Driving in Turkey exposes motorists to a range of hazards that are not of their own making: unmarked excavations, potholes left unrepaired, missing manhole covers, defective signage, unlit roadworks, and debris left on the carriageway. Where damage results from a defect of this kind, the loss is frequently recoverable from the public authority responsible.
Most drivers never pursue these claims, either because they assume the state cannot be sued or because they do not know that a mandatory preliminary step applies and that the time limits are short. Both assumptions are mistaken, and the second is expensive: the periods in this area are forfeiture periods and are strictly applied.
This guide explains when a public authority is liable, which body is responsible, the procedure that must be followed before proceedings can be commenced, the deadlines at each stage, and what reduces or defeats a claim.
Quick answer: Damage caused by a road defect is generally attributable to an administrative action rather than an administrative act, which means a mandatory written application to the responsible authority must be made before proceedings can be issued. That application must be made within one year of learning of the action and the damage, and in any event within five years of the action. Where the authority rejects the application, proceedings must be filed within sixty days of notification. Where the authority does not respond within thirty days, the request is deemed rejected and the sixty-day filing period begins from the expiry of those thirty days. The claim is a full remedy action before the administrative court.
Public authorities in Turkey may be held liable for damage caused by the way they perform, or fail to perform, their functions. Two distinct bases of liability operate.
Service fault (hizmet kusuru) arises where a public service has not functioned at all, has functioned late, or has functioned badly. Each of the three limbs is a separate route to liability, and it is worth identifying which applies:
Establishing which limb applies shapes the evidence required. Where the complaint is that the service functioned late, evidence of the earlier report and of the date of response becomes central. Where the complaint is that it functioned badly, technical evidence about the standard of the work is what matters.
The administration may also be liable without fault, on the basis of the risk principle or of the equalisation of sacrifice. This basis matters where the activity giving rise to the damage was inherently hazardous, or where a particular individual has borne a disproportionate burden arising from an activity carried on in the public interest.
In road damage cases, service fault is the usual basis, but strict liability may be relevant in specific circumstances and should not be overlooked where fault is difficult to establish.
Our overview of what constitutes an administrative action in Turkey explains the underlying concept in more detail.
Identifying the correct respondent is the first practical step, and getting it wrong means the application is made to a body that will not consider it while the period runs.
Responsibility is generally allocated as follows:
Where the responsible body is unclear, it is generally preferable to make the application to more than one candidate authority within the period rather than to spend the period investigating. An application to the wrong authority does not stop time running.
This is the aspect of the procedure most frequently overlooked, and omitting it is fatal to the claim.
Turkish administrative procedure distinguishes between damage caused by an administrative act and damage caused by an administrative action.
Road damage falls into the second category. The prior application is a condition of the action, not an optional step, and a case filed without it is rejected.
Two periods apply and both must be satisfied:
The one-year period runs from the date of knowledge, not necessarily from the date of the incident. Where the damage or the identity of the responsible party becomes apparent only later, the period runs from that point. The five-year period is an absolute outer limit that applies regardless of when knowledge was acquired.
The application should be made in a form that establishes the date of submission, which in practice means a notarised formal notice or a method producing a dated receipt. Where the deadline is later disputed, the applicant bears the burden of establishing that the application was made in time.
This section addresses a point on which published guidance is frequently wrong, in a way that costs claimants their cases.
Where the authority rejects the request in whole or in part, proceedings must be filed within sixty days, running from the day following notification of the rejection.
Where the authority does not respond within thirty days, the request is deemed rejected. The sixty-day period for filing proceedings then begins from the expiry of those thirty days.
The common error is to assume that the waiting period before implied rejection is sixty days. It is thirty. A claimant who waits sixty days for a response before beginning to count the filing period will have consumed thirty days of the sixty-day filing period without realising it, and one who waits longer may be out of time altogether.
The practical rule is straightforward: diarise the thirtieth day after the application, and treat the sixty-day filing period as running from that date unless a response has been received earlier.
There is a useful safeguard for claimants who initially proceeded in the civil courts. Where a full remedy action was brought before a civil court and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the requirement to make a prior application to the administration does not apply to the subsequent administrative proceedings.
This is a meaningful protection for claimants who received incorrect advice about the forum, but it should not be relied upon as a substitute for proceeding correctly at the outset.
The claim itself is a full remedy action before the administrative court, seeking compensation for the loss caused by the administration's action. Our guide to the full remedy action in Turkey covers the procedure in detail.
Court fees are payable on commencement and are calculated by reference to the amount claimed. Our note on the Turkish court fee structure explains how these are assessed.
Where compensation is awarded, the administration is required to implement the decision within thirty days. Where it does not, enforcement steps are available.
Claims of this kind are rarely defended on the basis that the defect did not exist. They are defended on causation and on the claimant's own conduct.
Where the driver's own conduct contributed to the damage, the compensation is reduced proportionately. The factors most frequently raised are excessive speed for the conditions, failure to keep a proper lookout, driving in a manner inappropriate to visible road conditions, and disregarding signage that was in place.
A claimant travelling substantially above the limit when they struck a pothole will not recover in full, and in extreme cases may not recover at all. This is a reason to address the driver's own conduct in the evidence at the outset rather than leaving it to be raised by the administration.
The administration will frequently argue that the defect did not cause the damage, that the damage pre-existed the incident, or that an intervening event was responsible. Evidence establishing the mechanism of the damage, and its consistency with the defect alleged, is central.
Where the defect arose suddenly and the administration had no reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it, service fault may not be established. This is why evidence that the defect had existed for a period, or had been reported previously, is so valuable.
