Tort Law in Turkey: TBK 49-76 Haksız Fiil Framework Guide

Turkish tort law (haksız fiil hukuku) operates through integrated framework spanning the Code of Obligations (Law No. 6098, "TBK") general framework, specialised statutory frameworks for specific tort categories, and integrated procedural and substantive provisions across multiple statutes. The principal substantive framework operates under TBK Articles 49-76 establishing the comprehensive haksız fiil (tortious act) framework. TBK Article 49 establishes the four foundational elements: unlawful act (hukuka aykırı fiil), fault (kusur — intent or negligence), damage (zarar), and causal nexus (illiyet bağı) between unlawful conduct and damage. TBK Article 50 establishes joint and several liability for multiple tortfeasors. TBK Article 51 establishes the court's discretionary authority in damage assessment (hâkimin takdir yetkisi). TBK Articles 53-56 establish specific damage categories including death-related dependency damages (Article 55, destekten yoksun kalma tazminatı) and moral damages (Article 56, manevi tazminat). TBK Article 58 establishes personality rights infringement framework. TBK Article 66 establishes employer vicarious liability (adam çalıştıranın sorumluluğu). TBK Article 69 establishes building owner liability. TBK Article 71 establishes strict liability for dangerous activities (tehlike sorumluluğu). TBK Articles 72-73 establish limitation periods.

Specialised statutory frameworks supplement TBK general provisions for specific tort categories. The Highway Traffic Law (Law No. 2918, "KTK") of 13 October 1983 establishes traffic accident framework with Article 85 vehicle owner strict liability, Article 91 mandatory liability insurance (Trafik Sigortası — ZMSS), and Article 97 compensation rights framework. The Insurance Law (Law No. 5684, "Sigortacılık Kanunu") of 3 June 2007 establishes insurance framework with Article 14 subrogation rights (rücu hakkı) and Article 30 Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonu (Insurance Arbitration Commission). The Civil Code (Law No. 4721, "TMK") Articles 24-25 establish personality rights protection supporting defamation and integrated personality-based torts. The Penal Code (Law No. 5237, "TCK") Articles 85 (negligent killing), 89 (negligent injury), 125 (defamation), 131 (defamation through media), 106 (threat), and 66 (criminal limitation) establish criminal frameworks operating alongside civil tort liability. The Consumer Protection Law (Law No. 6502, "TKHK") Articles 8 and 75 establish defective products framework. The Environmental Law (Law No. 2872) governs environmental torts. The Mediation Law (Law No. 6325, "HUAK") Article 18/A establishes mandatory mediation for labour disputes including labour torts (effective 1 January 2018 through Law No. 7036 of 12 October 2017). Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.

The Four Elements of Haksız Fiil Under TBK Article 49

TBK Article 49 establishes the four foundational elements of tort liability that must be proved for compensation recovery. The unlawful act element (hukuka aykırı fiil) requires conduct violating legal obligations — either positive obligations imposed by law or negative obligations protecting others' rights. Unlawfulness operates through integrated analysis of: specific statutory prohibitions; general legal principles supporting protected interests; established legal duties applicable to specific circumstances; and integrated legal framework analysis. The unlawfulness assessment is objective — focusing on conduct rather than actor's subjective intent.

The fault element (kusur) requires intent (kasıt) or negligence (ihmal) supporting attributable wrongdoing. Intent involves deliberate conduct directed at producing harmful outcomes or knowingly accepting risk of harm. Negligence involves failure to exercise care reasonably expected under specific circumstances — typically analysed through reasonable person standard adapted to specific contexts. Specific professional contexts including medical practice, legal representation, and integrated specialised activities involve professional standard analysis exceeding general reasonable person standard. Vicarious liability under TBK Article 66 (employer for employees) and strict liability under TBK Article 71 (dangerous activities) operate without traditional fault requirement. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.

