprisonment from one year to five years.” This provision applies within municipal boundaries or in areas subject to a special zoning regime.

7.1. Not every terrace enclosure constitutes a crime: the “building” criterion

For the offense to occur, the work must have the characteristics of a building within the meaning of Zoning Law Art. 5. In the case law of the Court of Cassation, this assessment is made using two criteria: (i) does the work affect the load-bearing system, and (ii) does it create additional floor area?

7.2. TCK Art. 184/5: a provision similar to effective repentance

Under TCK Art. 184/5, if a person brings a building that they constructed or caused to be constructed without a permit or contrary to the permit into compliance with the zoning plan and permit, the criminal proceedings are dismissed, and any conviction is annulled together with all of its consequences. In practice, this provision is applied by removing the non-compliant work or obtaining an amendment permit, and it is one of the most effective defense mechanisms.

7.3. The offense is not complaint-based

The offense of causing zoning pollution is investigated ex officio; withdrawal of a neighbor’s complaint does not terminate the investigation. The competent court is the Criminal Court of First Instance. The municipality’s imposition of an administrative fine does not automatically mean a criminal conviction; the two proceedings are separate.

8. Compensation and Neighbor-Law Liability

A large majority of terrace-enclosure disputes actually begin not with a request for demolition but with a damp stain in the apartment below . Damage to waterproofing, slope, or gutter routing during the enclosure may cause leakage, mold, and peeling paint in lower independent units. The enclosure may also adversely affect the building’s structural integrity.

8.1. Legal grounds

• TBK Art. 49 (tort): A person who unlawfully and culpably causes damage to another is liable to compensate that damage.
• TBK Art. 69 (liability of the owner of a building): Liability for damage arising from construction defects or lack of maintenance does not require fault.
• Final paragraph of KMK Art. 19: Each condominium owner is liable for damage caused through their fault to the main property and to other independent units.
• TMK Art. 737 (prohibition of excessive interference): An owner must refrain from excessive interference that adversely affects neighbors when exercising the right of ownership.

8.2. Heads of damage that may be claimed

• Repair costs (renewal of waterproofing, plastering and painting, damage to furniture and belongings)
• Loss of rent for the period during which the unit could not be used
• Loss in value of the independent unit
• Recourse for expenses incurred to repair a common area (final paragraph of KMK Art. 20)

9. Summary Table of Liabilities and Sanctions

10. Defenses Available to the Owner Who Enclosed the Terrace

For an owner against whom an action has been filed, not everything is necessarily lost. Depending on the circumstances of the specific case, the following lines of defense should be considered:

1. What the approved project actually shows: Whether the terrace is shown in the approved project as an “enclosed projection,” “room,” or part of the independent unit. There are a significant number of cases in which an allegation of non-compliance with the project has been rebutted through expert examination.
2. Establishing that the work does not require an amendment project: This is the key to the quorum dispute. If there is no increase in floor area and no effect on the load-bearing system, the 4/5 regime applies, and the signatures obtained may change the outcome.
3. The removable and temporary nature of the work: For systems that are not anchored to the floor, are not connected to the load-bearing structure, and do not create enclosed floor area.
4. Permission provisions in the management plan: Some management plans permit terrace and balcony enclosures subject to compliance with a standard project.
5. Absence of the characteristics of a building for criminal-law purposes: If there is no increase in floor area and no effect on the load-bearing system, the elements of TCK Art. 184 are not met; only administrative sanctions may arise.
6. Reliance on TCK Art. 184/5: Dismissal of the criminal proceedings by bringing the structure into compliance with the permit.
7. Partial restoration to the original condition: Requesting removal only of the part that is contrary to the project, rather than removal of the entire work.
8. Recourse against the seller: If the work was carried out by a previous owner, seeking recovery of the loss from the seller under the provisions governing defective performance.

11. Does an Enclosed Terrace Confer Additional Rights in Urban Transformation?

Short answer: no. In urban transformation, entitlement and allocation are generally calculated on the basis of the land share , not illegally used square meters in practice. A terrace that has been enclosed and used for years does not generate a corresponding entitlement in the new building after transformation; on the contrary, top-floor owners with a low land share may face a reduction in square meters.

For our detailed assessments on this issue, see: What Are the Rights of Top-Floor Owners in Urban Transformation?

12. Checklist When Purchasing an Apartment with a Terrace Floor

13. Roadmap for Those Who Want to Enclose a Terrace Lawfully

1. First determine the required quorum. Ask an architect in writing whether the proposed work requires a change to the approved project (an amendment project). If the answer is “yes,” your target is not 4/5 but unanimity.
2. Read the management plan. If it contains stricter or prohibitive provisions, the quorum discussion becomes irrelevant.
3. Have the amendment project prepared first. It is easier to obtain signatures when owners can see exactly what they are being asked to consent to.
4. Hold a properly convened owners’ assembly meeting with the item on the agenda. Follow the notice procedure (KMK Art. 29); have the decision entered in and signed in the notarized decision book. Oral agreement has no evidentiary value.
5. Collect written consent declarations. Because the Law requires “written consent,” individually signed consent declarations are the safest method. The consent must exist on the date the project is approved.
6. Obtain an amendment permit from the municipality. The consent of condominium owners and administrative approval are separately required; one does not replace the other.
7. If a new independent unit is being added, complete the land-registry procedures. In cases within KMK Art. 44, the process is not legally complete until land shares have been re-determined and construction servitude has been registered.
8. Document the waterproofing work. Keep the implementation details and photographs; these will be among the strongest defenses in any future compensation action.

