Compensation Attorney at Law in Alanya and Traffic Accidents
The law of damages concerns the compensation of loss suffered by a person as a result of unlawful conduct or a situation for which the law imposes liability. The legal basis of liability determines not only from whom and what may be claimed, but also the applicable limitation period, the competent court, the burden of proof and any steps that must be completed before proceedings are commenced.
The same event may give rise to more than one liability regime concurrently. In a traffic accident, the driver’s fault-based liability, the vehicle operator’s liability without fault and the insurer’s contractual liability may coexist; in a work accident, the employer’s liability and the portion covered by the Social Security Institution are distinguished. Where liability may be based on more than one ground, the law provides that the court shall, unless the injured party requests otherwise, decide on the basis of the ground that affords the injured party the best remedy.
Limitation periods for compensation claims are short and, in some cases, conditional on applications that must be completed before proceedings are initiated. In tort, a period running from the date of knowledge and an overall period running from the act operate together; in traffic accidents, a written application to the insurer is required before bringing an action; in administrative liability, an application to the administrative authority is a precondition and the period for bringing an action starts to run according to the outcome of that application. It is therefore essential to establish early the basis of the loss and which period is running.
Key Practice Areas
Key Areas of Dispute in Compensation Law
Compensation claims arise not from a single statute, but from different legal regimes determined by the nature of the relationship giving rise to the damage. The same bodily injury may be subject to one set of rules governing the claims procedure when it results from a road traffic accident, and to different rules on jurisdiction and time limits when it results from an occupational accident.
Compensation Claims Arising from Traffic Accidents
Liability arising from motor vehicle accidents may rest on more than one person and more than one legal ground. In addition to the driver's fault-based liability, the law imposes liability independent of fault on the vehicle operator and the owner of the undertaking to which the operator is affiliated, holding them jointly and severally liable. The operator is liable for the fault of the driver and of any auxiliary persons involved in the use of the vehicle as though it were the operator's own fault.
The conditions for exoneration from this liability are exhaustively set out in statute and are structured in two layers. To be discharged, the operator must first satisfy two cumulative negative requirements: there must be no fault on the part of the operator or of persons for whose acts the operator is responsible, and no defect in the vehicle may have contributed to the accident. Once those two requirements are met, it must be proved that the accident resulted from force majeure or from the gross fault of the injured party or a third party. Two points here are frequently overlooked in practice: the fault of the injured party or of the third party must be gross; slight or moderate fault does not discharge the operator from liability; and even if no one is at fault, the operator is not discharged where a defect in the vehicle contributed to the accident. In other words, a mechanical defect is not a ground of exoneration but an element that precludes exoneration. If the injured party’s fault is not gross, liability does not cease; however, the court may reduce the amount of damages.
The statute reverses the burden of proof in one situation: where the damage occurs while the vehicle is not being operated, the injured party must prove the fault of the operator or of persons for whose acts the operator is responsible, or that a defect in the vehicle caused the accident.
A person who has suffered loss covered by compulsory financial liability insurance may apply directly to the insurer. However, before bringing proceedings, a written application must be made to the relevant insurance company; if the insurance company fails to respond to the application in writing within fifteen days of the date of application, or if its response does not satisfy the claim, the injured party may bring proceedings or apply to the Insurance Arbitration Commission under the applicable insurance legislation. Once the documents have been submitted to the insurer, the insurer is required to pay, within eight business days, the amount falling within the limits of cover. In cases involving loss caused by uninsured vehicles or where the insured cannot be identified, the Guarantee Account becomes relevant; its scope and limits are addressed separately below.
The statute also restricts agreements concerning liability in this field: agreements that exclude or limit the statutory liability are null and void, while agreements and settlements relating to the amount of compensation that are clearly inadequate or excessive may be annulled within two years from the date on which they were concluded. A signed release or settlement document should not be regarded as producing legal effects unless these two provisions are considered together.
Compensation Claims Arising from Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases
In cases of workplace accidents and occupational diseases, two separate layers apply. The first layer comprises the benefits provided and income granted by the Social Security Institution (SGK) under the applicable legislation. The second layer consists of claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages against the employer and, where applicable, third parties, in respect of damage not covered by the Institution; such actions are heard by the labour court. However, this distinction does not apply to every payment: the law prohibits the deduction from damages of social security payments that cannot be subject to recourse. The details are discussed below under the heading “Basis of Liability”.
The basis of a compensation action brought against the employer lies not in social security legislation but in the Turkish Code of Obligations. After providing that the employer is obliged to take every measure necessary to ensure occupational health and safety in the workplace, the Code makes compensation for losses arising from the employee’s death, impairment of bodily integrity or violation of personality rights as a result of the employer’s conduct contrary to law and contract subject to the provisions on liability arising from breach of contract. This characterisation is not merely theoretical: it directly determines the applicable limitation period and the burden of proof. A breach of the obligations under occupational health and safety legislation constitutes the “conduct contrary to law” element under this provision; the sanction prescribed by that legislation is administrative in nature and does not, on its own, establish liability for compensation.
Where an occupational accident or occupational disease occurs as a result of the employer's intent or an act contrary to the legislation on protecting insured persons' health and occupational safety, the Institution may seek recourse against the employer in respect of the total of the payments made and the initial capitalised value of the income awarded. Two points should be noted: intent is not required; an act contrary to the legislation alone is sufficient. However, the amount recoverable is limited to the amounts that the insured person or the beneficiaries may claim from the employer, and the principle of inevitability must be taken into account by law when determining the employer's liability. Recourse against third parties who caused the damage is regulated in a separate paragraph and is limited to half of the initial capitalised value.