The damage element (zarar) requires actual harm to legally protected interests. Damage categories include: material damage (maddi zarar) covering tangible economic losses including direct property damage, medical expenses, lost income, loss of earning capacity, and integrated economic harm; moral damage (manevi zarar) covering emotional suffering, pain, distress, and integrated non-economic harm under TBK Article 56 framework; and consequential damages flowing from primary tortious conduct. The causal nexus element (illiyet bağı) requires substantive connection between unlawful act and resulting damage — not mere temporal correlation. Causation analysis includes: factual causation (but-for analysis); proximate causation considering foreseeability and policy considerations; intervening causation analysis where third-party actions or natural events affect causal chain; and integrated causation framework. Failure to establish any of the four elements defeats the tort claim. TBK Article 50 establishes joint and several liability for multiple tortfeasors — supporting victim recovery from any individually solvent defendant with subsequent contribution analysis among defendants. TBK Article 51 provides court discretionary authority in damage assessment supporting case-specific calibration considering victim circumstances, defendant capacity, comparative fault, and integrated case factors. ER&GUN&ER Law Firm advises across all tort framework elements with comprehensive case development and strategic representation.

Material and Moral Damages Under TBK 53-56

TBK Articles 53-56 establish comprehensive damages framework supporting tort compensation. TBK Article 53 governs death-related damages including: medical expenses reasonably incurred prior to death; funeral expenses; medical and integrated economic damages from injuries leading to death; and dependency-related compensation under Article 55. TBK Article 54 governs bodily injury damages including: medical expenses both incurred and reasonably anticipated; loss of earning capacity calculated through actuarial framework supporting both current and future earnings impact; loss of income during recovery period; permanent disability damages reflecting reduced future capacity; and integrated economic damages.

TBK Article 55 establishes destekten yoksun kalma tazminatı (loss of support compensation) for those economically dependent on the deceased. The framework supports: spouse compensation for lost economic support during expected support period; minor child compensation for support through majority and education completion where applicable; dependent parent compensation where decedent provided support; and integrated dependent compensation. The calculation involves comprehensive actuarial analysis including: expected support duration based on decedent's life expectancy and dependent's circumstances; expected support level reflecting decedent's economic capacity and family circumstances; appropriate discount rate for present value calculation; and integrated calculation framework. Court discretionary authority under TBK Article 51 supports case-specific calibration. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.

TBK Article 56 establishes manevi tazminat (moral damages) framework for emotional, psychological, and integrated non-economic harm. Moral damages may be awarded for: personality rights infringement through defamation, privacy violation, or similar conduct; physical injury producing pain and suffering beyond economic damages; death-related emotional damages for close family members; and integrated non-economic harm scenarios. The court has substantial discretionary authority in moral damages assessment under Article 51 framework. Important framework clarifications include: Turkish tort law operates through compensatory framework, not punitive damages — common law punitive damages concept does not exist in Turkish framework. Damages compensate actual harm rather than punish defendant conduct beyond compensation. Even where moral damages reflect emotional impact, the framework operates as compensation for actual emotional harm rather than punishment of defendant. The integrated damages framework supports comprehensive victim compensation through coordinated material and moral damages while operating within compensatory framework principles. ER&GUN&ER Law Firm provides comprehensive damages analysis with actuarial coordination, expert witness support, and integrated representation across all damage categories.

Vicarious Liability Under TBK Article 66

TBK Article 66 establishes employer vicarious liability (adam çalıştıranın sorumluluğu) — employers are liable for damages caused by their employees during work-related activities. The framework operates as primary substantive employer liability rather than secondary derivative liability — supporting victim recovery directly from employer regardless of employee personal solvency.

