I. Legal Framework: Determination of the Competent Court
Additional Article 1 of the Condominium Law No. 634 establishes a clear rule on jurisdiction:
All disputes arising from the implementation of this Law shall be resolved by civil courts of peace.
This provision derives from the special nature of Law No. 634.
Similarly, pursuant to Article 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction is a matter of public order and must be considered ex officio by the court at every stage of the proceedings. It cannot be altered by the will of the parties, and cases filed before an incompetent court are dismissed procedurally due to lack of jurisdiction without examination of the merits.
According to the established practice of the 18th and 20th Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, Civil Courts of Peace are the competent courts in actions for annulment of objection filed following objections to enforcement proceedings initiated for the recovery of common expense claims.
This approach reflects a functional interpretation of jurisdiction, focusing not on the amount of the claim but on the legal source of the dispute.
II. Nature of Common Expense Claims and Their Relation to Jurisdiction
1. The Source of the Claim Is Determinative
Common expenses regulated under Articles 20 and following of the Condominium Law include:
- preservation and maintenance of the main property,
- operation of common facilities,
- maintenance fee receivables,
- manager’s remuneration,
- advance payments,
- and similar expenses.
The claims subject to enforcement proceedings fall within this scope, and the dispute therefore directly arises from the provisions of the Condominium Law.
Accordingly, even if the type of action changes (such as annulment of objection, negative declaratory action, recourse claims, etc.), the competent court does not change, and such cases must be filed before the Civil Courts of Peace.
2. The Capacity of the Parties Does Not Affect Jurisdiction
Whether the action is directed against:
- a condominium owner,
- a tenant,
- a usufructuary,
- or other persons responsible under Article 22 of the Condominium Law
does not affect the determination of jurisdiction.
The decisive factor is not the legal status of the party, but rather whether the dispute arises from the Condominium Law No. 634.
Therefore, filing the action against persons responsible for common expenses under Article 22—such as condominium owners, managers, tenants, or holders of usufruct rights—does not change the competent court, provided that the dispute originates from Law No. 634.
This approach eliminates many uncertainties frequently encountered in practice regarding jurisdiction.
III. Conditions for the Application of the Condominium Law and Their Relation to Jurisdiction
1. Condominium Ownership or Construction Servitude
The immovable property subject to the dispute must have either condominium ownership (kat mülkiyeti) or construction servitude (kat irtifakı) established.
In buildings with construction servitude, for the provisions of Law No. 634 to apply:
- construction must be actually completed, or
- at least two-thirds of the building must have been put into use.
If this condition is not met, the dispute will not fall within the scope of Law No. 634 and must instead be assessed under general provisions.
2. Distinction Between Single Parcel and Mass Housing Complex
For the dispute to fall within the scope of Law No. 634, the immovable property must generally be established on a single parcel.
In residential complexes consisting of multiple parcels, the management must have been converted into a “Mass Housing Structure (Toplu Yapı)” in accordance with the amendments introduced by Law No. 5711 to the Condominium Law No. 634.
Otherwise, the determination of the competent court may differ.
3. Temporal Application
It is also important that the common expense claim arises after the establishment of condominium ownership.
Common expenses relating to the period prior to the establishment of condominium ownership are considered ordinary receivables and are subject to provisions governing co-ownership.
This distinction is particularly important in the context of older buildings and urban transformation processes.
IV. Issue of Territorial Jurisdiction
Although Additional Article 1 of Law No. 634 determines the competent court regarding common expense claims, no specific regulation has been introduced concerning territorial jurisdiction or enforcement offices.
However, Article 33 of the same Law, titled “Intervention of the Judge”, determines that the competent court is the court where the main immovable property is located.
Thus, in disputes concerning:
- real rights,
- easement rights,
- prevention of interference,
the court where the main immovable property is located has jurisdiction.
Although disputes concerning common expenses do not directly relate to the real right over immovable property, the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its decision numbered 2024/9019 E., 2025/1104 K., emphasized that this rule is mandatory and related to public order, and that it also extends to the jurisdiction of enforcement offices.
Consequently, disputes concerning monetary obligations arising from common expense claims must be pursued before the courts and enforcement offices where the main immovable property is located.
V. Exceptional Cases
In practice, certain disputes may intersect with Law No. 634 but fall within different judicial jurisdictions:
- If the dispute concerns cooperative dues governed by the Cooperatives Law, the Commercial Courts may be competent.
- If the assignment relationship between a condominium owner and a third-party service provider constitutes a consumer transaction, Consumer Courts may have jurisdiction.
- If the property does not have condominium ownership or construction servitude, common expense claims will be subject to general provisions, and depending on the value of the claim, the Civil Courts of First Instance may be competent.
Therefore, in every case, the first analysis to be conducted must be the identification of the true legal source of the dispute.
VI. Conclusion and Evaluation
When judicial precedents and statutory regulations are considered together, it is clear that Civil Courts of Peace are the competent courts in actions for annulment of objection filed following objections to enforcement proceedings arising from common expense claims within the scope of Law No. 634, provided that condominium ownership or construction servitude has been established.
In this framework, jurisdiction is determined according to the source of the legal relationship. This approach ensures uniformity in condominium law disputes.
In cases concerning common expense claims, it is essential to correctly determine:
- the legal status of the immovable property,
- the period in which the claim arose, and
- the legal basis of the relationship.
Proper determination of jurisdiction eliminates the risk of procedural dismissal without examination of the merits and contributes to a more efficient judicial process.