The details of the work and the employer’s obligations are discussed on the Employment Law page; this page addresses only the issue of compensation for the damage.
Liability of Physicians and Healthcare Institutions
The basis of liability and the competent branch of the judiciary in cases involving damage arising from healthcare services depend on whether the services were provided by a public or private healthcare institution.
In private healthcare institutions, the relationship is based on contract and disputes are heard by the ordinary courts. If the obligation is not performed at all or is not duly performed, the debtor is liable to compensate the resulting loss unless the debtor proves that no fault whatsoever can be attributed to them; in other words, as regards fault, the burden of proof is the reverse of the position in tort. The healthcare institution is liable for the harm caused by its employees in the course of performing their duties and, since the service requires specialist expertise and may be carried out only under licence, an agreement excluding liability for the acts of auxiliary persons is absolutely void; likewise, a prior agreement excluding liability for slight negligence is absolutely void. A disclaimer signed by the patient is therefore invalid. Limitation periods may not be varied by contract either.
The legislation does not characterise the relationship as falling under any particular type of contract. In practice, the treatment relationship is characterised as a contract of mandate, and the standard of care is considered to be the conduct that a prudent mandatary undertaking work and services in a similar field must display; accordingly, the five-year limitation period is considered applicable. Contracts under which a specific result is promised are regarded as contracts for work; in such cases, for actions based on defects, the law prescribes a two-year period for works other than immovable structures, and a twenty-year period where the contractor has been grossly negligent. Since the law also provides for a five-year period in certain cases involving claims arising from contracts for work, the applicable period cannot be determined by reference to a single criterion.
In public healthcare institutions, however, under the Constitution, the administration is obliged to compensate damage arising from its own acts and actions, and an allegation of a service defect may be brought before the administrative courts by way of a full remedy action (tam yargı davası). This avenue has its own strict timetable: an application to the administration is mandatory before filing a lawsuit. This application must be made within one year of the date on which the act became known and, in any event, within five years of the date of the act. If the administration rejects the request, the action must be brought within the applicable period starting on the day following notification; if it fails to respond within thirty days, that period starts upon expiry of the thirty-day period. The time limit for bringing an action before the administrative courts is sixty days. The one- and five-year periods are not time limits for bringing an action but application periods—overlooking this distinction may result in the loss of rights. The relevant regulation further stipulates that the amounts claimed for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages must be stated separately in the application to the administration.
A patient's consent is required for medical intervention; for major surgical procedures, such consent is legally required to be in writing, and as of 24 July 2025, consent may also be obtained electronically. Informed consent is regulated at the level of secondary legislation, which provides for information ranging from the course of the disease to treatment options and possible complications; this information must be provided in a manner the patient can understand and by the healthcare professional who will perform the intervention. The consent form is signed in duplicate, and one copy is given to the patient. No one may be subjected to medical intervention in a manner that is not consistent with their consent; the intervention must remain within the limits of the consent, and consent obtained unlawfully is invalid. The effect of failure to obtain consent in the prescribed manner on liability for damages is not regulated in the legislation; however, it is accepted in practice that a breach of the duty to inform gives rise to liability in itself.
There are two further regimes concerning insurance and investigations. For physicians working in private healthcare institutions or practising independently, compulsory professional liability insurance is required by law; for those working in private institutions, the institution takes out the insurance and half of the premium is paid by the employer. As regards criminal investigations, a special permission procedure applies to investigations concerning the examination, diagnosis and treatment activities of physicians, dentists and other healthcare professionals, and permission to conduct the investigation is granted by the Professional Liability Board; this regime also applies to those working in private healthcare institutions and foundation universities. From 1 March 2024 onwards, the public administration, by subrogation, recovers the compensation it has paid from the insurer providing the compulsory professional liability insurance.
Compensation Arising from Contract and Damage to Property
Damage need not always be bodily. Losses arising from breach of contract, damage to property and losses suffered in one’s assets may also be subject to compensation.
The fundamental distinction between the two regimes lies in the burden of proof, with the position reversed only as regards the element of fault. In tort, the injured party bears the burden of proving the damage and the fault of the person who caused it. In breach of contract, the creditor likewise bears the burden of proving the damage and the breach; the difference is that the debtor is liable unless he proves that no fault can be attributed to him. The law further provides that the provisions on tort liability apply by analogy to cases of breach of contract. Accordingly, where the amount of damage cannot be proved precisely, the rules allowing the court to determine and reduce compensation in the exercise of its discretion also apply under both regimes.
The same event may constitute both a breach of contract and a tort. In such cases, the law does not leave the choice to the discretion of the injured party: unless the injured party has requested otherwise or the law provides otherwise, the judge shall decide on the basis of the ground of liability that affords the injured party the best means of redress. In other words, the injured party’s position does not entail a right of election, but rather the ability to prevent the judge from making this choice. This rule has particular consequences in view of the differences in limitation periods and the burden of proof.
As for damage to property, the law contains no specific provision; the details of this head are addressed below in the section on heads of damages.
The contractual dimension of damages arising from commercial relationships is further addressed on the commercial law and contract law pages.
