TC
Supreme
Law Office
Decision No: 2012/9381
Decision No: 2012/11154
Date: 15.10.2012
Upon determining that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit, all documents in the file were reviewed and the necessary examinations were conducted:
The plaintiff stated in the petition that he was elected as manager at the meeting of the condominium owners held on 15.01.2011, that according to Article 20 of the Condominium Law, common expenses are to be paid in proportion to the land shares, Despite this provision, the defendants objected, claiming that the plaintiffs’ insistence on equal distribution of heating and other common expenses among the condominium owners made management difficult. They requested the court’s intervention in the dispute arising from non-compliance with the common expense shares. Upon acceptance of the case by the court, it was decided that the defendants should contribute to the common expenses in proportion to their shares, as specified in Article 20/b of the Condominium Law.
Article 20 of the Condominium Law stipulates that, unless there is an agreement among the condominium owners, how each condominium owner will be brought together by a separate condominium association and, accordingly, how common expenses will be shared at the condominium management board meeting may be determined according to the management plan; otherwise, the provisions of Article 20 of the Condominium Law shall apply. An apartment owner who claims that the decision of the apartment owners’ committee is contrary to the management plan or the provisions of the law may,
The owners of the units may file a lawsuit to annul the decision of the owners’ committee regarding common expenses. Therefore, while the lawsuit should be dismissed, the will of the owners of the deck crew should be carried out, the management plan should not be taken into account, and the amendment to Article 20 of the Condominium Law should be applied. According to the article, it is not considered correct to decide on the distribution of common expenses.
Without taking into account the principles explained above, the written ruling is invalid as of this moment, and for these reasons, the appeal is open, and it has been decided to accept the ruling in accordance with Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to the article, it was unanimously decided on October 15, 2012, to REVERSE the ruling and to refund the appeal advance to the plaintiff upon his request.