Liability scope under Article 66 includes: employee acts within scope of employment supporting strong vicarious liability; employee acts during work-related activities even if exceeding specific authority where work-related context creates substantive connection; integrated work-related conduct with appropriate scope analysis. Employer defences include: independent contractor relationships where the actor operates as independent business rather than employee; pure personal acts entirely outside work scope; and integrated boundary scenarios. The work-relatedness analysis considers: location and timing relative to employment; substantive connection between conduct and work duties; instrument and resource use; and integrated context factors. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.

Strategic vicarious liability management for employers operates through several integrated elements. Pre-incident risk management including: comprehensive employee selection with appropriate background screening; comprehensive training programmes covering job-specific skills and integrated workplace conduct; clear policy framework defining work scope and prohibited conduct; supervisory infrastructure supporting ongoing oversight; and integrated risk management. Insurance framework integration including general liability insurance, professional liability where applicable, employment practices liability insurance, and integrated coverage. Documentation framework supporting both substantive defence and procedural compliance. Post-incident response operating through: incident investigation with appropriate documentation; insurance notification with timely reporting; legal counsel engagement for substantive analysis and defence preparation; and integrated response coordination. Recourse framework against employees under Article 66 enables employer recovery from culpable employees after victim compensation — though practical recovery often limited by employee solvency. Workplace accident integration with İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Kanunu (Law No. 6331) of 20 June 2012 framework supporting employer occupational safety obligations and integrated workplace tort exposure. SGK (Sosyal Sigortalar ve Genel Sağlık Sigortası Kanunu — Law No. 5510) Article 21 framework supports SGK recourse rights against employers for workplace accidents creating layered liability framework. ER&GUN&ER Law Firm advises employers on comprehensive vicarious liability management and workplace tort defence.

Strict Liability Under TBK Article 71 (Tehlike Sorumluluğu)

TBK Article 71 establishes tehlike sorumluluğu (strict liability for dangerous activities) — operators of activities involving high inherent risk are liable for damages without traditional fault requirement. The framework operates as objective liability based on risk-creating conduct rather than fault-based liability. Activities qualifying for Article 71 framework include: industrial operations involving substantial physical risk; high-risk transportation operations; energy generation and distribution; chemical and hazardous material operations; and integrated high-risk activities.

Liability scope under Article 71 includes: direct damages from dangerous activity operations; environmental damages from operational activities; consequential damages flowing from primary harm; and integrated comprehensive damages. The framework operates without victim-side fault demonstration — unlike Article 49 general framework requiring fault element, Article 71 supports recovery based on causal connection between dangerous activity and harm. Defences are limited to: force majeure events entirely outside operator control; exclusive victim fault as sole proximate cause; and integrated narrow defences. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.

Specific dangerous activity frameworks operate through specialised statutes. Highway Traffic Law (Law No. 2918, "KTK") Article 85 establishes vehicle owner strict liability — vehicle owners are liable for damages from vehicle operation regardless of personal fault, with mandatory liability insurance under Article 91 (Trafik Sigortası — Zorunlu Mali Sorumluluk Sigortası or "ZMSS") providing financial framework. KTK Article 97 establishes compensation rights framework. Aviation framework under Sivil Havacılık Kanunu and integrated aviation regulations establishes specific aviation liability framework. Maritime framework through specific maritime law provisions operates with international convention integration. Nuclear framework through Atomic Energy Law (Law No. 2690) and integrated regulatory framework operates with specific nuclear liability provisions. Animal owner liability under TBK Article 65 establishes animal-related strict liability — owners are liable for damages from animals under their control with limited defences. Building owner liability under TBK Article 69 establishes substantial liability for damages from defective buildings or maintenance failures. Strategic risk management for dangerous activity operators typically combines: comprehensive insurance framework with appropriate coverage levels; rigorous operational safety procedures; continuous monitoring and improvement; comprehensive documentation supporting both compliance and incident response; and integrated risk management framework. ER&GUN&ER Law Firm advises operators of high-risk activities on comprehensive risk management and specialised tort defence.