Step-by-Step Process
How Does the Process Work for a Compensation Claim?
Determination of the Basis of Liability and the Liable Party
The first step is not to calculate the amount of the loss but to determine the legal ground on which liability is based. This determination affects the court with subject-matter jurisdiction, the burden of proof, the applicable limitation period and the steps that must be completed before the action is brought.
In terms of subject-matter jurisdiction, the law does not lay down a single rule, and the rules on subject-matter jurisdiction are a matter of public policy. As a general rule, claims for compensation arising from tort are heard in the civil court of first instance. In contrast, claims based on an insurance contract are deemed commercial cases, irrespective of whether the parties are merchants, because insurance law is regulated in the Turkish Commercial Code, and thus fall within the jurisdiction of the commercial court of first instance. Actions arising from an employment relationship or an occupational accident are heard in the labour court, while those arising from consumer transactions are heard in the consumer court; actions involving the Social Security Institution or the Turkish Employment Agency also fall within the jurisdiction of the labour court. Where the accident relates to the commercial enterprises of both parties, the action is again heard in the commercial court of first instance. Liability actions arising from the Highway Traffic Act, including actions relating to damage caused by vehicles owned by the State and other public bodies, are heard in the ordinary courts, and the fact that the injured party is a public official does not affect this rule.
At this stage, the place and date of the incident, accident or incident reports, the criminal investigation file, if any, medical records and reports, insurance policies, and documents relating to the relationship giving rise to liability are examined together. If there is more than one liable party, it is also assessed whether they are liable jointly or separately.
Pre-Litigation Applications
In certain compensation claims, there is a step that must be completed before filing a lawsuit. If an application that constitutes a condition of action is omitted, the case will be dismissed on procedural grounds. However, there is no single rule determining which claim is subject to which prerequisite, and this is one of the most commonly misunderstood issues in practice.
In traffic accidents, before filing a lawsuit against an insurer, a written application must be submitted to the relevant insurance company. Mediation as a condition of action is a separate arrangement, and its scope is determined not by the Mediation Law but by the relevant law for each type of dispute. The practical consequence is as follows: because a compensation claim brought against an insurer is considered a commercial case and concerns a sum of money, it is as a rule subject to mandatory mediation as a condition of action; in such cases, the two prerequisites overlap. By contrast, a compensation claim brought against the vehicle operator or driver is based on tort and is therefore as a rule outside this scope, meaning that it may be filed directly before the court. There are exceptions to this rule: if the accident relates to the commercial enterprise of both parties, the case is treated as a commercial case; if it arises within an employee–employer relationship, it is treated as an employment dispute; and if the transport constitutes a consumer transaction, it falls within the scope of mandatory mediation as a condition of action as a consumer dispute. Accordingly, the prerequisite must be determined separately for each defendant. However, in respect of claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages arising from occupational accidents and occupational diseases, and related actions for determination, objection and recourse, the law provides for a clear exception; in these cases, mediation is not a condition of action. This does not prevent the parties from voluntarily resorting to mediation.
Where the claimant intends to sue joint and several obligors together, this distinction is particularly important: the mandatory mediation requirement must additionally be satisfied as against the insurer; otherwise the action is dismissed for lack of a procedural prerequisite in respect of that defendant. It should also be noted that during the mediation process the limitation period is suspended, but not interrupted. If the action is dismissed because it was filed prematurely and the limitation period expires in the meantime, the law grants an additional period of sixty days.
As regards claims of administrative liability, however, prior application to the administration is mandatory and subject to its own limitation regime; this scheme has been addressed above under the heading of liability of physicians and healthcare institutions.
Litigation, Evidence and Quantification
Two distinct issues are addressed together during the proceedings: whether liability exists and the amount of the loss.
With regard to the existence of liability, fault, causation and unlawfulness are examined; in cases of strict liability, the discussion of fault gives way to proof of grounds for exemption from liability. Findings made in the criminal file may be submitted as evidence in the civil action; the conduct of criminal proceedings is addressed on the criminal law page. The statute has introduced an express provision on this point and stipulates that, when deciding whether fault exists and whether the person concerned possessed capacity for discernment, the civil judge is not bound by the provisions of criminal law relating to liability or by the acquittal judgment rendered by the criminal judge; nor is the civil judge bound by the criminal judge’s decision concerning the assessment of fault or the determination of damage. The provision merely lists these four matters and makes no mention of the criminal court’s findings of fact; accordingly, no conclusion should be drawn that the criminal judgment has no effect whatsoever in the civil action.
As to the amount of damage, the injured party must prove the amount of their loss. The law provides that, where the amount cannot be proved precisely, the judge shall determine the amount of damage on an equitable basis, taking into account the ordinary course of events and the measures taken by the injured party. In cases of bodily injury and death, the calculation is made by means of an expert assessment based on the rate of loss of working capacity and income data.
There was a significant change in 2026 concerning how a claim is to be pleaded in the statement of claim. For claims for compensation for bodily harm and loss of support, the amendment that came into force on 31 July 2026 introduced a new procedure: where only part of the claim is brought in the action, the amount claimed may be increased in the same action once only and without being subject to the prohibition on extending the claim until the conclusion of the evidentiary stage; in such cases, the limitation period is deemed to have been interrupted for the increased portion as well as from the date on which the action was filed. The claim may therefore be increased in this manner after the expert report. The law also contains a transitional provision: the previous rules continue to apply to actions brought before this date. The same amendment also provided that the interval between hearings may not exceed three months; however, in mandatory circumstances, such as a prolonged expert examination, the judge may set a longer interval by giving reasons.
