According to Article 38 of the Property Ownership Law, the manager is responsible for the floor owners as an attorney and is obliged to account for the floor owners according to article 39 of the same law.

The acquittal of the manager by the floor owners board does not relieve him from the responsibility for damages caused to the floor owners due to his irregular expenses and embezzlement funds.

This issue is emphasized in the following Supreme Court decision.

1.General rule:

Article 38 – The manager is responsible as a proxy against the floor owners. (Additional paragraph: 14/11 / 2007-5711 / 19 md.) The cases related to the annulment of the decisions of the floor owners board, the representatives of the board of representatives of the council or the representatives of the collective structure, the manager representing the floor owners, the representatives of the board of representatives or the representatives of the collective structure may be opened by directing hostility to the manager. The manager shall announce the case to all floor owners and to the island or collective structure representatives board. In case of cancellation of the decision of the Board, the legal expenses related to this matter shall be covered from common expenses.

Account:
Article 39 – The Manager shall be obliged to submit to the floor owners board within the first month of each calendar year, in the time written in the management plan, if such a time is not written, to the account of the revenues and expenses incurred until such time as the main real estate. If half of the floor owners wish, they can be asked from the manager to show the account, regardless of their land shares, even if they are written in the management plan.

JUDGMENT DECISION

After it was understood that the appeal was within the deadline, all the papers in the file were read and considered:
In his petition, the representative of the plaintiff requested the cancellation of the decisions taken in the ordinary meeting of the floor owners board on 07.01.2012; as a result of the investigation conducted by the court of experts, meeting and decision quorum, discussion of the agenda items, voting and attorney participation in the annotation of fees and fees paid in the management plan and an unlawful situation, but the management and audit committee to be sent by the expert adviser examination; For the year 2010, there is a notarized business book for the notarized income-register, and if there is a notarized business book for 2011, the income pages are corrupt irregular and some of them are empty and the 2011 income cannot be determined. because of the fact that the required stock of 866,81 TL is not shown due to the fact that this amount is left on the former administrator, it is decided to cancel the decision regarding this issue and the cancellation of the consent because of the annulment of the decision regarding the release of the administration and control.

According to the article 38 of the Property Ownership Law, the executive is responsible as a proxy against the floor owners and is obliged to account for the floor owners according to article 39 of the same law. The acquittal of the manager by the floor owners board does not relieve him from the responsibility for damages caused to the floor owners due to his irregular expenses and embezzlement funds. According to the court in case of a matter that requires the responsibility of the manager of the case may be opened by the floor owners or the new management in a case to be examined subject to be taken on the grounds that the expert report is taken in the management of the embezzlement of the ruling on the grounds that a legal result is ignored in the above statement to cancel the decision to cancel the manager has not been shown to be correct.
Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 428 of the Code of HUMK with the adoption of the judgment facility in dispute without the consideration of the principles explained above in writing, the appeal proceedings are therefore in place, the appeal shall be returned to the appealer if the request is made in advance within fifteen days from the notification of this decision. On 27.06.2016, it was decided unanimously.