14. Why Work with a Lawyer Specializing in Condominium Ownership Law?

Roof-terrace disputes are not simple files resolved through a single action. The same incident may simultaneously give rise to four separate judicial proceedings : an action for restoration to the original condition before the Civil Court of Peace, an annulment action against a demolition decision before the administrative court, criminal proceedings for zoning pollution before the Criminal Court of First Instance, and a separate compensation action.

• An incorrect quorum calculation (settling for 4/5 when unanimity is required) invalidates the entire work and renders the collected signatures ineffective.
• Skipping mandatory mediation leads to procedural dismissal of the action and loss of time.
• The one-month and six-month periods for seeking annulment of an owners’ assembly decision are forfeiture periods.
• If the 60-day period for challenging administrative acts is missed, the demolition decision becomes final.
• If the operative part of the judgment is not drafted clearly, even a successful judgment may become unenforceable.

As 2M Hukuk Law Office, we provide legal support on the Anatolian side of Istanbul and along the Kocaeli corridor, particularly in Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Aydınlı, Orhanlı, Tepeören, Gebze, Darıca, and Çayırova in disputes concerning condominium ownership, common areas, and zoning, assisting condominium owners, residential-complex managements, and investors. You can access our other published content in the All Articles section of our website.

Other related articles: How Are Roof Repair and Exterior Insulation Costs Shared? · How Are Common Expenses Shared in Apartment Buildings and Residential Complexes? · Is It Mandatory to Contribute to Luxury Improvement Expenses? · Is Landscaping Considered a Luxury Expense? · Can Expenses Be Collected for Common Facilities Not Included in the Project?

15. Frequently Asked Questions

Is unanimity required to enclose a roof terrace, or is 4/5 sufficient?

The criterion is whether the work requires a change to the approved architectural project (an amendment project). If it does not, written consent of 4/5 under KMK Art. 19/2 is sufficient. If it does, the unanimous consent of all condominium owners and a municipality-approved amendment project are required. According to the General Assembly of Civil Chambers decision dated 18.01.2022, Art. 19/2 was enacted for simple repairs and alterations that do not require a substantial project amendment; substantial alterations require unanimity. Because roof-terrace enclosures create enclosed floor area and alter the roof form, in practice they almost always fall into the second category.

I collected signatures from 4/5 of the owners. Is my construction now legal?

No. 4/5 consent is a valid quorum only for work that is not contrary to the approved architectural project or zoning legislation. Work contrary to the project does not become lawful simply because 4/5 of the owners have signed; even if all owners agree, work prohibited by zoning legislation cannot be legalized by their consent.

One neighbor is refusing out of stubbornness. Can the court approve it in their place?

No. In its decision dated 22.09.2020, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers held that whether to give consent is entirely within the condominium owner’s discretion; even if the proposed work benefits all owners, the owner cannot be compelled, such refusal cannot be regarded as an abuse of rights, and the judge cannot substitute their will for the owner’s will.

Is enclosing the terrace with a glass-balcony system also subject to permission?

Yes. In the case law of the Court of Cassation, such systems are regarded as fixed structures. The fact that the material is glass or PVC, appears removable, does not affect the building’s structural system, or causes no harm to the surroundings does not change the result.

I obtained a municipal permit. Can it still be demolished?

Yes. A municipal permit may make the structure lawful under zoning law, but it does not replace the consent arising from the ownership rights of the other condominium owners. Under the settled case law of the Court of Cassation, 18th Civil Chamber, for an amendment project to be valid it must both be approved by the municipality and have the written consent of all independent-unit owners as of the approval date.

I have a Building Registration Certificate. Am I protected?

Only from an administrative-law perspective. A Building Registration Certificate may suspend enforcement of a demolition decision and an administrative fine concerning that structure; however, Provisional Article 16 of Law No. 3194 contains no provision excluding the application of the Condominium Ownership Law. The condominium owners’ right to seek restoration to the original condition continues.

I purchased the apartment with the terrace already enclosed. Am I responsible?

Under condominium ownership law, yes. The Court of Cassation holds that it is irrelevant who carried out the non-compliant work; the current owner has passive standing as the owner of the independent unit and is responsible for restoration to the original condition. Any right of recourse you may have against the seller under provisions governing defects must be assessed separately.

My neighbor enclosed the terrace. Can I file a lawsuit directly?

No. You must first apply to a mediator. Since 1 September 2023, mediation has been a mandatory precondition to filing suit in disputes arising from the Condominium Ownership Law. If mediation ends without agreement, an action may be filed with the final mediation record before the Civil Court of Peace at the location of the main property. As a condominium owner, you may file the action individually; no management decision is required.

Is an action concerning a terrace enclosure subject to a limitation period?

As long as the interference continues, claims for restoration to the original condition and prevention of interference are, as a rule, not time-barred. Claims for compensation for damage such as leakage are subject to tort limitation periods, while annulment of a condominium owners’ assembly decision is subject to the one-month/six-month periods under KMK Art. 33.

Will I receive a prison sentence if I enclose the terrace?

Not every enclosure constitutes a crime. For TCK Art. 184 to apply, the work must have the characteristics of a “building,” meaning that it creates additional floor area or affects the load-bearing system. Building a room on the terrace or removing the roof and adding a floor may fall within this scope, whereas simple glass-enclosure applications usually give rise only to administrative sanctions. In addition, under TCK Art. 184/5, if the structure is brought into compliance with the permit, the criminal proceedings are dismissed.

Water is leaking from the terrace into the floor below. From whom can I claim compensation?

If the leakage results from unauthorized work carried out on the terrace, compensation is sought from the owner who carried out or commissioned the work. If the leakage results from defective maintenance of the common-area waterproofing, the repair cost of the common area is borne by all condominium owners in proportion to their land shares. The distinction is clarified through an on-site inspection and expert examination.