Traffic Tort Framework Under KTK Articles 85, 91, 97

Traffic accident tort framework under Highway Traffic Law (Law No. 2918, "KTK") of 13 October 1983 represents specialised tort framework integrating strict liability, mandatory insurance, and integrated procedural elements. KTK Article 85 establishes vehicle owner strict liability (işletenin sorumluluğu) — the vehicle owner is liable for damages from vehicle operation without traditional fault requirement, with operator and integrated party liability layered through specific framework provisions.

KTK Article 91 establishes mandatory liability insurance (Zorunlu Mali Sorumluluk Sigortası — ZMSS, commonly known as "Trafik Sigortası") with specific coverage requirements. The insurance covers: third-party bodily injury and death damages; third-party property damage; integrated damages within specified coverage limits indexed annually. Vehicle operation without ZMSS coverage triggers administrative penalties, registration restrictions, and integrated regulatory consequences. Beyond ZMSS, comprehensive insurance (kasko) provides voluntary additional coverage including own-vehicle damage, theft, and integrated comprehensive risks. KTK Article 97 establishes compensation rights framework specifying who can claim damages, against whom, and through what procedures. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.

Traffic tort claims operate through several integrated procedural pathways. Insurance claim through ZMSS insurer represents primary claim mechanism — victims claim against the responsible vehicle's insurer with insurer obligation to investigate and pay valid claims. Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonu (Insurance Arbitration Commission) under Sigortacılık Kanunu Article 30 provides specialised arbitration forum for insurance disputes including traffic insurance claims with specific procedural framework supporting efficient resolution. Direct litigation against responsible parties operates where insurance recovery is incomplete, where coverage limits are exceeded, or where insurance claims are denied — through Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi general civil tort jurisdiction. Subrogation under Sigortacılık Kanunu Article 14 enables insurer recovery from third parties after victim compensation supporting integrated insurance economics. Strategic traffic accident representation operates through: immediate accident scene documentation including police reports, witness identification, and evidence preservation; medical documentation supporting injury and treatment claims; insurance claim coordination with appropriate documentation; valuation analysis for property damage and injury damages; and integrated recovery strategy across multiple potential defendants. Common framework misunderstandings include: belief that ZMSS covers own-vehicle damage (only kasko covers this); failure to coordinate property damage and injury claims appropriately; assumption that insurance settlement precludes additional litigation against tortfeasor for amounts exceeding coverage; and integrated procedural complications. ER&GUN&ER Law Firm provides comprehensive traffic tort representation including insurance claim coordination, Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonu proceedings, and litigation through court system.

Personality Rights and Defamation Under TMK 24-25 and TBK 58

Personality rights protection (kişilik hakları) operates through integrated framework spanning Civil Code (Law No. 4721, "TMK") Articles 24-25, TBK Article 58, and integrated specialised provisions. TMK Article 24 establishes the substantive personality rights protection — individuals have legal protection against unlawful infringements of personality including reputation, privacy, image, name, and integrated personality elements. TMK Article 25 provides procedural protection including saldırının önlenmesi davası (preventive action), saldırının durdurulması davası (cessation action), and integrated remedial framework.

Defamation tort framework operates through TMK 24-25 substantive protection combined with TBK Article 58 (personality rights infringement) and TBK Article 49 (general tort) supporting damages recovery. Defamation categories include: public defamation through media, social media, public statements; private defamation through specific communications affecting reputation; commercial defamation affecting business reputation; and integrated defamation scenarios. Internet-based defamation under İnternet Kanunu (Law No. 5651) framework supports specific procedural mechanisms including content removal procedures under Article 9 and integrated specialised remedies. Penal Code (Law No. 5237) Articles 125 (defamation, 3 months-2 years imprisonment) and 131 (defamation through media or internet, with aggravation) provide criminal frameworks operating alongside civil framework. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.

