Republic of Turkey
\nSUPREME COURT
\nGeneral Assembly Of Law
\nBase No: 2008\/3-531
\nDecision No: 2008\/531
\nDecision Date: 17.09.2008
\nCREDIT CASE \u2013 FROM THE JOINT FOOD OF THE SITE YOU WILL RECEIVE
\nWELDING-PASSIVE ENMITY OF SITE COLLECTIVE STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT
\nPRESENCE OF PEOPLE \u2013 REPRESENTATIVE DUTY OF THE DIRECTOR
\nIN THE CONTEXT OF THE PEOPLE OF PASSIVE ANIMOSITY
\nSummary: the case is related to the claim of receivables arising from the joint expense of the site. Non-compliance; defendant site
\nit is collected at the point of whether the collective structure manager has a passive hostility driver’s license.
\nAll independent department owners within the scope of the collective structure of the management plan site collective Board of directors
\nand a contract that binds the managers of parcels and blocks of the Council of representatives of the island and its managers
\nfrom the point of view of the management expense requested by the plaintiff, the defendant is the site collective structure manager
\nacceptance of passive hostility driving license within the scope of representation duty arising from the contract
\nit is mandatory.
\n(634 P. K. m. 35, 38, 74) (YHGK. 09.11.2000 T. 2000\/13-1314 E. 2000\/1606 K.)
\nAt the end of the trial due to the receivables case between the parties; Antalya fourth First Instance Dec.
\n20.03.2007 days and 566-109 given by the Civil Court on the rejection of the case due to animosity
\nafter the request of the attorney of the plaintiff to examine the numbered decision, the Third Law of the Supreme Court
\n29.11.2007 day and 19078-18095 of the department with the declaration; (…plaintiff P.S.A… Isl. Cooperative
\nAttorney general, plaintiff on a complaint filed by tax auditors over cooperative records
\nas a result of the examination, the defendant must be billed to the site management 30,572. 78 UAH of common expenses
\nif it is determined that it is not collected by invoicing, request the collection of this amount together with interest and
\nhas prosecuted.
\nThe defendant argued that the case was dismissed due to the absence of animosity, stating that there was no debtor,
\nthe court does not have the adjective of the defendant management, the case must be opened against all floor owners
\non the grounds that the case was dismissed from the absence of animosity, the verdict was sent by the acting plaintiff
\nappealed.
\nThe case is for buildings that are located on multiple parcels, although they are located within the same site
\nthe plaintiff is related to the request for collection of joint expenses incurred by the cooperative from the site administration.
\nSince there is no legal possibility to establish condominiums on separate parcels, the floor of the uyusmazliga
\nThe provisions of the Property Act cannot be applied. General provisions of non-compliance between the parties Dec.
\nit needs to be resolved in his apartment.
\nAccording to the current Land Registry in the file, the property under the direction of the defendant was established as a condominium,
\nIt has the form of a site consisting of 746 independent sections. 46 unaffiliated sections on site at claimant Co-operative
\nMaliki According to the Tax Review Report; an invoice to the management of the site by the taxpayer
\npart of the management expense that should be paid is not billed and the income is incomplete is irregular
\nsee, the site of general management expense of UAH 30.572, 78 for the period 01.01.2001-31.12.2001
\nit has been stated that it should be billed to management.
\nBecause the Site is located on more than one parcel, condominium provisions cannot be applied in the case
\nalso; economic and social development in our country and the rise and housing caused by the population increase
\nin order to meet its needs, collective structures built by cooperatives have begun to be used
\nit is a known fact. A facility reserved for the common use of owners in mass construction of this nature, and
\nheating, lighting, cleaning in the areas and maintenance of these places in a discipline,
\nas a result, it must be managed and cover management costs. Such structures
\ncondominium law in disputes related to management, Civil Code related to collective ownership
\nit is not possible to implement the provisions or the law on cooperatives.
\nFor this reason, especially in terms of the administration and the ability to be a party to the case, the legal void
\nfailure to fill out means that all owners can sue together or the person who costs other
\nacceptance that you can sue Malik for recourse to leave the improprieties unresolved
\nit gives birth to the result. In the face of this situation, we provide for similar institutions and organizations in our laws
\naccording to rights and Justice, procedural and litigation economics, using regulations through sampling,
\nhe should not hesitate when a solution that provides social peace must be found in the collective structure.
\nThe authority of the administration created in this way arising from the contract is as a representative on behalf of the owners
\nin order for them to use it, they do not have to form a legal entity for the reasons described.
\nIn this case, in terms of administrative expenses requested by the plaintiff, the defendant management does not contract
\nas part of the resulting duty of representation, the driver’s license of the party in the case is adopted on the basis of work
\nentering and making a decision will be the most appropriate solution.
\nIn this respect, the establishment of provision in written form without taking into account the principles described above
\na re-trial, with a rejection instead of a file, broken on the grounds that it is not a hit…)
\nin the end, the court resisted the previous decision.
\nAppellant: acting plaintiff
\nAfter examining the law by the General Assembly, it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the period and
\nafter reading the papers in the file, the need was discussed:
\nThe lawsuit is related to the claim of receivables arising from the joint expense of the site.
\nThe plaintiff is the president of the business cooperative; the defendant must pay UAH 30,572. 78 by the site management
\nclaim that they were paid for no reason, that they were not wrongly billed to the defendant’s site management
\nhe requested and sued the defendant to decide on the collection of this money along with the interest.
