How to Challenge a Condominium Meeting Decision in Turkey: Article 33 Guide for Foreign Owners

What does Condominium Law Article 33 allow?

Condominium Law No. 634 Article 33 is the principal judicial remedy against resolutions of the condominium owners’ assembly. It recognizes an annulment action for owners who satisfy the statutory conditions and places the dispute before the civil court of peace at the location of the main property.

The remedy matters for foreign owners because a resolution can bind an owner even when that owner lives abroad, does not use the apartment regularly or disagrees with the management. Article 32 states that the main property is managed according to decisions of the owners’ assembly taken under the contract, management plan and law, and that the owners, their universal and specific successors, manager and auditors must comply with the resolutions. A person who wants to escape the binding effect of an unlawful resolution therefore needs to use the statutory challenge mechanism rather than simply ignore the decision.

Article 33 is not a general right to ask the court whether a resolution was a good business choice. The legal issue is whether the decision violates the Condominium Law, the binding management plan, mandatory rules or other applicable law, or whether the meeting and decision procedure contains a defect that justifies judicial intervention.

Who can file an annulment action?

Article 33 distinguishes between owners who attended the meeting and owners who did not attend.

An owner who attended the meeting can sue if the owner voted against the resolution in the manner contemplated by Article 32. Article 32 requires decisions to be entered in the notarized decision book and signed by the owners present; an owner voting against the decision signs while stating the reason for the dissent. For that reason, an attending owner who intends to challenge a resolution should make the objection explicit and ensure it is reflected in the minutes.

An owner who did not attend the meeting may also sue. The deadline is then tied to the date on which the owner learned of the resolution, subject to the six-month statutory long-stop period from the decision date.

A foreign owner represented by a proxy is treated through the acts performed by the representative within the authorization. If the proxy attends and votes, the attendance list, proxy document and minutes become important evidence in determining the procedural position. A representative should therefore follow written voting instructions and record dissent accurately.

The Article 33 deadlines: one month and six months

The ordinary annulment periods are strict. Article 33 provides three time references:

These periods make delay dangerous for non-resident owners. If a management decision concerns a large renovation contribution, manager appointment, use of common areas or another disputed matter, an owner abroad should not wait until the next visit to Turkey to request the minutes. The legal review should begin when the resolution is learned.

The date of knowledge can itself become disputed. Email, messaging records, registered notices, delivery evidence and correspondence with the manager may be relevant. A foreign owner who receives the resolution should preserve the message showing when it was sent and received.

Where the owner attended, the decision date is normally clear from the meeting minutes. The one-month period does not wait for a later invoice or enforcement notice merely because the economic effect of the resolution is felt later.

When do the time limits not apply? Non-existence and absolute nullity

Article 33 expressly states that the time condition does not apply where an owners’ assembly decision is considered legally non-existent or absolutely null and void. This is a major distinction.

Not every procedural mistake is a case of non-existence or absolute nullity. Many defects make a decision annulable, which means the owner must act within the ordinary Article 33 periods. The legal classification depends on the nature of the rule violated, the content of the resolution and whether a legally recognizable assembly decision came into existence.

For example, dissatisfaction with an amount of spending does not itself produce absolute nullity. Likewise, a notice defect, quorum problem, proxy defect or voting irregularity must be analyzed in context; the consequence depends on the statutory rule and whether the defect is legally material to the resolution.

Because the difference determines whether the one-month/six-month system applies, owners should not self-classify a late dispute as “void” in order to avoid the statutory periods. The safer course is to assume the shortest applicable period until a legal review establishes otherwise.

Common legal grounds for challenging an owners’ assembly decision

A challenge must be tied to a concrete rule. Common categories include the following.

1. Meeting call defects under Article 29

Article 29 governs annual and extraordinary meetings. Extraordinary meetings based on an important reason require the statutory request and call process, including notice at least 15 days before the requested meeting date and disclosure of the reason. The first call must also state the place and date of the second meeting if the first meeting lacks quorum, and the interval between the first and second meetings cannot be less than seven days.

A challenge based on notice should identify the applicable type of meeting, the management-plan provisions, how and when the call was made, and whether the alleged defect affected participation.

2. Quorum defects under Article 30

At the first meeting, Article 30 requires more than half of the owners both by number and by land share. If that quorum is not achieved, the second meeting is held no later than 15 days later and ordinary decisions are taken by the absolute majority of attendees. Special majority provisions elsewhere in the Condominium Law remain reserved.

