Attorney Hüseyin Aydın · Alanya / Antalya
When a dog barks on a residential complex or a smell drifts over from a balcony, the argument quickly reaches the point of “we will have the animal removed”. According to the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), two keys determine the outcome: the management plan (yönetim planı) registered in the land registry and the “duty not to disturb one another” under Article 18 of the Condominium Ownership Law.
In the large residential complexes of Alanya, Kestel, Oba, Avsallar and Konaklı there are both Turkish citizens and many foreign owners who choose to live together with their pets. In these complexes with swimming pools and shared gardens, pet disputes are among the most common neighbour problems. On one side is the owner who regards the animal as a member of the family; on the other are neighbours disturbed by noise, smell or allergies.
This guide examines all aspects of the issue within the framework of the Condominium Ownership Law No. 634 (KMK), the Animal Protection Law No. 5199 and the decisions of the 5th and 20th Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation and of the Assembly of Civil Chambers (HGK).
Table of Contents
1. A Concrete Example Case
Example Case: E., a German citizen, buys a flat in a 120-unit residential complex in Kestel, Alanya, and moves in with his Golden Retriever. The site manager sends E. a formal notice through a notary, stating that the management plan registered in the land registry contains the provision “unless permitted by the board of flat owners (kat malikleri kurulu), animals such as cats and dogs may not be kept in the independent units”. E. says that his dog is trained, disturbs no one and that none of the neighbours has complained. Meanwhile F., a tenant in Block B of the same complex, keeps a large number of cats on her balcony although the management plan contains no ban, and the neighbours complain about the smell and noise.
The questions to be answered on the basis of this case are as follows:
- If the management plan contains a ban, can a dog that causes no disturbance at all be removed from the complex?
- If the management plan contains no ban, what can be done about animals that cause a disturbance?
- Can a lawsuit be brought against a tenant?
2. The Binding Force of the Management Plan
Under KMK Art. 28, the management plan contains the rules on the management of the main property and has the nature of a contract binding all flat owners. Since the management plan is registered in the land register, owners who later buy a flat are also obliged to comply with its provisions. As a rule, the management plan can be amended only by the vote of four fifths of all flat owners.
KMK Art. 18, in turn, obliges flat owners, when using their independent units, appurtenances and common areas, to act in good faith, and in particular not to disturb one another, not to infringe one another’s rights and to comply with the provisions of the management plan. The same article provides that these obligations also apply to tenants and to persons who permanently use an independent unit, and that they are jointly and severally liable together with the flat owner.
3. If the Management Plan Contains a Ban: Is Disturbance Required?
According to the settled case law of the Court of Cassation, if the management plan expressly prohibits keeping animals, it is not examined whether the animal disturbs its surroundings; the court is obliged to apply the management plan.
Court of Cassation, 5th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/6506, K. 2025/1722, T. 11.02.2025
“If the management plan, which under Article 28 of Law No. 634 has the nature of a contract binding all flat owners, expressly prohibits keeping animals such as cats and dogs in the independent units and appurtenances of the main property, then in the event of a dispute the court must apply the management plan, even if the cat or dog kept in the independent unit has not caused any disturbance to its surroundings.”
The same approach has also been adopted by the Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation. In a case where the management plan contained the provision “Pets such as cats and dogs may not be kept in high-rise buildings”, the HGK examined the local court’s decision of resistance (Yargıtay HGK, E. 2017/3018, K. 2022/6, T. 18.01.2022).
An important detail: In many management plans the ban contains the proviso “unless permitted by the board of flat owners”. In that case the animal’s owner may obtain permission from the board of flat owners. In a case examined by the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the owner’s request to amend the management plan was rejected by majority vote at the board, and the removal of the dog was ordered (Yargıtay 20. HD, E. 2017/4059, K. 2018/2493, T. 02.04.2018).
Outcome in the Example Case: Since the management plan contains an express ban, proving that E.’s dog disturbs no one does not change the outcome. The most effective route open to E. is to obtain permission from the board of flat owners or to have the management plan amended with the majority required by the KMK.
4. If the Management Plan Contains No Ban: KMK Art. 18 and Proof
The absence of a ban in the management plan does not give the animal’s owner unlimited freedom. In this case the lawsuit is based on the “duty not to disturb one another” under KMK Art. 18, and the court examines whether a concrete disturbance exists.