Judgment, Interest and Enforcement
The date from which interest begins to accrue on a compensation claim varies depending on the basis of liability, and in this regard, the amendment made in 2026 is decisive.
The general rule is expressly set out in the statute: in tort, the debtor is in default on the date the wrongful act was committed; that is, no separate notice is required. By contrast, the amendment which entered into force on 31 July 2026 distinguishes between the starting points for interest in respect of wrongful acts and damage-causing events occurring after that date. For losses arising from the diminution or loss of working capacity and loss of support, statutory interest accrues on compensation relating to the period when the injured person’s or the person providing support’s earnings were known from the date of the event, and on compensation relating to the period when earnings were not known from the date of judgment. The same amendment also provides that payments made with a view to performance until the start of the examination stage are to be deducted proportionally from the compensation amount to be determined by reference to the payment date. These provisions apply only to events occurring after the specified date; for earlier events, the previous version of the article remains applicable.
The method for determining the statutory interest rate also changed on 31 July 2026; no transitional provision based on the date of the event was provided for in respect of this change.
For claims arising under a contract, interest is determined in accordance with the rules governing default; for claims against an insurer, the payment period prescribed by the policy and applicable legislation is decisive.
The statute further provides for two forms of flexibility. Where the extent of the bodily harm cannot be determined precisely when judgment is given, the court may reserve the right to vary the compensation award within two years from the date on which the judgment becomes final. Where the injured party submits credible evidence demonstrating the merits of the claim and the party’s financial circumstances so require, the court may, upon application, order the defendant to make an interim payment; interim payments made are set off against the compensation awarded.
At the enforcement stage, collection, seizure and sale proceedings are conducted in accordance with the rules of enforcement law. Where the liable party is insured, recovery is limited to the policy limit; any amount exceeding the limit is claimed from the liable party. Once the insurer pays the compensation, it is subrogated to the insured's rights by operation of law; where the insurer has only partially compensated the loss, the insured retains the right to claim against the liable parties for the remaining amount. The enforcement aspect is addressed on the enforcement and bankruptcy law page.
What Can Be Claimed
Heads of Compensation
Pecuniary Damages
In enumerating heads of damage for bodily injury, the statute uses the phrase "in particular, the following", making the list illustrative rather than exhaustive. The items listed are medical treatment expenses, loss of earnings, losses arising from diminished or lost working capacity and losses arising from impairment of economic future.
The final two heads of damage are set out in separate subparagraphs and are not duplicative. The relevant statutory provisions merely name them without defining their content; in practice, it is accepted that loss arising from diminished working capacity represents a reduction in a person’s earning capacity, whereas loss arising from impairment of economic prospects represents a weakening of their position in working life. Since the enumeration is illustrative, a head of damage not included in the list may also be claimed under the general provisions.
In practice, the rate of loss of working capacity is determined on the basis of a report issued after the treatment is completed; therefore, any calculation made while the treatment is still ongoing is provisional in nature. The law offers two distinct solutions to this uncertainty: if the scope cannot be fully determined at the time of the judgment, the judge may reserve the right to modify the compensation award, and, where the conditions are met, may order provisional payment while the proceedings are pending. Both are addressed in the process section above.
The form of payment is also at the discretion of the judge: the judge determines the scope of the compensation and the manner of payment, taking into account the requirements of the case and, in particular, the severity of the fault; if payment of the compensation in the form of periodic payments is ordered, the debtor is obliged to provide security. This rule provides practical protection for the creditor in cases where long-term payment is ordered.
Loss of Support
The losses suffered in the event of death are also listed, in particular, as follows: funeral expenses; where death does not occur immediately, treatment expenses and losses arising from the reduction or loss of earning capacity; and the losses suffered by those deprived of the deceased’s support.
The second item is subject to a single condition under the statute: if death did not occur immediately, treatment expenses and loss of earning capacity relating to the intervening period are listed separately alongside funeral expenses and losses arising from deprivation of support. Therefore, whether death occurred at the same time as the accident directly affects the heads of claim.
It is accepted that a claim for loss of dependency (loss of support) is independent of heirship status: what is decisive is whether the deceased actually provided support and whether he or she would have continued to provide support. Accordingly, a person who has disclaimed the inheritance may also claim such compensation, whereas being an heir alone does not entitle one to this compensation.
Non-Pecuniary Damages
Non-pecuniary damages are not compensation for financial losses but a claim aimed at remedying the impairment of personality values. The law provides that where bodily integrity has been violated, the court may, taking into account the circumstances of the case, order payment of an appropriate sum of money to the injured party.
In addition, the law provides for a second situation: in the event of serious bodily harm or death, compensation for non-pecuniary damage may also be awarded to the relatives of the injured person or the deceased’s relatives. Since these two situations are regulated in the same sentence, the relatives’ right to claim is not limited solely to the case of death—it also arises in the case of serious bodily harm.
The amount is determined at the discretion of the judge, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case. The special limits applicable to the calculation of compensation for bodily injury and loss of support do not apply to non-pecuniary damages; the criterion here is, in the words of the statute, the specific circumstances of the case.