A resolution requiring a special statutory majority cannot be validated merely by calling it an ordinary second-meeting decision. The subject matter must be matched to the specific majority rule.

3. Voting and proxy defects under Article 31

Article 31 gives one vote per independent unit regardless of land share, limits a multi-unit owner’s total voting power to one third of all votes, regulates co-owned units, excludes voting on decisions directly concerning the owner, and limits proxy concentration. In larger condominiums one proxy holder cannot exercise more than 5% of all votes; in properties with 40 or fewer units one person may represent at most two owners.

Our separate guide on proxy voting at Turkish condominium meetings explains these limits in detail.

4. Violation of the management plan

Article 28 treats the management plan as a binding contract for owners, successors, manager and auditors, subject to mandatory law. If the assembly takes a decision contrary to a valid management-plan provision, the conflict must be analyzed together with the statutory hierarchy. An owners’ assembly cannot use an ordinary resolution to bypass a rule that requires amendment of the management plan or a special statutory majority.

5. A decision beyond the assembly’s lawful authority

The owners’ assembly has extensive management authority, but it is not unlimited. Decisions must comply with the Condominium Law, property rights, mandatory provisions and the management plan. A resolution that purports to eliminate an owner’s statutory right without legal basis can be challenged.

6. Failure to satisfy a special majority

Different provisions of Law No. 634 use different majorities for particular acts. A decision concerning useful innovations, very costly or luxury additions, adding an independent unit, important dispositions, management-plan amendments or other specified matters may require more than the ordinary Article 30 majority. The precise article governing the subject must be identified before calculating whether the vote passed.

What documents should a foreign owner obtain before challenging the decision?

A court challenge should be built from the official record, not from screenshots alone. The core file normally includes:

• the current title deed or ownership record showing the claimant’s unit;
• the registered management plan and relevant amendments;
• the meeting call, agenda and proof of service;
• the attendance list;
• proxy documents used at the meeting;
• the signed owners’ assembly minutes;
• the notarized decision-book entry;
• the operating budget or project if the dispute concerns aidat or spending;
• supporting invoices, contracts or quotations where relevant;
• emails, messages or notices proving when an absent owner learned of the decision;
• documents showing the number of independent units and land shares where quorum is disputed.

Article 32 and Article 36 give particular importance to the decision book and management records. The manager must keep specified records and documents. A foreign owner should request copies immediately rather than rely on an informal summary supplied by a tenant or realtor.

Mandatory mediation before a condominium-law lawsuit

Since 1 September 2023, Law No. 6325 Article 18/B(1)(c) requires an application to mediation as a condition for filing lawsuits concerning disputes arising from Condominium Law No. 634.

This procedural condition does not erase the substantive urgency created by Article 33. The owner must manage the mediation process and the statutory challenge periods together. Waiting until the last days of the one-month period before seeking advice creates unnecessary risk.

The application should identify the disputed resolution precisely: meeting date, resolution number or agenda item, the legal defect alleged and the requested outcome. A settlement may sometimes resolve the issue without court proceedings, but if no settlement is reached the final mediation record becomes part of the procedural file required for litigation.

A lawyer can represent a foreign owner in mediation when the power of attorney contains the required authority. The owner generally does not need to travel to Turkey solely to make the mediation application.

Which court hears the case?

Article 33 designates the civil court of peace (Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi) at the place where the main property is located. This is a specific jurisdictional rule tied to the condominium.

Accordingly, an owner of an apartment in Mersin brings the Article 33 claim in the competent civil court of peace for the location of that property; an apartment in Antalya, Istanbul, Muğla or another city is handled in the corresponding local court system. The foreign owner’s residence abroad does not transfer the case to a court abroad.

The claim should identify the resolution sought to be annulled and explain the statutory ground with evidence. Where several resolutions were taken at one meeting, the pleading should distinguish which decisions are challenged and why.

Can a foreign owner challenge the decision without coming to Turkey?

Yes. A non-resident owner can usually conduct document review, mandatory mediation and litigation through a Turkish lawyer under a valid power of attorney. The power should contain the authorities required for representation, mediation, litigation, settlement where intended, service and procedural acts.

A power issued before a Turkish consulate abroad can generally be used in Turkey without a separate apostille. A power issued before a foreign notary may require apostille or consular legalization and a certified Turkish translation depending on the issuing country and applicable treaty.

See our detailed guides on power of attorney for a lawyer in Turkey from abroad and apostille and certified translation.

