Introduction

In collective living areas such as sites and apartment buildings, the subsequent addition of social facilities like playgrounds, artificial turf pitches, and swimming pools to common areas frequently comes up due to unit owners’ desire to improve their quality of life. However, the construction of such facilities can lead to debates regarding both cost sharing and issues such as noise, security, and usage rights.

Under the Condominium Law, the required voting ratio for additions to common areas is important in terms of the rights and obligations of property owners. This article, in line with the latest decisions of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) and the Council of State (Danıştay), details the majority or unanimous voting requirements for the subsequent addition of facilities like artificial turf pitches, children’s playgrounds, and swimming pools to common areas of sites or apartment buildings, as well as the legal objection rights of owners who do not agree with these decisions, and the situation of tenants.

1. Decision-Making Processes and Required Vote Ratios for Additions to Common Areas

Judicial decisions stipulate strict rules for significant and permanent additions to common areas. These additions are considered a “facility” or “construction” that alters the nature of the common area, rather than a simple repair or a useful accessory. This distinction directly affects the applicable Condominium Law (KMK) article and, consequently, the vote ratio.

Dominance of the 4/5 Rule: The vast majority of the examined decisions refer to Article 19/2 of the Condominium Law (KMK) for facilities such as astroturf pitches and swimming pools. This situation was clearly stated in a decision by the 18th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals: “Unless four-fifths of all condominium owners consent, one of the condominium owners is prohibited from carrying out repairs, installations, and exterior painting or whitewashing in a different color in the common areas of the main immovable property.” (Supreme Court of Appeals 18th Civil Chamber -2013/19532-2014/1814). This rule not only prevents a condominium owner from acting arbitrarily but also guarantees that the management cannot undertake such a project without a sufficient majority. Decisions made without securing the required majority can even be considered “null and void.”

Cases Requiring Unanimity: If the addition to be made is of a nature that will change the architectural project of the building, the voting rate exceeds 4/5 and turns into unanimity. The General Assembly of the Court of Cassation explained this situation as follows: “if the addition to be made is of a nature that will disrupt the “architectural condition” of the main immovable property and create a “violation of the approved architectural project,” such changes are only possible “with a unanimous decision made by all floor owners.”” (Court of Cassation General Assembly of Law-2017/1996-2022/5). Similarly, the exclusive allocation of a pool, which is a common area, to a specific floor owner also requires unanimity (Court of Cassation 20th Civil Chamber-2017/1708-2017/6501).

Priority of the Management Plan: The management plan, which is a contract between the floor owners, may impose stricter conditions than the law. For example, a provision of the management plan referenced in a Court of Cassation decision is as follows: “that Article 8/e of the management plan states ‘no floor owner may commence construction, installation, painting, or alterations for themselves in common areas without the written consent of all members of the board of floor owners…'” (Court of Cassation 5th Civil Chamber-2024/8778-2025/3062). In this case, even the 4/5 majority required by law will be insufficient, and unanimity will be sought.

2. Rights of Floor Owners Objecting to Decisions and the Status of Tenants

Floor owners are under legal protection against decisions made contrary to the law or the management plan.

Right to Sue and Grounds: Every flat owner who attended the meeting and lodged a dissenting opinion, or who did not attend the meeting at all, can file a lawsuit for the annulment of the decision within specific periods after the decision’s notification, in the Civil Court of Peace. As stated in the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, courts must issue annulment decisions when the quorum for the decision is not met: “whereas the decisions taken at the meeting should have been annulled on the grounds that the quorum required by Articles … and 42 of the Condominium Law was not met, it was not deemed correct to reject the case in written form” (Supreme Court 20. Civil Chamber-2018/409-2018/3162). The grounds for the lawsuit are not limited to the voting ratio but can also include situations such as improper meeting invitations or non-compliance with zoning regulations.

Tenant’s Position: The point consistently emphasized in all examined decisions, without exception, is that the tenant does not have the right to directly sue against the decisions of the flat owners’ board. Since the tenant does not possess property rights, they are not a party in the management processes. However, this does not mean they are completely unprotected. If the tenant believes that their rights arising from the lease agreement (e.g., difficulty using the dwelling due to noise) have been violated due to additions made, they can inform the flat owner and request them to file a lawsuit, or assert their own contractual rights against the property owner.

