Republic of Turkey
General Assembly Of Law
Base No: 2008/3-531
Decision No: 2008/531
Decision Date: 17.09.2008
Summary: the case is related to the claim of receivables arising from the joint expense of the site. Non-compliance; defendant site
it is collected at the point of whether the collective structure manager has a passive hostility driver’s license.
All independent department owners within the scope of the collective structure of the management plan site collective Board of directors
and a contract that binds the managers of parcels and blocks of the Council of representatives of the island and its managers
from the point of view of the management expense requested by the plaintiff, the defendant is the site collective structure manager
acceptance of passive hostility driving license within the scope of representation duty arising from the contract
it is mandatory.
(634 P. K. m. 35, 38, 74) (YHGK. 09.11.2000 T. 2000/13-1314 E. 2000/1606 K.)
At the end of the trial due to the receivables case between the parties; Antalya fourth First Instance Dec.
20.03.2007 days and 566-109 given by the Civil Court on the rejection of the case due to animosity
after the request of the attorney of the plaintiff to examine the numbered decision, the Third Law of the Supreme Court
29.11.2007 day and 19078-18095 of the department with the declaration; (…plaintiff P.S.A… Isl. Cooperative
Attorney general, plaintiff on a complaint filed by tax auditors over cooperative records
as a result of the examination, the defendant must be billed to the site management 30,572. 78 UAH of common expenses
if it is determined that it is not collected by invoicing, request the collection of this amount together with interest and
has prosecuted.
The defendant argued that the case was dismissed due to the absence of animosity, stating that there was no debtor,
the court does not have the adjective of the defendant management, the case must be opened against all floor owners
on the grounds that the case was dismissed from the absence of animosity, the verdict was sent by the acting plaintiff
The case is for buildings that are located on multiple parcels, although they are located within the same site
the plaintiff is related to the request for collection of joint expenses incurred by the cooperative from the site administration.
Since there is no legal possibility to establish condominiums on separate parcels, the floor of the uyusmazliga
The provisions of the Property Act cannot be applied. General provisions of non-compliance between the parties Dec.
it needs to be resolved in his apartment.
According to the current Land Registry in the file, the property under the direction of the defendant was established as a condominium,
It has the form of a site consisting of 746 independent sections. 46 unaffiliated sections on site at claimant Co-operative
Maliki According to the Tax Review Report; an invoice to the management of the site by the taxpayer
part of the management expense that should be paid is not billed and the income is incomplete is irregular
see, the site of general management expense of UAH 30.572, 78 for the period 01.01.2001-31.12.2001
it has been stated that it should be billed to management.
Because the Site is located on more than one parcel, condominium provisions cannot be applied in the case
also; economic and social development in our country and the rise and housing caused by the population increase
in order to meet its needs, collective structures built by cooperatives have begun to be used
it is a known fact. A facility reserved for the common use of owners in mass construction of this nature, and
heating, lighting, cleaning in the areas and maintenance of these places in a discipline,
as a result, it must be managed and cover management costs. Such structures
condominium law in disputes related to management, Civil Code related to collective ownership
it is not possible to implement the provisions or the law on cooperatives.
For this reason, especially in terms of the administration and the ability to be a party to the case, the legal void
failure to fill out means that all owners can sue together or the person who costs other
acceptance that you can sue Malik for recourse to leave the improprieties unresolved
it gives birth to the result. In the face of this situation, we provide for similar institutions and organizations in our laws
according to rights and Justice, procedural and litigation economics, using regulations through sampling,
he should not hesitate when a solution that provides social peace must be found in the collective structure.
The authority of the administration created in this way arising from the contract is as a representative on behalf of the owners
in order for them to use it, they do not have to form a legal entity for the reasons described.
In this case, in terms of administrative expenses requested by the plaintiff, the defendant management does not contract
as part of the resulting duty of representation, the driver’s license of the party in the case is adopted on the basis of work
entering and making a decision will be the most appropriate solution.
In this respect, the establishment of provision in written form without taking into account the principles described above
a re-trial, with a rejection instead of a file, broken on the grounds that it is not a hit…)
in the end, the court resisted the previous decision.
Appellant: acting plaintiff
After examining the law by the General Assembly, it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the period and
after reading the papers in the file, the need was discussed:
The lawsuit is related to the claim of receivables arising from the joint expense of the site.
