408 / 521
the building requires the relevant percentage to be fulfilled.
The abovementioned article also stipulates that the consent of the
owners shall not be required for the renovation project if the damage in
question may affect other parts of the building, if it is necessary that
the building be fixed as soon as possible, or where the necessity of
reinforcement is handed down by court order. As the renovation of a
building declared risky is of an urgent nature, it may be stated that pri-
ority is given to renovation in order to prevent the risk that the build-
ing poses to its surroundings. However, at least one of the owners
should prove that the reinforcement is technically possible, in order for
this option to be applied. Unless one of the owners proves that the ren-
ovation of the building is possible, the building shall be demolished in
the period stated in the relevant provision. Therefore, demolition is still
deemed as the main solution; however, it is possible for the owners to
adopt a decision in favor of reinforcement if they prefer this option to
be applied. Said amendment in the Regulation is more adequate in
terms of protecting the property rights of the condominium owners. It
not only prevents the unnecessary expense of demolishing and rebuild-
ing a building, which can be reinforced, but also provides the owners
with an alternative to demolition.
Conclusion
As is seen, the initial version of the Regulation sets forth a strict
regulation for the condominium owner and legitimizes nothing but
demolition, following the finalization of the report determining the
building as a risky building. Considering that the decisions on the
future use of the land are taken by two-thirds vote, it is inevitable for
disputes to arise between the owners who are within the majority, and
the other owners who do not take part in the decision for demolition.
However, the new regulation may somewhat prevent conflicts arising
from the demolition of the condominium; since the condominium own-
ers against demolishment may determine that the reinforcement of the
building is possible. By presenting an alternative project, they may
enable a renovation decision to be adopted. It is probable that this legal
development will prevent a considerable amount of lawsuits. On the
other hand, it should be emphasized that the jurisprudence will be
determinative in this matter.
392
NEWSLETTER 2014