Property and Other Losses
With regard to damage to property, the rule is that the diminution in the injured party’s assets caused by the damage is to be compensated. The statute does not contain any specific provision on how such damage is to be calculated; under the general provisions, where the property is repairable, the cost of repair is taken as the basis, while where repair is not economically feasible, the difference between the value of the property before the damage and its value in its damaged state is taken as the basis. Any residual decrease in the value of the property after repair may also be claimed as a separate item.
In respect of this head of loss, two limits are of importance. The special provisions governing the calculation of compensation for bodily injury and loss of dependency — including the prohibition of set-off and the rules on interest — do not apply to damage to property; here, the general provisions apply. The second limit arises from insurance: whether the head of loss falls within the scope of cover is determined by the policy, and the scope and limits of compulsory insurance and voluntary insurance differ. Any amount exceeding the cover provided by the compulsory insurance must be claimed from the person liable.
Basis of Liability
Fault, No-Fault Liability and Grounds for Reduction
In fault-based liability, the injured party is expected to prove the unlawful act, the damage, the causal link between the act and the damage, and the perpetrator’s fault. The law expressly regulates this and places on the injured party the burden of proving the damage and the fault of the person who caused it. A person who causes damage to another through a culpable and unlawful act is obliged to compensate for that damage; the law further provides that a person who intentionally causes damage through an act contrary to morality is also liable, even where no legal rule prohibits the harmful act.
By contrast, in certain cases, the law establishes liability irrespective of fault, and these cases themselves fall into two categories. This is a distinction that is often confused with other distinctions on the website.
The first category is liability based on due care, and the person liable may avoid liability by proving that he or she exercised the requisite care. A person employing another is liable for damage caused to third parties by that person while carrying out the work assigned to him or her; however, the person employing another is not liable if he or she proves that the requisite care was exercised to prevent the damage when selecting the person, when giving instructions relating to the work, and when supervising and overseeing him or her. All three elements are required. Where the person employing another operates a business, the applicable standard is stricter: liability arises unless it is proved that the organisation of the business was suitable for preventing the damage; personal care alone is not sufficient. The person employing another may seek recourse against the employee in respect of compensation paid only to the extent that the employee is personally liable. A similar possibility of avoiding liability exists in the case of the keeper of an animal; here, the person liable is not the animal’s owner but the person who has assumed responsibility for its care and management, permanently or temporarily.
The second category, by contrast, constitutes genuine strict liability, and there is no possibility of escaping liability by proving due care. The liability of the owner of a structure falls within this category: the owner of a building or other structure is liable to compensate the damage arising from defects in its construction or shortcomings in its maintenance, and the Civil Code does not include here the exoneration clause available under the provisions on liability for fault. Liability attaches to the owner; holders of a usufruct or right of habitation are jointly and severally liable with the owner only for damage arising from shortcomings in maintenance. Liability for dangerous activities is also included in this category: where damage arises from the operation of an undertaking that presents a significant danger, the owner of the undertaking and, if any, its operator are jointly and severally liable. The Civil Code defines such an undertaking as one which, having regard to its nature or to the materials, equipment or forces used, is likely to cause frequent or serious damage even where all due care expected of a specialist in the field is exercised. Since special provisions applicable to a particular type of danger are reserved, the special regime under the Highway Traffic Act applies to the liability of the operator of a motor vehicle. Furthermore, the Civil Code provides that, even where the activity was authorised by the legal order, injured persons may claim appropriate compensation for the damage they have suffered.
Where multiple persons jointly cause damage or are liable for the same damage on various grounds, the provisions on joint and several liability apply; the injured party may claim the full amount of compensation from any one of the liable parties. As regards the apportionment among the liable parties in their internal relationship, the gravity of fault and the intensity of the danger created are considered together; a person who has paid more than his or her share of the compensation has a right of recourse against the others for the excess payment and is subrogated to the rights of the injured party.
The amount of compensation need not in every case cover the full extent of the damage. The Turkish Code of Obligations provides for two separate grounds for reducing compensation. If the injured party has consented to the act causing the damage, contributed to the occurrence or aggravation of the damage, or aggravated the position of the party liable for compensation, the judge may reduce the compensation or dispense with it entirely. In addition, there is a separate possibility of reduction subject to stricter conditions: if the party liable for compensation caused the damage through slight fault, would be reduced to poverty by paying the compensation, and equity so requires, the judge may reduce the compensation. Unless all three conditions are satisfied cumulatively, this provision cannot be relied upon, and the consequence under this provision is limited to a reduction; the compensation cannot be dispensed with entirely.
As regards the deduction from compensation of payments received by the injured party, the law, contrary to what might be expected, imposes a prohibition. Social security payments that cannot be recovered by recourse, in whole or in part, and payments not made for the purpose of performance may not be taken into account when determining bodily injury or loss of support damages, nor may they be deducted from the loss or compensation. Offsetting arises only in respect of payments falling outside this prohibition, namely social security payments that can be recovered by recourse and payments made for the purpose of performance. Accordingly, it should not be assumed that every payment made by the Institution will be deducted from the compensation.
The same provision also contains another prohibition: compensation calculated for loss-of-support and bodily injury losses may not be increased or reduced on equitable grounds by reference to the amount calculated. This prohibition does not apply to non-pecuniary damages; in assessing non-pecuniary damages, the judge determines an appropriate amount having regard to the circumstances of the case.
