Forced Transfer of a Condominium Unit in Turkey: Article 25 Guide for Foreign Owners

Why Article 25 is an exceptional ownership remedy

Article 25 is one of the strongest remedies in the Turkish Condominium Law because it can result in an owner losing title to the independent unit against that owner’s will. It is therefore fundamentally different from an ordinary claim for unpaid maintenance fees, a request to stop a nuisance, or an action to cancel an owners’ assembly decision.

The legal purpose is to address a breakdown in condominium life so serious that the defaulting owner’s conduct makes the continued exercise of the other owners’ rights intolerable. The statutory remedy does not confiscate the apartment without compensation. If the action succeeds, the owner is paid the value of the unit under the procedure in Article 25.

Foreign owners should understand both sides of the rule. A non-resident owner who ignores repeated common-expense proceedings cannot assume that the only risk is accumulated debt. Conversely, owners facing a difficult neighbour cannot use Article 25 merely because relations are poor. The statutory conditions must be established.

The general test: intolerable violation of other owners’ rights

The first paragraph of Article 25 applies where an owner fails to perform the duties and obligations imposed by the Condominium Law and thereby infringes the rights of the other owners to such a degree that the situation becomes intolerable for them.

This general clause requires a direct connection between a legal duty under the condominium regime and the serious infringement alleged. Mere personal dislike, a single minor disagreement or conduct unrelated to condominium obligations does not satisfy the statutory wording by itself.

The underlying duties can arise from provisions such as Article 18’s duty not to disturb other owners or violate their rights, Article 19’s protection of the building and common areas, Article 20’s common-expense obligations, and valid management-plan duties.

Evidence must show the seriousness and persistence of the conduct. Written notices, meeting minutes, enforcement records, court orders, photographs, technical reports and other contemporaneous evidence can become decisive.

The three situations where Article 25 presumes intolerability

Article 25 removes uncertainty in three defined situations by stating that the intolerability described in the first paragraph is deemed to exist.

1. Three proceedings within two calendar years for unpaid common expenses or advances

The first statutory presumption applies where the owner causes three enforcement or court proceedings within two calendar years because the owner did not pay the share of common expenses and advances due.

This provision is more specific than simply having an outstanding balance. The statute counts enforcement or court proceedings triggered by non-payment. The relevant two-calendar-year period and the number of proceedings should be documented precisely.

Article 20 separately authorizes collection of unpaid common expenses and imposes monthly 5% delay compensation. Article 25 adds a possible ownership consequence only when its special pattern is established.

2. Continuing violation for one year despite an Article 33 court order

The second presumption applies where the civil court of peace has issued an order under Article 33 and the owner nevertheless continues for one year to violate the rights of the other owners by failing to perform obligations under the Condominium Law.

The existence and content of the prior Article 33 order are therefore critical. A management warning is not the same thing as the statutory court order described in Article 25(b).

3. Specified immoral use of the independent unit

The third presumption uses the statute’s own wording: using the independent unit as a brothel, gambling house or similar place in a manner contrary to morals. This is a specific legal category and should not be expanded casually to conduct that neighbours simply disapprove of.

If the alleged use falls outside the expressly listed or genuinely similar category, the general first-paragraph intolerability test may still be considered where statutory duties are seriously breached, but the automatic presumption should not be asserted without a legal basis.

What decision must the other owners take before suing?

The current second paragraph of Article 25, amended in 2007, provides that the action for compulsory transfer is, unless otherwise agreed, dependent on a decision by the other condominium owners by a majority both by number and by land share.

This dual majority should be calculated using the owners entitled to participate under the condominium regime. The resolution should identify the defendant owner, the independent unit, the Article 25 ground, the supporting facts and the decision to bring the transfer action.

If some owners do not wish to join the case despite the decision, the remaining owners may bring the action. If the case succeeds, the unit is transferred to the claimant owners in proportion to their land shares as stated in Article 25.

The voting stage should not be confused with an ordinary Article 33 annulment vote or an Article 42 improvement vote. The legal consequence is ownership transfer, so the meeting record and voting calculation should be prepared with particular care.

How is the compensation for the unit calculated and paid?

Article 25 does not allow the claimant owners to take the unit for free. The current statute requires payment of the value of the independent unit determined as close as possible to the judgment date.

Before judgment, the court gives the claimant owners an appropriate period, determined by the court on its own initiative, to deposit the transfer price into a bank account with three-month maturity for later payment to the rightful person and to submit the deposit receipt.

If the amount is deposited in time and the action is accepted, the court orders transfer of the defendant’s ownership to the claimant owners in proportion to their land shares and payment of the transfer price to the defendant together with the interest that has accrued under the statutory mechanism.

This means an Article 25 claim requires financial preparation. Owners should not vote to sue without understanding that they may need to fund the court-determined property value before judgment.

Article 25 time limits: six months and five years

The fourth paragraph of Article 25 sets rights-loss periods. The action right is lost if it is not exercised within six months from learning of the owners’ decision to bring the transfer action and, in any event, within five years from the accrual of the right of action. The statute also provides that the action right is lost if the cause of action disappears.

The 2007 amendment is important because older summaries sometimes describe the six-month period as running from learning the underlying misconduct. The current statutory text links the six-month period to learning the owners’ decision to bring the transfer action.

Both claimant and defendant owners should preserve evidence showing the meeting date, notice of the decision and the chronology of the alleged Article 25 ground.

Which court hears an Article 25 action?

Disputes arising from Condominium Law No. 634 fall within the statutory jurisdiction of the civil court of peace. The court at the location of the main property is the relevant forum under the Condominium Law structure.

Before a lawsuit within the statutory scope, Law No. 6325 Article 18/B also requires mandatory mediation for disputes arising from the Condominium Law. The pre-action mediation requirement must be handled together with Article 25’s specific rights-loss periods.

