An owner inside a Law No. 6306 transformation has a narrower set of choices than the process suggests, and each is time-limited. The decision to demolish and rebuild is taken by co-owners holding an absolute majority by land share under Article 6/1 of Law No. 6306, it binds the parcel, and the share of an owner who does not join it is valued and sold by open auction. What is genuinely open to the owner is earlier and quieter: the terms of the contract the majority is being asked to accept, whether the determination and the notifications behind it were validly made, and what happens in the register while the building goes up. We act on that side of the file.
Where the owner’s leverage actually sits
Three moments carry almost all of it. The determination itself: Article 3/1 gives owners fifteen days to object, and a technical board of four university teaching staff and three officials decides. The meeting at which the majority forms, while the share allocation, delivery date and default terms are still negotiable. And the moment work stops, where Article 6/14 gives owners a statutory termination route rather than an ordinary breach claim. Everything between those points is procedural, and the deadlines run whether or not an owner is in the country. A further layer of continuing duties sits with property compliance for non-resident owners.
| Stage | Source | Period | What it decides |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objection to a risky-building determination | Law No. 6306, Art. 3/1-3/2 | 15 days from deemed service | Whether the building enters the regime at all |
| Objection where the building is heavily damaged or risky to collapse | Law No. 6306, Art. 6/A(2) | 2 days; board decides in 3 | Same question, on a compressed calendar |
| Period given to owners to demolish | Law No. 6306, Art. 5/3 | Not more than 90 days | Whether demolition is done by owners or by the authorities at their cost |
| Examination or acceptance of the majority's offer | Law No. 6306, Art. 6/1 | 15 days from notification | Whether a dissenting land share goes to auction |
| Absence of agreement after demolition | Law No. 6306, Art. 6/2 | 30 days from notification | Opens urgent expropriation under Law No. 2942 |
| Proceedings against administrative acts under the Act | Law No. 6306, Art. 6/9 | 30 days from notification | Access to the administrative courts under Law No. 2577 |
| Statutory termination for contractor default | Law No. 6306, Art. 6/14 | 1 year / 6 months, then 30-day warning | Whether the contracts fall away without a judgment |
The majority decision, and what happens to a share that stays out
Article 6/1 lists what the majority may decide: consolidation of parcels, development block by block, subdivision, surrender, creation and registration, rebuilding, the sale of shares, and re-evaluation by build-for-shares, revenue sharing or another method, by co-owners holding an absolute majority of the shares, whether or not they were co-owners of the building itself. Until Law No. 7471 of 7 November 2023, in force on 9 November 2023, amended the wording, the threshold was two-thirds.
Read the full section
The article then deals with the owner who does not join. The offer containing the decision and the agreed terms, or the place where it can be inspected, must be communicated to that owner, and the communication must state that if the offer is not examined or accepted within fifteen days the land share will be sold under the Act. The sale is by open auction to the agreeing co-owners at a price not below the market value determined by or on behalf of the Presidency. Where that produces no buyer, risky areas and reserve building areas are separated from risky buildings: in the first the share is bought at market value by the body carrying out the project, in the second the sale is repeated to third parties who accept the agreed terms. Encumbrances on the share (mortgage, attachment, usufruct) are not extinguished; they continue over the sale proceeds and are then cancelled from the register at the Presidency’s request. Article 6/16 adds that an action to dissolve co-ownership may be brought over the site once the building has come down, but expressly provides that bringing it does not prevent the majority decision or action taken on it.
Where the February 2026 rules bite on a live file
The 4 February 2026 amendment to the Implementing Regulation of Law No. 6306 changed how a file has to be built. The meeting at which the majority forms now has its own procedure: any owner may have all owners called, the time and place are notified on the Ek-12 form, and the decision is recorded in signed minutes. The building-permit application is now gated on the offer having been served on the owners who did not join and on an application having been made for the sale of their shares. Two rules the amendment restated still frame the timetable: the decision does not wait for demolition, and an owner who has given the land registry an electronic notification address is served there and deemed served at the end of the fifth day following the day the notice reaches the address. On this page the question is operational: what must already be on the file before a permit application is made, which owners have to be reached and by which route, and what the register shows once the annotation comes off. The amendment itself is taken article by article, from the position of an owner who has not signed, in our note on what the February 2026 amendment changed for owners.