Strategic defamation case management operates through several integrated elements. Evidence preservation including notarial documentation of online content, witness statements for verbal defamation, integrated communications documentation. Legal analysis including: identifying specific defamation under TBK 58 framework; calculating material and moral damages with appropriate documentation; analysing defendant defences including truth, fair comment, qualified privilege; and integrated case theory development. Procedural framework selection between: preventive action under TMK Article 25 supporting injunctive relief preventing ongoing or threatened defamation; damages action under TBK 49 and 58 supporting compensation for completed defamation; and integrated dual-track approach combining preventive and damages remedies. Internet-specific procedures under İnternet Kanunu Article 9 supporting specific online content removal independent of general civil action. Constitutional protection under Anayasa Article 17 (personality and dignity), Article 20 (privacy), and Article 26 (expression freedom counterweight) provides constitutional framework with potential Anayasa Mahkemesi individual application under Article 148/3 where systemic violations meet criteria. Cross-border defamation through MÖHUK Article 34 (lex loci delicti — law of the place where harm occurred) supports complex cross-border analysis. HMK Articles 389-403 ihtiyati tedbir (preliminary injunction) provides interim protective relief during litigation. ER&GUN&ER Law Firm provides comprehensive defamation representation across civil, criminal, internet-specific, and constitutional frameworks.

Limitation Periods Under TBK Articles 72-73

Limitation framework under TBK Articles 72-73 governs tort claim time limits with specific provisions affecting strategic case management. TBK Article 72 establishes the principal limitation periods: 2 years from the date the victim becomes aware of both the damage and the responsible party (subjective limitation); 10 years from the date of the tortious act regardless of victim awareness (objective limitation). Both limitations must be satisfied — meaning the action expires at whichever limit applies first.

TBK Article 73 establishes important extension framework where the underlying conduct constitutes a criminal offence. The longer criminal statute of limitations under TCK Article 66 framework extends the civil limitation period — meaning if the underlying tort constitutes serious criminal offence with long criminal limitation, the civil limitation extends correspondingly. This framework supports victim recovery in cases involving criminal misconduct where standard civil limitations might bar recovery despite ongoing criminal procedural availability. Specific application examples include: serious bodily injury with TCK Article 86-89 framework potentially extending civil limitation; fraud with TCK Articles 157-158 framework; and integrated criminal-civil overlap scenarios. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.

Strategic limitation management operates through several integrated elements. Awareness documentation supporting precise calculation of subjective limitation start date — when victim actually became aware of both damage and responsible party. Tortious act dating supporting objective limitation calculation. Discovery rule application analysis including: progressive damage scenarios where damage develops over time; concealment scenarios where defendant prevents victim awareness; and integrated complex causation scenarios. Tolling and suspension analysis including: minor or incapacity-related suspension under specific framework provisions; settlement negotiation suspension during good-faith negotiations; and integrated tolling frameworks. Criminal limitation extension analysis under Article 73 supporting extended civil limitation where criminal framework applies. Strategic litigation timing balances: comprehensive case preparation supporting strong substantive claim; limitation compliance preventing procedural defeat; settlement negotiation timing balancing pre-litigation resolution opportunities with limitation pressure; and integrated strategic considerations. Common limitation pitfalls include: delayed discovery without appropriate documentation supporting subjective limitation extension; failure to assess criminal limitation extension under Article 73 missing extended recovery opportunity; assumption that objective 10-year limitation provides comprehensive timing flexibility ignoring 2-year subjective limitation; and integrated procedural complications. Foreign victim cases involve additional complexity including: cross-border discovery scenarios; cross-jurisdictional documentation challenges; coordination with foreign procedural frameworks; and integrated cross-border representation requirements. ER&GUN&ER Law Firm provides comprehensive limitation analysis with strategic case management and integrated cross-border representation.