Court of Cassation, 20th Civil Chamber, E. 2018/757, K. 2019/1693, T. 12.03.2019
“According to the settled practice of the Court of Cassation, the absence in the management plan of any provision prohibiting the keeping of dogs in the main property and the independent units does not prevent the removal of a dog found to cause disturbance.”
However, the disturbance must be established by evidence, not by abstract complaints. The Court of Cassation reversed a judgment granting the claim that was based solely on complaints made at the board of flat owners, on the ground of incomplete examination, and required concrete data to be obtained through an on-site inspection, the hearing of witnesses and, if necessary, an expert examination (Yargıtay 20. HD, E. 2018/6520, K. 2019/216, T. 17.01.2019).
Evidence That Can Be Used to Prove Disturbance
- Audio and video recordings of barking continuing at night (made from common areas, without violating private life)
- Reports drawn up by the municipal police or environmental units
- Testimony of neighbours and resolutions of the board of flat owners
- On-site inspection and expert reports on smell, hygiene and pest problems
Outcome in the Example Case: As regards the tenant F., even though the management plan contains no ban, if it is proven through an on-site inspection and witnesses that the many cats cause smell and noise, the removal of the animals may be ordered under KMK Art. 18. Pursuant to KMK Art. 18/2, the lawsuit may also be brought against the owner of the flat together with the tenant F.
5. Tenants, Common Areas and Feeding Stray Animals
| Situation | Legal Assessment |
|---|---|
| A tenant keeping an animal | KMK Art. 18 also applies to tenants; the owner and the tenant are jointly and severally liable. |
| Walking an animal in the shared garden or around the pool | The use of common areas can be regulated by the management plan and board resolutions; if there is a ban, it is applied. |
| Feeding stray animals on the complex | Law No. 5199 provides for the protection of ownerless animals; however, feeding them in common areas in a way that disrupts order and hygiene may be assessed under KMK Art. 18. |
| Poultry or pigeons on a balcony or in a garden | In the case underlying the Court of Cassation 5th Civil Chamber decision E. 2024/10016, K. 2025/3980, a lawsuit brought over pigeons being fed on a balcony was examined; smell and pest problems can be regarded as a disturbance. |
| Mistreatment or abandonment of the animal | A removal order does not mean that the animal is to be turned out onto the street; abandoning an animal is separately subject to sanctions under Law No. 5199. |
6. Court Proceedings and Practical Recommendations
The competent court for the lawsuit is the civil court of peace (sulh hukuk mahkemesi). The lawsuit may be brought by a flat owner or by the manager authorised by the board of flat owners. Under KMK Art. 33, the judge, after hearing the parties concerned, decides in accordance with the law and the management plan and orders the decision to be complied with within a short period that the decision sets. Those who fail to comply with the decision within this period are given an administrative fine by the same court; and in the event of serious and persistent breach of obligations, the right to demand the transfer of the independent unit under KMK Art. 25 is also reserved.
For prospective flat buyers: Before buying a home in a residential complex in and around Alanya, a copy of the management plan should always be requested from the land registry office or the site management. For buyers planning to live with a pet, this document may directly affect the purchase decision.
For pet owners: Obtaining written permission from the board of flat owners, walking the animal in common areas on a leash and under control, and keeping vaccination and registration documents up to date significantly reduce the risk of a dispute.
Conclusion
In disputes concerning keeping pets in apartment buildings, the decisive factor is first and foremost the management plan. If there is an express ban, the court applies the management plan even if the animal causes no disturbance at all. If there is no ban, the removal of the animal may be ordered under KMK Art. 18 if the disturbance is proven by concrete evidence. Resolving neighbour relations without going to court should always be preferred; otherwise, with regard to your specific disputes and to avoid any loss of rights, it is advisable to seek professional legal advice from a lawyer.
Sources used: KMK No. 634 Arts. 18, 28, 33; Animal Protection Law No. 5199; Yargıtay HGK E. 2017/3018 K. 2022/6; Yargıtay 5. HD E. 2024/6506 K. 2025/1722; E. 2024/10016 K. 2025/3980; Yargıtay 20. HD E. 2018/757 K. 2019/1693; E. 2018/6520 K. 2019/216; E. 2017/4059 K. 2018/2493. For legislation texts: mevzuat.gov.tr.
Legal Notice: This text has been prepared for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. sophoshukuk.com makes no referral, guarantee or promise of outcome. Each case must be assessed on its own particular circumstances; for your specific dispute, please obtain professional advice from a lawyer.