T.C.
Supreme
18. Legal Department

Principal No: 2012/9381
Decision No: 2012/11154
K. Date: 15.10.2012

Once it was understood that the appeal request was within its duration, all the papers in the file were read and considered necessary:

In the petition filed by the plaintiff, the manager was elected at the floor owners board meeting held on 15.01.2011 and the 20th floor ownership law. claiming that it is essential to pay common expenses at the rate of land shares in accordance with the article, and that the defendants object to this, even though this has been implemented, and that they have made Management difficult due to the insistent attitude of the floor owners to receive fuel and other common expenses equally, the judge’s intervention has been requested in the dispute; with the acceptance of the case by the court, it was decided that the defendants should participate in the common expenses stated in Article 20/b of the condominium law at the rate of their share of the land.

20 Of The Condominium Act.in the article, each of the floor owners has arranged how much they will participate in joint expenses unless there is otherwise agreement between them, and according to this, the common expenses of the floor owners will be determined at the meeting of the floor owners board as well as the way of sharing expenses with the management plan can be determined, otherwise,the provisions of the clause apply. The floor owner who claims that the decision of the floor owners board is contrary to the management plan or the provisions of the law may file an annulment suit against the floor owners board decision regarding common expenses. Therefore, while the case should be dismissed, the floor owners will be replaced and the management plan ignored and the condominium law 20.the decision on the apportionment of common expenses according to the article was not considered correct.

In this respect, without taking into account the principles described above, the provision in written form is without hit, the appeal appeals are in place for these reasons, with the acceptance of the provision Humk’s 428.it was decided unanimously on the day of 15.10.2012 that the application fee will be refunded to the appellant in case of request.