Finally, a procedural point directly affects the outcome: unless the limitation defence is raised, the judge cannot take it into account of the judge’s own motion. A claim that is time-barred will not be dismissed on that ground if the opposing party does not raise the defence. By contrast, the limitation defence cannot be waived in advance.
Time Limits
Limitation Period for Compensation Claims
The limitation period for damages varies according to the underlying basis and, in part, combines two periods: a short period running from the date of knowledge and a long-stop period running from the act or event. Since the short period begins with knowledge, it may start running years after the event; the long-stop period, however, always runs from the date of the event and is independent of knowledge. For claims based on contract, the period runs from the date the claim becomes due; the length of the period varies according to the type of contract — ten years unless the law provides otherwise, and as a rule five years for mandate and contracts for work.
There is an important exception to this: if a claim for damages arises from an act punishable under criminal law for which the criminal limitation period is longer, that longer period applies in the civil action. This rule effectively extends the general limitation periods for claims for damages arising from serious criminal offences.
| Legal Basis | Short-term | Maximum Duration | Get Started |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tort (General) | 2 years | 10 years | date of knowledge / date of act |
| Traffic accident — property damage | 2 years | 10 years | date of knowledge / date of accident |
| Against the Insurer — Liability Insurance (Non-Traffic-Related) | — | 10 years | insured event |
| Breach of contract (general) | — | 10 years | Maturity |
| Mandate / contract for work | — | 5 years | Maturity |
| Occupational accident and occupational disease | — | 10 years | Maturity |
| Recourse between jointly and severally liable parties (general) | 2 years | 10 years | Payment and Identifying the Liable Party |
| Compensation Arising from a Criminal Act | Limitation Period for Criminal Offences | Limitation Period for Criminal Offences | Under Criminal Legislation |
The limitation set out in the second row of the table is important: by its wording, the special limitation period for traffic accidents applies only to pecuniary losses and does not determine which period governs a claim for non-pecuniary damages. In that case, the same provision refers to the general rules. Another point on which the limitation period for traffic accidents differs from the general limitation period for tort claims is the commencement of the long-stop period: here, it runs from the date of the accident.
The priority rule is important in relation to the two rows set out in the table. In liability insurance, the general rule is a ten-year period running from the insured event; however, since the law preserves the provisions of other laws, the special period under the Highway Traffic Law applies to claims based on compulsory traffic insurance. There is also a difference with regard to recourse: the long-stop period shown in the table relates to the general provision; no long-stop period is prescribed for recourse claims arising from traffic accidents. The limitation period for claims arising from healthcare services is addressed above under the heading “Liability of Physicians and Healthcare Institutions.”
No specific limitation period is prescribed under social security legislation or legislation governing labour courts for compensation arising from occupational accidents and occupational diseases. Since these claims are subject to the provisions on liability arising from breach of contract, the general ten-year limitation period applies. In an action brought against third parties who do not have an employment contract with the employer, however, the limitation period for tort claims applies. As regards the commencement of the limitation period, the law contains no specific provision for occupational accidents, and it is accepted in practice that the commencement is deferred where the permanent disability rate is finalised at a later date.
Administrative liability falls outside this table and has a different structure. It involves not a running limitation period but a two-stage system comprising a period for applying to the administration and a period for filing an action; the details are addressed above.
Interruption and suspension of the limitation period are addressed under separate headings. The statute sets out the grounds for interruption in two groups: the debtor's acknowledgment of the debt — in particular by payment of interest, partial performance, the giving of security or the provision of a surety — and the creditor's recourse to a court or arbitral tribunal by bringing an action or raising a defence, the initiation of enforcement proceedings or an application to the bankruptcy estate. Recourse to mediation is not among these grounds; during mediation proceedings the limitation period is suspended, not interrupted. Upon interruption, a fresh period begins to run; where the debt has been acknowledged by a deed or reduced to a court or arbitral judgment, the new period is in all cases ten years.
The rules on against whom the interruption takes effect are the opposite of what one might expect in practice. When the limitation period is interrupted against one of the joint and several debtors or one of the debtors of an indivisible obligation, it is also interrupted as against the others; an interruption against the principal debtor also interrupts the period as against the surety, whereas an interruption against the surety does not take effect as against the principal debtor. In other words, as a rule, the interruption extends. The rule on personal effect does not apply to interruption but to waiver: the fact that one of the joint and several debtors has waived the limitation period cannot be asserted against the others. In traffic accidents, this effect is even broader and operates in both directions: if the limitation period is interrupted against the person liable for compensation, it is also interrupted as against the insurer, and an interruption of the limitation period against the insurer is deemed to also interrupt the period as against the person liable for compensation. The practical consequence is that, while the pre-action process against the insurer continues, a lawsuit filed against the vehicle operator also interrupts the limitation period with respect to the insurer.
Foreign element
Compensation Claims Involving a Foreign Element
If the damage is caused by a foreign national, the victim is a foreign national, or the incident occurs abroad, additional procedural steps may arise in the compensation claim. In places like Alanya, where tourism and foreign residents are prevalent, this issue may arise in traffic accident claims.
Governing Law
The general rule for obligations arising from tort is that the law of the country where the tort was committed applies. Where the place of the wrongful act and the place where the damage occurred are in different countries, the law of the country where the damage occurred applies. Where the obligation is more closely connected with another country, the law of that country applies. The law further provides for two possibilities: where the law applicable to the tort or to the insurance contract so permits, the injured party may assert his or her claim directly against the insurer of the person liable; and the parties may expressly choose the applicable law after the tort has been committed.