3. Approach of the Courts and Application of Legislation

Courts conduct a meticulous examination of both formal and substantive aspects in such disputes.

Expert Examination and Project Compliance: Expert reports play a key role in resolving disputes. Courts, “by obtaining the architectural project of the main immovable and the site plan, if any, and having an on-site examination carried out by an expert knowledgeable in these matters” (Supreme Court 18th Civil Chamber-2011/4915-2011/9120) determine the nature of the addition, whether it constitutes a violation of the project, and whether it will harm the existing structure. It is decided that constructions made contrary to the project and without the necessary majority should be removed and restored to their original state.

Compliance with Zoning Legislation: Even if the addition to be made obtains the consent of all apartment owners, it must comply with zoning legislation. As stated by the Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers, “provisions related to zoning legislation are part of public order” and an agreement contrary to these rules cannot be considered valid. Decisions of the Council of State also emphasize that these additions must be compatible with zoning plans and regulations.

Sharing of Expenses: Article 43 of the Condominium Law (KMK) introduces an important regulation for costly additions. If the addition is not in a place that all apartment owners are required to use, “apartment owners who do not wish to benefit from them are not obliged to contribute to the expense [k zorunda değildir]. The expenses for such innovations and additions shall be paid by the apartment owners who decided to have them made” (Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber-2019/5205-2020/1427). This provision also financially protects apartment owners who oppose the projects.

Conclusion

Adding features that add value to the common areas of complex buildings, such as astroturf pitches, playgrounds, and swimming pools, but also carry a burden and potential for conflict, is not just a simple management decision; it is a legal process bound by strict legal rules. The judicial decisions examined show that the courts strictly apply the rule of a 4/5 qualified majority required by the Condominium Law, especially for modifications in common areas that are considered “installations” and “constructions”. For more radical changes that alter the architectural project or privatize a common area for one person, however, unanimity is required.

In this process, the provisions of the Management Plan are as binding as the law. Condominium owners who oppose the decisions can effectively protect their rights by resorting to legal action in cases of non-compliance with the law and procedure. Tenants, however, do not have a direct role in this process.

In conclusion, it is critically important for site managements and condominium owners, before implementing such projects, to carefully examine the Management Plan and the relevant articles of the Condominium Law (KMK), correctly determine the nature of the addition, ensure the required vote ratio, and conduct the entire process transparently, in order to prevent lengthy and costly legal disputes that may arise in the future. Seeking legal advice when necessary is strongly recommended. An article suggestion.

Why is Tuzla Lawyer Support Necessary?

The addition of facilities such as a football field, children’s playground, or swimming pool to the common areas of apartments or residential complexes is subject to the strict voting ratio rules and architectural project limitations specified in the Condominium Law. Even the smallest procedural error or incorrect assessment made during these processes can lead to the cancellation of decisions made, the demolition of the constructed structure, and significant financial losses.

Especially in regions experiencing rapid urbanization and with numerous residential complexes/apartments, such as Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Gebze, and Çayırova, disputes regarding the addition of such social facilities are increasing. Therefore, working with a Tuzla lawyer who is well-versed in the region and its practices is of great importance for both protecting the rights of property owners and ensuring the site management acts correctly on legal grounds.

An expert condominium lawyer in Tuzla can secure the process regarding the following issues: Correct determination of the voting ratio (is it 4/5 or unanimity?), Interpretation of the binding provisions of the management plan, Evaluation of the right to sue of owners who did not participate in the decision, Preliminary examination of the project in terms of zoning and construction legislation, Preventive legal audit against potential cancellation and compensation lawsuits in the future. Consequently, in regions experiencing similar building density, especially Tuzla, acting without legal support on sensitive issues such as the addition of social facilities can lead to serious risks. Therefore, starting the process with the accompaniment of a Tuzla expert lawyer ensures that potential disputes are prevented and the entire process is conducted in accordance with the law.