\nDefendant site collective structure management; the time of the case, themselves passive animosity
\nhe did not have a driver’s license, the case should be opened to all floor owners, the case should be dismissed
\nthe decision was made in response.
\nThe decision to refuse by the court in terms of animosity; the defendant for the reasons described above by the Special Department
\nit was broken on the grounds that the site administration had a passive hostility driver’s license, the first by the Local Court
\nthe decision was resisted.
\nNon-compliance; whether the defendant has a driver’s license for passive enmity of the site’s collective structure manager
\nit is collected at point.
\nThe defendant site is located on more than one parcel and consists of 746 independent sections. Prosecutor
\nthe Business Cooperative is also the owner of 46 independent sections on the site.
\n1 of the A… Site Management Plan given to the Land Registry Office. in the article; the site’s management plan
\naccording to, 2. condominium ownership in cases where there is no provision in the management plan
\nLaw, Civil Code and other related laws will apply, 3. Management Plan A\u2026
\nAll floor owners, floor easement owners, their heirs and independent
\nit will acquire a share of the land that is connected to the section or floor easement by sale, Bagis and other means Dec.
\ncomply with all the provisions of the management plan of these sites
\n6 \/ E article; decisions of the Board of collective Building Floor owners, a … collective
\nAll independent section (floor) owners, easement holders and
\nArticle 7 \/ c-b-e;
\nfloor owners who do not fulfill their debts and obligations related to floor ownership and their duty
\nbecause of the work covered by it, it will file a lawsuit representing floor owners against third parties, enforcement
\nin connection with the cancellation of the decisions of the board of flat owners, which it will follow, or its duty
\nother floor in lawsuits filed by floor owners or third parties due to covered works
\nhe will represent his owners, the trial costs in this matter and the attorney’s fee from the common expenses
\nArticle 8\/c-b-e; floor that does not fulfill its obligations related to floor ownership
\nrepresenting floor owners against their owners and third parties because of the work they are authorized to do
\nin connection with the cancellation of the decisions of the collective building floor owners board, or authorized to make a lawsuit
\nin cases filed by flat owners or third parties due to their work, the other floor
\nit will be provided to lawyers who will represent their owners, who are assigned to this case and follow-up
\nfees and legal costs are accepted.
\n35 of the condominium Law No. 634. in the article, while the duties of a manager are (I) in accordance with;
\nLitigation and enforcement proceedings against floor owners who do not fulfill their debts and obligations related to floor ownership
\nthere is also a task to be done.
\nCondominium Law No. 634 was amended by Law No. 5711 dated 14.11.2007 and
\nsome special provisions relating to collective structures have been introduced.
\n38. as amended in the article; Board of flat owners, board of representatives of the island or collective structure
\nto the manager representing the floor owners in their cases related to the cancellation of the decisions of the board of Representatives,
\nin structures, animosity towards the manager elected by the island Board of Representatives or the collective building Board of Representatives
\nit can be opened by managing the administrator’s case to all floor owners and islands or
\nif the board of Representatives announces the cancellation of the decisions of the board, the costs of the trial in this matter are common
\nexpenses covered, 74. article; special provisions provided for in this section remain hidden
\nall provisions contained in this law, provided that they are also in kind or by comparison with collective structures
\nit has been announced that it will be implemented.
\nA collective site brought by modern city life with this amendment to the condominium law
\nit is aimed to eliminate the needs that arise in their construction.
\nParties, the management plan of the nature of the contract and the independent owners of the Department specified here
\nproviding the services in the best possible way, conducting business and operations related to the site from one hand,
\na variety of services against each other to ensure the performance of services, the realization of common life goals
\nthey’ve taken on acts.<\/p>\n
In this case, all independent section owners within the scope of the collective structure of the management plan site bulk
\na parcel of their representatives to the board of directors the board of managers for binding and block
\nsince it is a contract; in terms of the administrative expense requested by the plaintiff, the defendant’s site is a collective structure
\npassive hostility under the representative duty of the manager arising from the contract
\nacceptance is mandatory.
\nThe stable view of the Supreme Court is also in this line, and the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of law 09.11.2000 days
\nand 2000\/13-1314-1606 Ad number; 08.11.2006 day and 2006\/12-682-682 these principles in the numbered declaration
\nthat has been adopted.
\nIn this case, to comply with the decision to break the special circle adopted by the General Assembly of law
\nit is against procedure and the law to resist the previous decision. Therefore, the decision to resist
\nit must be broken.
\nConclusion: with the acceptance of the appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney, the decision to resist is in the decision to break the special circle
\nand for the reasons shown above, Humk’s 429. if the substance deteriorates properly, the request
\non 17.09.2008, it was unanimously decided that the appeal would be reinstated.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Republic of Turkey SUPREME COURT General Assembly Of Law Base No: 2008\/3-531 Decision No: 2008\/531 Decision Date: 17.09.2008 CREDIT CASE \u2013 FROM THE JOINT FOOD OF THE SITE YOU WILL RECEIVE WELDING-PASSIVE ENMITY OF SITE COLLECTIVE STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT PRESENCE OF PEOPLE \u2013 REPRESENTATIVE DUTY OF…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1,211],"tags":[217,223,220,218],"yoast_head":"\n