The case file typically requires the title record, management plan, owners’ assembly resolution, voting record, the evidence establishing the Article 25 ground, prior enforcement/court files where relied upon, service records and property valuation evidence.

How can an owner defend against a compulsory-transfer claim?

A defence should address the exact statutory route relied upon. If the claim is based on unpaid common expenses, examine whether there were in fact three qualifying enforcement or court proceedings within two calendar years and whether the debts were legally due.

If the claim relies on Article 25(b), examine the prior Article 33 court order, service, the one-year period and whether the alleged violation actually continued despite that order.

If the claim relies on a general intolerability allegation rather than a statutory presumption, the defendant can dispute the existence, severity, duration and causal connection of the alleged breach.

The owners’ decision itself should also be reviewed: was the required number-and-land-share majority obtained, was the meeting validly convened, and was the action filed within Article 25’s specific periods?

Finally, the statute states that the right falls if the cause of action disappears. Whether a cause has legally disappeared is a fact-specific question, but the statutory rule must be considered rather than assuming that every historical breach permanently supports transfer.

Can repeated unpaid aidat really lead to loss of the apartment?

Article 25 expressly creates that possibility in the defined circumstances. If an owner causes three enforcement or court proceedings within two calendar years because of unpaid common expenses or advances, the statute presumes the intolerability required by Article 25.

This does not mean a single late monthly payment triggers forced transfer. Nor does it mean management can transfer title administratively. The other owners must follow Article 25’s decision and court process, and the owner is paid the unit’s value if the action succeeds.

For non-resident owners, the practical risk is missed communication. An apartment that is rarely visited can accumulate management debt and legal notices. Our detailed guide on aidat in Turkey for foreign property owners explains Article 20, the monthly 5% delay compensation and enforcement framework.

What should a foreign owner living abroad do?

Maintain a reliable system for management notices and official service. Ask management for periodic account statements rather than waiting for a physical notice at the apartment.

If you receive an owners’ assembly notice proposing an Article 25 action, obtain the complete meeting file and the underlying enforcement or court records immediately. The statutory periods and the seriousness of the remedy make delay particularly risky.

A Turkish lawyer can review the records, represent the owner in mandatory mediation and litigation, and address related enforcement files under an appropriate power of attorney. See our guide on issuing a power of attorney from abroad.

Article 25 checklist

1. Identify the exact statutory ground. General intolerability or one of the three presumptions?
2. For aidat, count proceedings—not merely invoices. Confirm three court/enforcement proceedings within two calendar years.
3. For continuing breaches, obtain the Article 33 order. Check the one-year persistence requirement.
4. Verify the owners’ decision. Article 25 uses a majority by both number and land share unless otherwise agreed.
5. Check notice and voting records. Preserve proof of when the transfer-action decision was learned.
6. Calculate the six-month and five-year periods immediately. Do not use Article 33’s different annulment timetable by mistake.
7. Assess whether the cause still exists. Article 25 states that the right falls if the cause disappears.
8. Prepare for property valuation. The relevant value is determined as close as possible to judgment.
9. Prepare funding if you are a claimant owner. The court can require the transfer amount to be deposited before judgment.
10. Complete mandatory mediation where applicable. Condominium-law disputes fall under Law No. 6325 Article 18/B.

Official legal sources

• Condominium Law No. 634 — especially Articles 18, 20, 25 and 33.
• Law No. 5711 — Article 12, which amended Article 25’s transfer-price procedure and time rule.
• Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes — Article 18/B.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can condominium owners force another owner to sell an apartment in Turkey?

Only through the exceptional Article 25 court procedure when the statutory conditions are met. Management cannot simply vote to confiscate or sell the unit.

Does the owner receive money for the unit?

Yes. Article 25 requires payment of the unit’s value determined as close as possible to the judgment date, using the statutory deposit and payment procedure.

What majority is needed to bring the Article 25 action?

Unless otherwise agreed, the other owners must decide by a majority both by number and by land share.

Can unpaid maintenance fees trigger Article 25?

Yes, if non-payment causes three enforcement or court proceedings within two calendar years. Article 25 then presumes intolerability.

Is one enforcement proceeding enough?

No for the specific Article 25(a) presumption. That paragraph requires three proceedings within two calendar years.

What if an owner ignores a court order?

Article 25(b) presumes intolerability where the owner persists for one year in violating the other owners’ rights by failing to perform statutory duties despite an Article 33 order from the civil court of peace.

What are the time limits?

The action right is subject to six months from learning the owners’ decision to sue and in any event five years from accrual of the right; it also ends if the cause disappears.

Does Article 33’s one-month deadline apply to the Article 25 transfer action?

No. Article 25 contains its own specific six-month/five-year rule for the transfer action. A separate challenge to an owners’ assembly decision may involve a different analysis.

Can a foreign owner lose the unit under Article 25?

Foreign nationality does not create an exemption. The same statutory conditions apply to an owner who lives abroad.

Can I defend the case from abroad?

Yes. With a valid power of attorney, Turkish counsel can review the meeting and enforcement records, conduct mediation and represent the owner in court.

Conclusion

Article 25 is a last-resort ownership remedy for severe condominium breaches, not an ordinary management tool. It requires intolerable infringement of the other owners’ rights and provides specific presumptions for repeated common-expense proceedings, one-year persistence despite a court order, and specified immoral use.

The process also protects the defendant’s property value: the unit is not taken without payment, and the current statute bases compensation on value close to the judgment date. Because the action combines strict voting rules, rights-loss periods, substantial evidence and a compulsory transfer of title, both claimant and defendant owners should treat an Article 25 resolution as an immediate legal matter rather than a routine neighbour dispute.