In a traffic accident occurring in Turkey, the fact that the parties are foreign does not, as a rule, preclude the application of Turkish law.
Foreign Vehicles, Green Card and the Guarantee Account
In determining liability for damage caused in Turkey by vehicles registered abroad, the decisive factor is whether the vehicle has valid cover within Turkey. The law provides that if foreign-plated vehicles do not have insurance valid in Turkey, compulsory financial liability insurance shall be taken out upon their entry into Turkey. In addition, an insurance certificate issued under the international agreement on compulsory financial liability insurance for motor vehicles may also be recognised as valid in Turkey. The Turkish counterpart of this system is the Turkish Motor Vehicles Bureau, which is responsible for ensuring the handling and settlement of claims arising from such vehicles under insurance contracts issued abroad and recognised as valid in Turkey.
The payment process works as follows: claim files within this scope are completed by the Bureau, and compensation is paid from the Guarantee Account. It should be noted that the injured party does not apply directly to the Guarantee Account; rather, the application to the Account is made by the Bureau.
The scope of the Guarantee Account is narrower than commonly assumed and is largely limited to bodily injury. The Account may be claimed against only for bodily injury suffered by individuals: where the insured party cannot be identified; for damage caused by persons who have not taken out insurance, within the applicable coverage limits; and in accidents involving a stolen or hijacked vehicle — in this latter case only where the operator is not held liable under the law. The only case in which property damage is also covered is the revocation of the insurance company’s licences or its bankruptcy. Apart from that, compensation from the Account for damage to property depends on a presidential decree. The Account does not have a separate coverage limit; payment is made up to the valid coverage amounts determined by the relevant compulsory insurance.
Jurisdiction, Security for Costs and Service of Documents
In actions arising from tort, the law provides, in addition to the court of the defendant's domicile, four alternative places of jurisdiction: the place where the tort was committed, the place where the damage occurred, the place where the damage is likely to occur and the domicile of the injured party. In compensation claims arising from occupational accidents, the courts at the place where the occupational accident or damage occurred and at the injured worker's domicile are also competent, and any jurisdiction agreements contrary to these provisions are invalid. The possibility of concluding jurisdiction agreements is, in general, granted only to merchants and public legal entities.
The jurisdiction rule specific to traffic accidents was narrowed in 2024. Following the Constitutional Court's decision, the phrase "head office" was annulled from the relevant paragraph, and actions concerning legal liability arising from motor vehicle accidents may now be brought before one of the courts at the place where the insurer's branch office or the agency that concluded the insurance contract is located, or before the court at the place where the accident occurred. The place where the insurer's head office is located is no longer a ground of jurisdiction under this provision.
There are two separate regimes concerning security for costs, and they should not be confused. The obligation to provide security under the procedural code applies to a Turkish national plaintiff who does not have habitual residence in Turkey. As regards foreign natural and legal persons, however, a separate provision is set out in the legislation on private international law: foreign natural and legal persons who bring an action before a Turkish court, participate in proceedings or initiate enforcement proceedings must provide security, as determined by the court, to cover the costs of the proceedings and enforcement and the other party's damages and other losses. Since this provision contains no reference to "habitual residence", its scope is broader than that of the procedural code. The court grants an exemption from the security requirement on the basis of reciprocity.
Service of documents on a defendant residing abroad is, as a rule, effected through the competent authority of that country and is carried out within the framework of international conventions to which Turkey is a party; where the addressee is a Turkish national, service may also be effected through the Turkish Embassy or Consulate in that country. This route materially extends the duration of the proceedings and should be factored in from the outset when planning the case.
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
A foreign court judgment cannot be directly enforced through execution proceedings in Turkey; an enforcement order must first be obtained from the competent Turkish court. The competent court is the court of first instance, and such cases are subject to simplified proceedings. Recognition allows the judgment to be treated as conclusive evidence or res judicata; enforceability, however, depends on an enforcement order.
Among the conditions required for enforcement is reciprocity; this condition may be satisfied by an agreement based on reciprocity, a statutory provision in the relevant state that permits the enforcement of Turkish court judgments, or actual practice. The law expressly provides that this condition is not required for recognition. Other conditions that may lead to the refusal of an enforcement request include the judgment having been rendered on a matter not falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts, not being manifestly contrary to public policy, and the person against whom enforcement is sought having been duly summoned or represented. In respect of judgments awarding damages, the most debated of these conditions in practice is the review of public policy. The law does not provide a separate regime specific to judgments for damages, and such judgments are subject to the same provisions as other civil court judgments. It should also be noted that an appeal stays execution.
Assessment criteria
Assessment Criteria for Compensation Claims
The approach to be taken in a compensation claim depends on the relationship from which the damage arose, whether liability is fault-based, whether the liable party is insured, and the time elapsed since the incident. This assessment takes into account, together, incident-determination reports, medical records and reports, any criminal investigation case file, insurance policies and income documents.
In cases of bodily injury and death, the rate of loss of working capacity, whether treatment has been completed, and the existence of a support relationship are decisive. In cases of property damage, the possibility of repair, diminution in value and policy coverage are key considerations. Any applications that must be made before proceedings, and whether mediation is required as a precondition to bringing proceedings, are determined separately in each case; it is recognised that different preconditions may apply to different defendants in the same incident.
