This collection covers selected Court of Cassation decisions dated between 8 October 2021 and 8 October 2026. Citations and summaries were checked against the official full texts published by the Ministry of Justice; each decision links to its source.
Voting majority in urban renewal
These two decisions concern transactions from 2016 and 2017 under the two-thirds rule in force before the 2023 amendment. The applicable majority requirement must be considered with reference to the transaction date and governing rules.
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber · E. 2024/3326, K. 2025/3901 · 17.11.2025
In a dispute over a 2017 construction-for-land-share agreement, the outcome of a pre-emption action could change which owners held the necessary share majority. In its additional substantive reasoning, the court found that the pending result had to be awaited; the judgment was reversed. The dispute concerned the majority rule applicable at the time of the transaction.
Source: Official decision text
Court of Cassation, 5th Civil Chamber · E. 2025/6759, K. 2025/13064 · 20.10.2025
A 2016 owners’ resolution covered demolition and redevelopment through construction agreements in exchange for a 157-month lease. Meeting the then-applicable two-thirds majority did not dispense with examining whether the resolution was legally nonexistent or absolutely void. The court reversed for failure to conduct that examination, without itself declaring the resolution void.
Source: Official decision text
Contractor advance sales
Both decisions apply the unification decision of 16 May 2025, E. 2024/1, K. 2025/2. They address the good faith of third parties acquiring registered rights from a contractor. Background: Unification decision — Official Gazette.
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber · E. 2024/3673, K. 2025/3881 · 17.11.2025
After the contractor transferred units to third parties, the landowners sought retroactive termination and cancellation of title. Applying the 2025 unification decision, the court required a proper inquiry into the purchasers’ good faith at acquisition. The landowner had to receive reasonable time to submit concrete evidence that the purchasers knew or should have known the relevant conditions for retroactive termination; the judgment was reversed.
Source: Official decision text
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber · E. 2025/4173, K. 2026/2963 · 01.07.2026
The court applied the 2025 unification decision to titles transferred through a contractor to third parties. Treating the transfer as an advance was insufficient to automatically reject good-faith acquisition. The judgment was reversed so the parties’ evidence concerning good faith and reliance on the land register could be examined; good faith was not finally established for the purchasers.
Source: Official decision text
Contractor default
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber · E. 2024/2882, K. 2025/2088 · 20.05.2025
The landowners sued about three and a half months after signing although the contract gave them eight months to vacate and hand over the property. The at-risk building had not yet been vacated. The court held that contractor default had not arisen without a proper site handover and reversed the judgment allowing termination.
Source: Official decision text
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber · E. 2023/2833, K. 2024/3635 · 22.10.2024
The contractor promptly started the permit-related procedure, but a later statutory change required completion of a land readjustment plan before a building permit could be issued. On the specific dates and evidence, the court found no delay attributable to the contractor and reversed termination and cancellation of title. This is a case-specific assessment of a legal impediment.
Source: Official decision text
Website content is provided for general information and does not constitute legal advice on an individual matter.