Insurance, Subrogation, and Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonu

Insurance framework under Insurance Law (Law No. 5684, "Sigortacılık Kanunu") of 3 June 2007 substantially intersects with tort liability creating integrated framework supporting both victim compensation and risk distribution. The framework establishes general insurance principles, regulatory oversight through Sigortacılık ve Özel Emeklilik Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu (SEDDK), and specific provisions affecting tort-insurance integration.

Sigortacılık Kanunu Article 14 establishes subrogation rights (rücu hakkı) — insurers paying claims under their policies acquire victim's rights against responsible third parties supporting insurance economic recovery. Subrogation operates through specific procedural framework including: insurer payment to victim or insured; automatic transfer of victim claims against tortfeasor; insurer pursuit of recovered amounts against tortfeasor; and integrated procedural framework. Note that source confusion regarding "TBK Articles 1472-1481" reflects fabricated article numbers — TBK contains 649 articles, not 1481. Subrogation operates through Sigortacılık Kanunu Article 14 framework rather than fictional TBK provisions. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.

Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonu (Insurance Arbitration Commission) under Sigortacılık Kanunu Article 30 provides specialised arbitration forum for insurance disputes. The Commission supports: efficient resolution of insurance claims disputes; specialised expertise in insurance matters; integrated procedural framework supporting both consumer claimants and insurer parties; binding arbitration outcomes with judicial review framework. Strategic insurance dispute resolution combines: pre-litigation negotiation supporting potential informal resolution; Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonu arbitration for qualifying disputes meeting subject matter and procedural criteria; traditional litigation through Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi, Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi, or Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi as appropriate based on case characteristics; specialised insurance dispute frameworks where applicable. Specific insurance-tort integration scenarios include: traffic accident framework under KTK Articles 85, 91, 97 with ZMSS mandatory insurance and Trafik Sigortası operations; medical malpractice framework with mandatory insurance under 1219 sayılı Tababet Kanunu Article 41-Bis (added by Law No. 6354 of 1.7.2012); professional liability insurance frameworks for accountants, lawyers, engineers, architects; product liability insurance frameworks; and integrated commercial insurance applications. Insurance dispute strategic management including: comprehensive policy analysis identifying applicable coverage; claim documentation supporting maximum recovery; negotiation strategy with insurer counterparts; integrated procedural pathway selection; and integrated representation across multiple forums. ER&GUN&ER Law Firm advises across both claimant and defendant insurance representation with integrated tort-insurance expertise.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the principal Turkish tort framework? TBK (Law 6098) Articles 49-76 establishing haksız fiil framework. Article 49 four elements (unlawful act, fault, damage, causal nexus). Article 50 joint liability. Article 51 court discretion. Articles 53-56 damages categories. Article 66 employer vicarious liability. Article 71 strict liability. Articles 72-73 limitation.
2. What are the four elements of tort liability? TBK Article 49: (1) hukuka aykırı fiil (unlawful act); (2) kusur (fault — intent or negligence); (3) zarar (damage); (4) illiyet bağı (causal nexus). All four elements must be proved for compensation recovery. Strict liability scenarios under Article 71 operate without traditional fault requirement.
3. What about moral damages? TBK Article 56 establishes manevi tazminat for emotional, psychological, and integrated non-economic harm. Available for personality rights infringement, physical injury producing pain and suffering, death-related emotional damages for close family members. Court discretionary authority under Article 51. Note: Turkish framework is compensatory, not punitive — common law punitive damages do not exist.
4. What about death-related damages? TBK Article 55 establishes destekten yoksun kalma tazminatı (loss of support) for economic dependents — spouse, minor children, dependent parents. Comprehensive actuarial calculation considering expected support duration, support level, present value discounting. Article 53 covers medical expenses, funeral expenses, and pre-death damages.
5. What about employer vicarious liability? TBK Article 66 — employers liable for damages from employees during work-related activities. Operates as primary substantive employer liability. Recourse rights against culpable employees after victim compensation. SGK Article 21 (Law 5510) creates layered framework for workplace accidents.
6. What is strict liability? TBK Article 71 tehlike sorumluluğu — strict liability for dangerous activities without traditional fault requirement. Industrial operations, high-risk transportation, energy, hazardous materials. Defences limited to force majeure and exclusive victim fault. Specific frameworks: KTK Article 85 (traffic), TBK Article 65 (animals), Article 69 (buildings).
7. What about traffic accidents? Highway Traffic Law (Law 2918, "KTK") Articles 85 (vehicle owner strict liability), 91 (mandatory ZMSS — Zorunlu Mali Sorumluluk Sigortası), 97 (compensation rights). Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonu (Sigortacılık Kanunu Article 30) for specialised arbitration. Sigortacılık Kanunu Article 14 subrogation.
8. What about defamation? Civil framework: TMK Articles 24-25 personality rights protection; TBK Article 58 personality rights infringement; TBK Article 49 general tort. Criminal framework: TCK Article 125 (3 months-2 years imprisonment), Article 131 (media aggravation). İnternet Kanunu (Law 5651) Article 9 for online content removal.
9. What about defective products? TKHK (Law 6502) Articles 8 and 75 establish defective products framework with producer liability. Strict liability framework operating without traditional fault requirement. Integration with general tort framework supports comprehensive consumer protection.
10. What limitation periods apply? TBK Article 72: 2 years from awareness of damage and responsible party (subjective); 10 years from tortious act regardless of awareness (objective). TBK Article 73 extends civil limitation where conduct constitutes crime with longer TCK Article 66 criminal limitation.
11. What about subrogation? Sigortacılık Kanunu (Law 5684) Article 14 establishes insurer subrogation rights — insurer payment transfers victim claims to insurer against responsible third parties. Note: Source references to "TBK Articles 1472-1481" reflect fabricated article numbers — TBK has 649 articles total. Subrogation operates through Article 14 framework.
12. What court has jurisdiction? Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi (Civil Court of First Instance) for general civil tort. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi for specific subject matter. Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi for commercial torts. Tüketici Mahkemesi for consumer matters under Law 6502. Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonu for insurance disputes. Yargıtay specialised civil chambers for cassation.
13. Does mediation apply? HUAK Article 18/A (Law 7036, effective 1.1.2018) mandatory mediation for labour disputes including labour torts. Article 18/B (Law 7445 of 28.3.2023, effective 1.9.2023) for qualifying immovable property disputes. Procedural prerequisite for court filing in covered categories.
14. What about cross-border torts? MÖHUK (Law 5718) Article 34 — lex loci delicti (law of the place where harm occurred). Articles 50-59 governing tenfiz (foreign judgment recognition). Hague Apostille 1961 (Türkiye party through Law 6303 since 1985, recent expansions UAE 2022, Canada 2024, Qatar 2024) and HMK Article 223 sworn translation for cross-border documentation.
15. Where does ER&GUN&ER Law Firm support tort matters? Comprehensive tort representation under TBK Articles 49-76 with Article 49 four-element framework analysis, Article 50 joint liability, Article 51 court discretion, Articles 53-56 damages including Article 55 destekten yoksun kalma and Article 56 manevi tazminat, Article 58 personality rights infringement, Article 65 animal owner liability, Article 66 employer vicarious liability, Article 69 building owner liability, Article 71 tehlike sorumluluğu strict liability, Articles 72-73 limitation framework with TCK Article 66 extension; specialised tort frameworks under KTK (Law 2918) Articles 85, 91, 97 traffic with Sigortacılık Kanunu (Law 5684) Article 14 subrogation and Article 30 Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonu; personality rights and defamation under TMK Articles 24-25 with TBK 58 and İnternet Kanunu (Law 5651) Article 9; criminal liability coordination under TCK Articles 85, 89, 125, 131, 106; consumer torts under TKHK (Law 6502) Articles 8 and 75; environmental torts under Çevre Kanunu (Law 2872); workplace torts with İSGK (Law 6331) and SGK (Law 5510) Article 21; medical malpractice with mandatory insurance under 1219 Article 41-Bis (Law 6354); HMK procedural framework including Article 199 electronic evidence, Articles 266-287 expert witness, Articles 282-291 judicial inspection, Articles 389-403 ihtiyati tedbir; HUAK Article 18/A labour mediation; cross-border framework under MÖHUK Article 34 lex loci delicti and Articles 50-59 tenfiz; Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi, Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi, Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi, Tüketici Mahkemesi, Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonu representation; Yargıtay specialised civil chambers; and Anayasa Mahkemesi individual application under Article 148/3.