In cases involving a foreign party or a cross-border element, the applicable law, jurisdiction, security, service of documents and enforcement of foreign judgments are also considered.
In particular disputes, the legal assessment varies according to the characteristics of the case and the damage involved.
The firm's practice areas include disputes arising from compensation law. To request a consultation, you can contact us via the contact page.
FAQs
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I file a lawsuit directly after a traffic accident?
Before filing a lawsuit against the insurer, a written application must be made to the relevant insurance company. If the insurance company fails to respond in writing no later than fifteen days from the date of application, or if its response does not satisfy the claim, a lawsuit may be filed or an application may be made to the Insurance Arbitration Commission. The insurer is required to make payment within eight business days after the documents have been submitted to it. In addition, since a lawsuit against the insurer is considered a commercial case and concerns a monetary claim, it is in principle subject to mediation as a condition of litigation; in other words, both procedural prerequisites apply cumulatively. A lawsuit against the vehicle operator or driver, on the other hand, is based on tort and is therefore in principle outside this scope.
What happens if the vehicle involved in the accident is not insured?
Where the insurer cannot be identified or the person who caused the damage failed to obtain insurance, the Guarantee Fund (Güvence Hesabı) comes into play. However, in such cases, coverage is limited solely to personal injury; the only situation in which property damage is also covered is where the insurance company’s licences have been revoked or it has become insolvent. For the Fund to be invoked following an accident involving a stolen or hijacked vehicle, there must also be a situation in which the vehicle operator is not held liable under the law. The Fund has no separate limit; payment is made up to the valid coverage amounts specified under the relevant compulsory insurance.
How is non-pecuniary damage determined?
Non-pecuniary damages are not compensation for financial losses; they are intended to remedy the impairment of personal rights. The law provides that, in the event of serious personal injury or death, compensation for non-pecuniary damage may be awarded to the injured person or to the relatives of the injured person or the deceased; in other words, relatives’ right to claim is not limited to cases of death. The amount is determined by the judge taking into account the circumstances of the case; the special limits applicable to the calculation of compensation for personal injury and loss of dependency do not apply to non-pecuniary damages.
I have renounced my deceased relative’s inheritance; can I still claim compensation?
Yes. This claim does not arise from inheritance rights; what matters is whether the deceased in fact provided you with support. Disclaiming the inheritance does not extinguish the claim, nor does being an heir, in itself, entitle you to this compensation.
Is mediation mandatory for workplace accident compensation claims?
No. The law expressly provides that mediation is not a condition precedent for actions concerning pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages arising from occupational accidents or occupational diseases, nor for related actions for determination, objection and recourse. This does not prevent the parties from voluntarily resorting to mediation; it only means that it is not a condition precedent for bringing an action.
Within what time limit must I file a lawsuit?
The time limit varies depending on the legal basis of the claim; in some cases, two periods run concurrently: a short period starting when the claimant learns of the damage and a longer overall period running from the event itself. The comparative table above, in the limitation section, sets this out. Where the damages arise from an act that also constitutes a criminal offence for which the criminal law prescribes a longer limitation period, that longer period applies. In claims against the administration, however, the structure differs: there is no single running limitation period, but a two-stage scheme consisting first of an application to the administration and then a period for filing an action.
If there is a criminal case, must the damages action wait for its outcome?
Findings recorded in the criminal file may be submitted as evidence in the civil proceedings. The law provides that the civil court is not bound by an acquittal or by the criminal court’s decision concerning the assessment of fault or the determination of damage. The law does not require the outcome of the criminal case to be awaited; however, the court may treat the criminal file as a preliminary question. The nature of the criminal file is also relevant to the extending effect of the criminal limitation period.
If SGK has awarded me an income, can I also claim compensation?
The portion covered by the Institution and the portion not covered by it are distinguished, and the compensation claim is brought in respect of the damage not covered by the Institution. A frequently made assumption should be corrected here: not every payment made by the Institution is deducted from the compensation. The law provides that social security payments that are partially or wholly not subject to recourse, and payments not made for the purpose of performance, must not be taken into account when determining the damage and must not be deducted from the compensation. The Institution’s right of recourse against the employer or third parties is a separate matter and is subject to its own conditions.
The statements on this page are provided for general information only and do not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. Since the circumstances of each specific case differ, any legal assessment should be made on the basis of the particular case.
The information on this page is published, within the framework of the Turkish Bar Association Regulation on the Prohibition of Advertising, for the purpose of informing about the areas in which the firm operates, and does not imply specialisation or constitute solicitation of business.
Neither viewing this page nor contacting the firm through the links or contact details provided on this page creates an attorney–client relationship between the attorney and the applicant, nor does it imply that the matter has been accepted.
The information on this page and the relevant time limits have been prepared in accordance with the legislation in force as of 4 September 2026. As legislation may change, time limits must in any case be calculated in accordance with the current statutory text.
The legal path to follow in compensation disputes may vary depending on the type of damage, the manner in which the incident occurred, the degrees of fault, the available evidence, and the legal basis of the claim. It is therefore important to correctly determine the damage and liability, to observe the time limits for applications and filing a lawsuit, and to assess the heads of damage that may be claimed in light of the specific circumstances of the case.
Merve Kartal
attorney at law