What Is Judicial Intervention? (KMK Art. 33)

In apartment or complex life, problems are inevitable when everyone does not follow the rules. When someone does not pay their dues, fails to fulfil their obligations or disturbs the neighbours, the other unit owners have an important legal route: judicial intervention. In this guide we explain what judicial intervention is and when and how it can be requested under Article 33 of the Condominium Ownership Law No. 634 (KMK).

What is judicial intervention?

Judicial intervention is the remedy whereby unit owners who are harmed by the failure of a unit owner or a person continuously using an independent unit (such as a tenant) to fulfil their debts and obligations apply to the civil court of peace and ask the judge for a solution (KMK Art. 33). It is a fast and effective legal route in condominium disputes.

Who can apply?

The unit owner or unit owners who are harmed because the debts and obligations are not fulfilled may request judicial intervention. The manager may also file such an application if authorised by a decision of the assembly of unit owners or by the management plan. The application is made to the civil court of peace where the main property is located.

In what situations can it be requested?

Judicial intervention may arise in many disputes:

• An owner who does not participate in common expenses or advance payments
• Behaviour that constantly disturbs the neighbours (noise, etc.)
• Conduct contrary to the management plan or decisions of the assembly of unit owners
• Unauthorised interference with common areas

In short, this route is available whenever there is a breach of an obligation arising from the law or the management plan.

How does the process work?

After hearing the parties, the judge renders a prompt decision in accordance with this law, the management plan and, where these are silent, general provisions and equity. The party concerned is notified that the decision must be complied with within a short period set by the judge. This "prompt decision" feature makes the process faster than ordinary litigation.

What if the decision is not complied with?

If the person persists in not fulfilling their obligations despite the judge's order, the consequences become more severe. Persisting for a continuous year in not fulfilling the statutory debts and obligations, despite the order issued by the peace judge under Article 33, is considered a case of unbearableness (KMK Art. 25). This may open the way to the heaviest sanction: transfer of the independent unit.

Why is judicial intervention important?

This route gives unit owners a strong tool in in-house disputes. Instead of long and costly proceedings, a swift resolution can be obtained from the civil court of peace. The court order also has a deterrent effect, since continued non-compliance may lead to more severe sanctions such as unbearableness.

Summary

Judicial intervention (KMK Art. 33) is the remedy by which unit owners who are harmed by an owner or tenant failing to fulfil their debts and obligations apply to the civil court of peace and obtain a swift resolution. The judge hears the parties and renders a prompt decision. Persistence for one year despite the order is considered unbearableness and may lead to heavier sanctions.

Keeping a clear record of debts, payments and notices is critical in dispute processes. Apt Yönet consolidates dues, debt and record-keeping processes in a single panel, providing a solid documentary infrastructure for possible legal proceedings.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Which court hears the request for judicial intervention?

It is filed with the civil court of peace where the main property is located (KMK Art. 33).

Can judicial intervention be requested against a tenant too?

Yes. It can also be filed for breaches by a person continuously using an independent unit through a lease or right of residence.

How quickly does the judge decide?

The law provides for a "prompt decision"; the process is faster than ordinary lawsuits and compliance is required within a short period.

What happens if the decision is not complied with?

Persistence for one year despite the order is considered unbearableness and may lead to the heaviest sanction — transfer of the independent unit (KMK Art. 25).

---

This content is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. You are advised to consult a legal expert about your specific situation.