The plaintiff is the president of the business cooperative; the defendant must pay UAH 30,572. 78 by the site management
claim that they were paid for no reason, that they were not wrongly billed to the defendant’s site management
he requested and sued the defendant to decide on the collection of this money along with the interest.
Defendant site collective structure management; the time of the case, themselves passive animosity
he did not have a driver’s license, the case should be opened to all floor owners, the case should be dismissed
the decision was made in response.
The decision to refuse by the court in terms of animosity; the defendant for the reasons described above by the Special Department
it was broken on the grounds that the site administration had a passive hostility driver’s license, the first by the Local Court
the decision was resisted.
Non-compliance; whether the defendant has a driver’s license for passive enmity of the site’s collective structure manager
it is collected at point.
The defendant site is located on more than one parcel and consists of 746 independent sections. Prosecutor
the Business Cooperative is also the owner of 46 independent sections on the site.
1 of the A… Site Management Plan given to the Land Registry Office. in the article; the site’s management plan
according to, 2. condominium ownership in cases where there is no provision in the management plan
Law, Civil Code and other related laws will apply, 3. Management Plan A…
All floor owners, floor easement owners, their heirs and independent
it will acquire a share of the land that is connected to the section or floor easement by sale, Bagis and other means Dec.
comply with all the provisions of the management plan of these sites
6 / E article; decisions of the Board of collective Building Floor owners, a … collective
All independent section (floor) owners, easement holders and
Article 7 / c-b-e;
floor owners who do not fulfill their debts and obligations related to floor ownership and their duty
because of the work covered by it, it will file a lawsuit representing floor owners against third parties, enforcement
in connection with the cancellation of the decisions of the board of flat owners, which it will follow, or its duty
other floor in lawsuits filed by floor owners or third parties due to covered works
he will represent his owners, the trial costs in this matter and the attorney’s fee from the common expenses
Article 8/c-b-e; floor that does not fulfill its obligations related to floor ownership
representing floor owners against their owners and third parties because of the work they are authorized to do
in connection with the cancellation of the decisions of the collective building floor owners board, or authorized to make a lawsuit
in cases filed by flat owners or third parties due to their work, the other floor
it will be provided to lawyers who will represent their owners, who are assigned to this case and follow-up
fees and legal costs are accepted.
35 of the condominium Law No. 634. in the article, while the duties of a manager are (I) in accordance with;
Litigation and enforcement proceedings against floor owners who do not fulfill their debts and obligations related to floor ownership
there is also a task to be done.
Condominium Law No. 634 was amended by Law No. 5711 dated 14.11.2007 and
some special provisions relating to collective structures have been introduced.
38. as amended in the article; Board of flat owners, board of representatives of the island or collective structure
to the manager representing the floor owners in their cases related to the cancellation of the decisions of the board of Representatives,
in structures, animosity towards the manager elected by the island Board of Representatives or the collective building Board of Representatives
it can be opened by managing the administrator’s case to all floor owners and islands or
if the board of Representatives announces the cancellation of the decisions of the board, the costs of the trial in this matter are common
expenses covered, 74. article; special provisions provided for in this section remain hidden
all provisions contained in this law, provided that they are also in kind or by comparison with collective structures
it has been announced that it will be implemented.
A collective site brought by modern city life with this amendment to the condominium law
it is aimed to eliminate the needs that arise in their construction.
Parties, the management plan of the nature of the contract and the independent owners of the Department specified here
providing the services in the best possible way, conducting business and operations related to the site from one hand,
a variety of services against each other to ensure the performance of services, the realization of common life goals
they’ve taken on acts.

In this case, all independent section owners within the scope of the collective structure of the management plan site bulk
a parcel of their representatives to the board of directors the board of managers for binding and block
since it is a contract; in terms of the administrative expense requested by the plaintiff, the defendant’s site is a collective structure
passive hostility under the representative duty of the manager arising from the contract
acceptance is mandatory.
The stable view of the Supreme Court is also in this line, and the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of law 09.11.2000 days
and 2000/13-1314-1606 Ad number; 08.11.2006 day and 2006/12-682-682 these principles in the numbered declaration
that has been adopted.
In this case, to comply with the decision to break the special circle adopted by the General Assembly of law
it is against procedure and the law to resist the previous decision. Therefore, the decision to resist
it must be broken.
Conclusion: with the acceptance of the appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney, the decision to resist is in the decision to break the special circle
and for the reasons shown above, Humk’s 429. if the substance deteriorates properly, the request
on 17.09.2008, it was unanimously decided that the appeal would be reinstated.

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir