1) Is there a direct ban on "pets" in the Condominium Law?

No. The Condominium Law (KMK) does not contain a direct and general legal prohibition stating that "cats/dogs cannot be kept in independent units." However, the KMK imposes an obligation on apartment owners (and residents of the building) not to disturb each other , not to infringe on each other's rights , and to comply with the management plan . The basic logic of Article 18 of the KMK is this: even if the independent unit is "mine," apartment life is a communal life; the right to use it is protected within the boundaries of neighborliness and order

Therefore, the pet issue is often resolved not so much by simply asking "is there a ban or not," but the management plan + disturbance criteria + procedure .

2) What is a management plan and why is it so crucial?

According to Article 28 of the Condominium Law the management planthat regulates the management style of the apartment building/complex, the manner in which independent units are used, and the rules relating to management; binding on all apartment owners .

Two critical conclusions can be drawn from this point:

1. If there is an explicit prohibition in the management plan, that prohibition is considered binding, like a "contractual provision".

2. Changing the management plan is not easy: according to Article 28 of the Condominium Law, a four-fifths (4/5) vote of all co-owners is required for a change.

The biggest mistake in practice: “We got a majority at the homeowners' association meeting, so animals are now banned in the apartment building.”
A general assembly decision alone is often insufficient to make an area not regulated in the management plan a 'categorical ban'. (I detail this below.)

3) If the management plan states "no animals allowed": Is the ban still valid?

The Supreme Court's approach, particularly as reflected in public opinion, is as follows: Even if there is no general prohibition in the legislation , if the management plan contains an explicit prohibition such as "keeping pets like cats and dogs is prohibited," then, as a rule, this prohibition must be followed. Within this framework, it is observed that lawsuits can be filed requesting "prevention of keeping pets/remedy of disturbance" based on the prohibition provision in the management plan, and the Supreme Court tends to give weight to such plan provisions.

Important practical distinction:

• the management plan states "strict prohibition": In practice, courts may not always accept the defense that "the nuisance has not been further proven," because the violation is seen as a direct breach of the management plan .

• the management plan stipulates a "permission requirement" (e.g., "cannot be provided without the permission of the homeowners' association"), providing food without permission may still be considered a violation of the plan; there are examples of decisions by the 20th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals that uphold this approach.

But is the ban in the management plan "absolute" in every case?

Although in theory a management plan is a contract, in practice the debate focuses on this point:

• the management plan, while restricting individuals' rights to use their independent units, proportionality and the specific characteristics of the case ?

• Even if the pet's presence doesn't cause a "nuisance," can its removal be requested solely on the basis of a planning provision?

The Supreme Court's approach, especially where there is an explicit prohibition, can strongly consider the zoning plan.
However, in each case, proof, procedure, and concrete facts (the animal's nature, hygiene, aggressiveness, apartment layout) will affect the outcome.

4) If there is no prohibition in the management plan: Can a prohibition be imposed by a decision of the homeowners' association?

General principle: Imposing a categorical ban on pets in an apartment building solely by a decision of the homeowners' association, when there is no explicit provision in the management plan, will in most cases lead to legal disputes.

Because:

• The management plan is a "binding contract" within the meaning of Article 28 of the Condominium Law;

• An amendment to the management plan is necessary to make a restriction not foreseen in the management plan permanent and enforceable against everyone ;

• A 4/5 majority is also required for changes to the management plan.

Conclusion: If there are no amendments in the management plan, the most sensible course of action is:

1. To bring the issue to the agenda,

2. To include “procedures and limits” in the management plan (regulation instead of absolute prohibition),

3. The majority of those involved, according to Article 28 of the Condominium Law, are responsible for amending the management plan.

Note: In practice, some sites reduce disputes by including regulatory rules in their management plan instead of simply stating "prohibitions," such as mandatory leash use, dog carrying/cradle requirements in common areas, cleaning obligations, and elevator usage rules

5) What happens if something is "disturbing" even if it's not prohibited?

The absence of prohibitions in the management plan does not mean "unlimited freedom." Because the obligation of apartment owners (and tenants) not to disturb each other is clearly regulated in Article 18 of the Condominium Law.

Furthermore, Article 737 of the Turkish Civil Code, a general principle of neighborhood law , prohibits causing disturbances to neighbors such as odors or noise that exceed a "tolerable level" in the use of immovable property.

When these two regulations are interpreted together:

• Continuous barking/noise,

• Odor and hygiene problem,

• Pollution of common areas,

• Aggression / security risk,

• Physical harassment and disturbance of peace in elevators/stairs

In such cases, other apartment owners or the management "removal of the disturbance/prevention of interference ." (Proof is decisive in the specific case.)

6) Which court should be contacted? (Competent court)

Regarding jurisdiction in disputes arising from condominium ownership relations, Article 1 of the Additional Provisions in the Condominium Ownership Law stands out: "All disputes arising from the application of this Law shall be resolved in the magistrates' courts."

Therefore, pet disputes in apartment buildings/residential complexes are in practice mostly the Civil Court of Peace . (If the nature of the dispute falls under a different legal area, further evaluation is required.)

7) Step-by-step solution in practice: What should the party wanting the ban do?

A) First, check the management plan

• The land registry office contains the management plan annotation / site management plan text.

• Provisions such as "No animals allowed," "Allowed with permission," and "Rules in common areas" are sought.

B) Written warning and determination

Since proving something is difficult in court, if possible:

• Written warning via administrator,

• Entering it into the apartment register,

• Recording of noise/odor/hygiene complaints based on date and time

• If necessary, evidence such as minutes, camera footage, witnesses, veterinary reports, etc

It is prepared.

C) Litigation strategy (depending on the type of dispute)

• If there is an explicit prohibition in the management plan: The request is usually framed around "rectifying the violation of the management plan / preventing feeding".

• There is no prohibition, but there is disturbance: The request is formulated as "removal of disturbance / prevention of interference" within the framework of Article 18 of the Condominium Law and Article 737 of the Turkish Civil Code.

8) The defense line for pet owners: "Do all restrictions apply?"

From a pet owner's perspective, the defense is generally built around this axis:

1. If there is no explicit prohibition in the management plan: The validity of an absolute prohibition imposed solely by a general assembly resolution is questioned; the procedure for amending the management plan (Article 28 of the Condominium Law) is also questioned.

2. If there is no disturbance: Claims of noise/odor/hygiene must be proven with concrete evidence.

3. Recommended preventative measures include: walking on a leash, cleaning shared areas, using a covered carrier, training/rehabilitation, veterinary reports, etc.

4. Animal legislation and international texts: Law No. 4934 on Turkey's ratification of the "European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals" and related texts offer a perspective on animal welfare and protection (although it does not automatically lead to the conclusion that pets can be kept in the apartment building in the case of condominium ownership).

9) Frequently Asked Questions

"The apartment building has decided to ban pets; do I have to comply?"

First, the management plan is examined. If there is no prohibition in the management plan, an absolute prohibition imposed solely by a meeting resolution will, in most cases, an amendment to the management plan (Article 28 of the Condominium Law) .

"The management plan prohibits it, but my pet doesn't bother me at all. Could it still be lifted?"

The Supreme Court's practice allows for strong legal effect if there is an explicit prohibition. However, procedure, evidence, specific circumstances, and the scope of the request are important in each case.

"Is there a distinction like 'small animals allowed' for cats/dogs?"

In the Supreme Court's approach, the determining factor is often not "the small size of the animal," but rather the provision in the management plan and the specific criteria for causing discomfort.

"Where are these lawsuits filed?"

Article 1 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Condominium Law prioritizes the Civil Court of Peace for disputes arising from condominium ownership

Conclusion: According to the Turkish Condominium Law, under what conditions can keeping pets be prohibited?

In summary:

1. There is no general prohibition in the law.

2. If there is an explicit prohibition in the management plan , the Supreme Court's practice often considers this provision binding and the prohibition can be enforced

3. If the management plan does not contain a prohibition, imposing an absolute prohibition solely by a general assembly resolution is generally controversial; a permanent solution comes through an amendment to the management plan in accordance with Article 28 of the Condominium Law

4. Even if it's not prohibited, if an animal is causing a nuisance, the means of preventing the intervention/resolving the nuisance come into play within the framework of Article 18 of the Turkish Commercial Code and Article 737 of the Turkish Civil Code.