Author: Mirkan Topcu is an attorney registered with the Istanbul Bar Association (Istanbul 1st Bar), Bar Registration No: 67874. His practice focuses on cross-border and high-stakes matters where evidence discipline, procedural accuracy, and risk control are decisive.

He advises individuals, corporations, insurers, and institutional stakeholders across Turkish Tort Law (Haksız Fiil) under TBK (Law No. 6098) Articles 49-76 with Article 49 Four-Element Framework (Unlawful Act, Fault, Damage, Causal Nexus), Article 50 Joint and Several Liability, Article 51 Court Discretion, Article 53 Death-Related Damages, Article 54 Bodily Injury, Article 55 Destekten Yoksun Kalma Tazminatı (Loss of Support), Article 56 Manevi Tazminat (Moral Damages), Article 58 Personality Rights Infringement, Article 65 Animal Owner Liability, Article 66 Employer Vicarious Liability (Adam Çalıştıranın Sorumluluğu), Article 69 Building Owner Liability, Article 71 Tehlike Sorumluluğu (Strict Liability for Dangerous Activities), and Articles 72-73 Limitation Framework with TCK Article 66 Criminal Extension; Specialised Tort Frameworks including Highway Traffic Law (Law No. 2918, "KTK") of 13.10.1983 with Article 85 Vehicle Owner Strict Liability, Article 91 ZMSS Mandatory Insurance, Article 97 Compensation Rights; Insurance Law (Law No. 5684) of 3.6.2007 with Article 14 Subrogation and Article 30 Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonu; Personality Rights under TMK (Law No. 4721) Articles 24-25 with İnternet Kanunu (Law No. 5651) Article 9 for Online Content; Criminal Coordination under TCK (Law No. 5237) Articles 85, 89, 125, 131, 106 with Article 66 Limitation Framework; Consumer Torts under TKHK (Law No. 6502) Articles 8 and 75; Environmental Torts under Çevre Kanunu (Law No. 2872); Workplace Torts with İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Kanunu (Law No. 6331) and SGK (Law No. 5510) Article 21 SGK Recourse; Medical Malpractice with Mandatory Insurance under 1219 Article 41-Bis (Law No. 6354 of 1.7.2012); HMK (Law No. 6100) Procedural Framework with Article 199 Electronic Evidence, Articles 266-287 Expert Witness, Articles 282-291 Judicial Inspection, Articles 389-403 İhtiyati Tedbir; HUAK (Law No. 6325) Article 18/A Labour Mediation under Law No. 7036 of 12.10.2017; Cross-border Framework under MÖHUK (Law No. 5718) Article 34 Lex Loci Delicti and Articles 50-59 Tenfiz; Hague Apostille Convention 1961 (Türkiye party through Law No. 6303 since 1985 with Recent Expansions UAE 2022, Canada 2024, Qatar 2024); Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi, Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi, Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi, Tüketici Mahkemesi, Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonu Litigation; Yargıtay 4. ve 11. Hukuk Daireleri Appellate Representation; and Anayasa Mahkemesi Individual Application under Article 148/3 for Personality Rights and Property Protection.

Education: Istanbul University Faculty of Law (2018); Galatasaray University, LL.M. (2022). LinkedIn: Profile. Istanbul Bar Association: Official website.