The outcome of a road damage claim is usually determined by the evidence gathered in the hours after the incident, not by the arguments made months later.
The preservation of evidence point deserves emphasis. Once the pothole is filled, the primary physical evidence of the claim has been removed, and the administration is not obliged to leave it in place while the claim proceeds.
Where the damage is covered by comprehensive motor insurance, a claim may be made under the policy. Two points follow.
First, recovery under the policy does not extinguish the claim against the administration; the insurer acquires the right to pursue it by subrogation to the extent of what it has paid.
Second, heads of loss not covered by the policy, including the policy excess, diminution in value where not covered, and loss of use, remain recoverable by the vehicle owner directly.
Where an insurance claim has been made, the claim against the administration should be formulated with the insurer's position in mind, and the extent of the owner's remaining interest should be established before proceedings are commenced.
The framework described here is not limited to road defects. The same procedure and the same time limits apply to a wide range of claims arising from administrative actions, including damage caused by municipal works, by defective public infrastructure, by the failure to maintain public spaces, and by other actions or omissions of public authorities.
The essential analysis is the same in each case: identify the responsible authority, establish that the loss arose from an administrative action rather than an act, make the preliminary application within the period, and file within the sixty-day period once the application is refused or deemed refused. For a broader treatment, see our guide on taking legal action against Turkish public authorities.
Yes. Public authorities are liable for damage caused by service fault, meaning where a public service has not functioned at all, has functioned late, or has functioned badly. A pothole left unrepaired, an unmarked excavation, or defective signage can each found a claim, and these claims are routinely made and routinely succeed where the evidence supports them.
Yes, where the damage arises from an administrative action, which is the case for road damage. A written application to the responsible authority is a mandatory precondition, and a case filed without it is rejected. This differs from damage caused by an administrative act, where a claim may be brought directly.
One year from the date you learned of the action and the damage, and in any event five years from the date of the action. The one-year period runs from knowledge rather than necessarily from the incident, but the five-year period is an absolute outer limit regardless of when knowledge was acquired.
Thirty days, not sixty. Where the authority does not respond within thirty days, your request is deemed rejected, and the sixty-day period for filing proceedings begins from the expiry of those thirty days. This is the most common and most costly misunderstanding in this area: a claimant who waits sixty days before starting to count has already used half of the filing period.
You have sixty days from the day following notification of the rejection to file a full remedy action before the administrative court. The period is strictly applied, and the rejection letter should be retained with its notification date, since that date determines the deadline.
It depends on the road. Municipalities are generally responsible for roads within municipal boundaries, metropolitan municipalities for arterial routes in metropolitan provinces, and the General Directorate of Highways for state and provincial highways and motorways. Utility undertakings are responsible for defects arising from their own works. Where responsibility is unclear, it is generally better to apply to more than one candidate authority within the period than to spend the period investigating, since an application to the wrong body does not stop time running.
Repair costs, diminution in value following repair, loss of use including a replacement vehicle where reasonably incurred, towing and recovery costs, expert fees, interest, and where injury has resulted, the associated heads including medical expenses and loss of earnings. Diminution in value is frequently overlooked and can be a substantial part of the claim.
It can. Where your conduct contributed to the damage, compensation is reduced proportionately. Excessive speed for the conditions, failure to keep a proper lookout, and disregarding signage that was in place are the factors most frequently relied upon. It is better to address these in your own evidence at the outset than to allow the administration to raise them unanswered.
Not necessarily, but your position is weaker, which is why photographic evidence taken at the scene is so important. Where you anticipate that a defect will be repaired before your claim is determined, an application to the court for the preservation of evidence secures an expert examination while the defect still exists. This should be considered immediately rather than after the repair has been carried out.
Payment under a comprehensive policy does not extinguish the claim against the administration; your insurer acquires the right to pursue it by subrogation to the extent of what it paid. Heads of loss not covered by the policy, including the excess, diminution in value where not covered, and loss of use, remain recoverable by you directly. The claim should be formulated with the insurer's position in mind.
No. Where a full remedy action brought before a civil court is dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, the requirement to make a prior application to the administration does not apply to the subsequent proceedings before the administrative courts. This is a useful safeguard, though it is not a substitute for proceeding in the correct forum at the outset.
The administration is required to implement compensation decisions within thirty days. Where it does not, enforcement steps are available. In practice, awards against public authorities are met, though the timing may require pressure.
Photograph the defect and the scene before leaving, including images that establish the size of the defect and the absence of warning signage. The claim will be assessed on evidence that exists, and the physical evidence disappears the moment the defect is repaired. Everything else, including the application and the proceedings, can be prepared afterwards. The photographs cannot.
Damage caused by defective public infrastructure is recoverable in Turkey, and the legal basis for recovery is well established. What defeats most claims is not the legal position but the procedure: the mandatory preliminary application that was not made, the thirty-day implied rejection period that was misunderstood as sixty, and the evidence that was not gathered before the defect was repaired.
The sequence is not complicated once it is understood. Photograph everything at the scene. Identify the responsible authority. Make a written application within one year of learning of the damage. Diarise the thirtieth day. File within sixty days of rejection or of that thirtieth day. Each step is straightforward, and each of them defeats the claim if it is missed.
If your vehicle has been damaged by a road defect, or you have suffered loss through the action or inaction of a Turkish public authority, contact Bayraktar Attorneys for a confidential assessment. Our legal services include the full range of administrative liability claims, and we act for foreign nationals throughout the process.