Reading the contractor’s agreement from the owner’s side
A build-for-shares agreement transfers land shares against a promise of finished units, so the formal rules for immovables apply to it. Article 237/2 of Code of Obligations No. 6098 makes a promise to sell an immovable invalid unless drawn up in official form, and Article 89 of Notaries Act No. 1512 places instruments which by their nature require a land registry transaction in the drawn-up category. Article 60/3 lets the notary annotate the promise on the register through the land registry information system at a party’s request, and Article 26 of Land Registry Act No. 2644 allows the same for build-for-shares contracts, with the ex officio cancellation of the annotation if nothing is sold or registered within five years.
Read the full section
Three clauses then do most of the work. The price allocation, because Article 480 binds the contractor to an agreed lump sum but lets the contractor seek adaptation or withdrawal where unforeseen circumstances make performance excessively difficult. The defect regime, because Article 475 gives the employer withdrawal, reduction or free repair, and then closes the first of those where the work stands on the employer’s own land and removing it would cause excessive harm, which is the ordinary position in a transformation. And limitation: Article 478 measures claims for defects in immovable structures at five years from delivery, extended to twenty where the contractor is grossly at fault. How those periods are counted and what has to be reserved on acceptance is set out in our note on construction defects and warranty periods; where the buyer of a unit is a consumer rather than a landowner, the forum and the claims differ, and we deal with that in suing a developer in the Turkish consumer courts.
Security in the register while the building goes up
Article 6/10 is the provision owners rely on without knowing its limit. Where the immovables have been transferred to the contractor under a promise of sale or a build-for-shares contract, no attachment or interim measure may be applied to them for the contractor’s debts to third parties until a condominium easement is created in the owners’ names, with material and labour claims for that work excepted. The next sentence sets the limit: if the easement is not created within six months of work starting, attachments and measures do apply. Article 6/13 controls the contractor’s own sales where the works are carried out by natural persons or private-law legal persons, allowing units falling to the contractor to be sold only with the administration’s permission and at ten points below the completion rate it determines; sales at or above the completion rate require the consent of every owner. Where the contractor’s own position deteriorates, the questions become insolvency questions, addressed in developer insolvency and konkordato for property buyers.
Urgent expropriation, costs and exemptions
Where the majority never forms, the parcel can leave the owners’ hands altogether. Article 6/2 opens urgent expropriation thirty days after notification to the owners of a site whose building has been demolished, and treats those expropriations as expropriation for the realisation of resettlement projects within the meaning of Article 3/2 of Expropriation Act No. 2942, the paragraph which requires the cash advance to be not less than one sixth of the compensation, the balance being tied to equal instalments with interest over not more than five years. Article 6/2 then adds its own rule on top: in these transformation expropriations the first instalment is one fifth of the amounts so determined. Compensation and registration in the administration’s name are then settled before the civil court of first instance under Article 10, and the summons served on the owner states that every defence and item of evidence on the value of the immovable must reach the court in writing within ten days of service. Article 14 sets thirty days to challenge the expropriation and says expressly that a co-owner may sue alone. One date is worth diarising: the words providing that the registration judgment is final have been annulled by the Constitutional Court, and the annulment takes effect on 21 February 2027; until then the judgment is final, with only the parties’ appeal rights on the amount reserved.
Read the full section
Article 7/9 of Law No. 6306 exempts a defined set of transactions from notary and land registry fees, municipal fees and charges, inheritance and transfer tax, revolving-fund charges and stamp duty on the papers drawn up. The exemption is not open-ended: it covers the transactions listed in the paragraph to which one of the following is a party: the Ministry, the Presidency, TOKİ, İller Bankası, the administration, the contractor undertaking the works, an owner, or a person who has used the risky building as a tenant or holder of a limited right in rem for at least a year. Article 7/10 adds that where private persons carry out the works, municipalities charge no fee or duty for new construction area up to one and a half times the existing construction area. Rent assistance is a different matter: Article 5/1 says it may be granted to owners, tenants and resident holders of limited rights in rem in buildings evacuated by agreement, but the Act fixes neither the amount nor the duration, so both follow the instrument in force at the time.
Our approach
We read the file in the order the statute does: what the determination says and whether its notification stands, how the majority was formed and how the offer was served, what the contract allocates and what it secures in the register, and where the deadlines above now sit. Where the contractor has stopped, we take the Article 6/14 route with the majority rather than starting in court, keeping the general-law claims under the Code of Obligations available alongside it. Acquisition, title and registry work on the same parcel sits with our Turkish real estate law practice.