Practical strategy: challenge the resolution, not the entire relationship

Condominium disputes often continue for years because the parties turn one resolution into a general conflict with management. A focused Article 33 case is stronger when the legal defect is defined narrowly.

First, identify the exact resolution. Second, identify the statutory rule breached. Third, calculate the vote again after excluding any unlawful proxy or conflicted vote if relevant. Fourth, determine whether the defect changed the outcome or violated a mandatory rule. Fifth, preserve the deadline and complete mediation.

If the dispute concerns common charges rather than the validity of the resolution itself, review our separate guide on aidat and common expenses for foreign property owners. A challenge to a budget resolution and a defense against an enforcement claim for unpaid aidat may involve connected but procedurally distinct issues.

Do not stop paying every common expense merely because one resolution is disputed. Article 20 imposes statutory obligations and monthly 5% delay compensation for unpaid lawful expense and advance shares. The disputed and undisputed components should be separated.

Immediate checklist after learning of a disputed resolution

1. Record the date you learned of the decision. Preserve the email, message or delivery proof.
2. Request the signed minutes immediately. Do not rely on an oral summary.
3. Obtain the management plan. Compare the resolution with its binding rules.
4. Check meeting notice and quorum. Apply Articles 29 and 30 to the actual meeting type.
5. Audit voting rights and proxies. Apply Article 31 limits and recalculate the result if necessary.
6. Identify any special statutory majority. Ordinary majority is not enough for every subject.
7. Classify the defect carefully. Annulability, non-existence and absolute nullity have different time consequences.
8. Start mediation without delay. Condominium-law litigation falls within Article 18/B of Law No. 6325.
9. Prepare foreign representation documents. If you are abroad, arrange the power of attorney early.
10. File in the correct civil court of peace. Article 33 ties jurisdiction to the location of the main property.

Official legal sources

• Condominium Law No. 634 — especially Articles 28–33 and the special-majority provisions applicable to the disputed subject.
• Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes — Article 18/B.
• Law No. 5711 — amendments establishing the current Article 33 challenge periods.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a foreign owner sue to cancel a condominium decision in Turkey?

Yes. Foreign nationality does not prevent an owner from using the Article 33 annulment remedy. The owner must satisfy the same statutory standing and time conditions.

How long does an owner who attended the meeting have?

An owner who attended and cast a dissenting vote has one month from the decision date to bring the ordinary annulment action.

How long does an absent owner have?

An absent owner has one month from learning of the resolution, but in any event the ordinary action is subject to the six-month period from the decision date.

Is there always a six-month deadline?

No. Article 33 states that no time condition applies where the resolution is legally non-existent or absolutely null and void. That exception must be legally established; it should not be assumed merely because the owner believes the decision is serious.

Which court is competent?

The civil court of peace at the location of the main property has jurisdiction under Article 33.

Do I have to mediate before filing the lawsuit?

For lawsuits concerning disputes arising from Condominium Law No. 634, Law No. 6325 Article 18/B makes mediation a condition of filing suit.

Can a meeting decision be challenged for invalid proxies?

Yes, proxy violations under Article 31 can be a relevant challenge ground. The total votes, proxy cap, voting result and applicable majority must be calculated to determine the legal effect.

Can I challenge a decision because I did not receive notice?

A notice defect may support a challenge depending on the type of meeting, Article 29, the management plan and the material effect of the defect. Extraordinary meetings have express statutory notice requirements.

Does filing a challenge automatically stop the aidat obligation?

No. A challenge to a resolution does not automatically erase all common-expense duties. Article 20 obligations and any specific interim relief must be analyzed separately.

Can I bring the case from abroad through a lawyer?

Yes. With a valid power of attorney covering the required procedural acts, a Turkish lawyer can handle the mediation and court process while the owner remains abroad.

What records are most important?

The management plan, meeting call, agenda, attendance list, proxy forms, signed minutes, decision-book entry and documents proving when an absent owner learned of the decision are central.

Conclusion

Article 33 gives foreign and Turkish condominium owners a precise remedy against unlawful assembly resolutions, but the remedy is time-sensitive. An attending dissenting owner has one month from the decision date; an absent owner has one month from learning of the decision and ordinarily no more than six months from the decision date. Only non-existent or absolutely void resolutions fall outside that time condition.

The correct response to a disputed resolution is therefore documentary and procedural: obtain the minutes, management plan and voting records, identify the violated article, preserve the deadline, complete mandatory mediation and proceed in the civil court of peace at the property’s location. For an owner abroad, all of those steps can be organized through properly authorized Turkish counsel without waiting for the next trip to Turkey.