1) Why distribution-company disputes are different in the electricity sector

Electricity is not an “ordinary” service. Turkish electricity market legislation is built around the public-interest objective of continuous, high-quality, and cost-efficient supply to consumers, under independent regulation and supervision. (epias.com.tr)

That policy goal matters in court. When an electricity distribution company (“distribution company” / dağıtım şirketi) fails to provide service at the required continuity and quality level—or when its network causes harm—claims often expand beyond a simple billing disagreement into questions of:

• service continuity and planned/unplanned outage compliance,
• technical quality (voltage fluctuations, frequency issues, harmonics),
• network safety (electrocution, fire, falling lines, unsafe clearance distances),
• compensation mechanisms mandated by sector regulations, and
• full damages under the Turkish Code of Obligations.

This guide explains liability and compensation claims in a way that is useful for both individual consumers and commercial/industrial users—and also helps investors and operators understand how these disputes arise and how to reduce exposure.

---

2) First, identify the right “responsible party”: distribution company vs supplier

Many claimants lose time because they sue (or complain about) the wrong entity.

Distribution company (network operator)

Typically responsible for:

• operating and maintaining the distribution grid (lines, transformers, switchgear),
• connection and reconnection on the network side,
• interruption management and planned outage notifications,
• certain metering operations and technical interventions,
• service-quality performance obligations.

Supplier / retail sales company (energy seller)

Typically responsible for:

• retail sale contract, supply arrangements,
• billing, payment terms, and certain customer service processes,
• notifying the distribution company for some field operations, depending on the scenario.

In practice: major damages (fire, electrocution, equipment burnout, repeated unplanned outages due to weak infrastructure) often point to the distribution company, while “paper disputes” (billing lines, pricing, contract term) often point to the supplier—but overlap is common. A carefully structured claim frequently names both to prevent “pass-the-blame” defenses.

---

3) The regulatory baseline: service-quality rules and mandatory compensations

Turkey has detailed secondary legislation that regulates supply continuity, commercial quality, and technical quality. One key point: the quality framework is designed to measure distribution performance and can trigger compensation payments, but it may not cover every category of loss.

For example, the Quality Regulation framework notes that losses such as production, goods, and service losses arising simply from the inability to use electricity are outside the scope of that regulatory framework. (LEXPERA)
This is crucial: it means the regulatory compensation (often credited via bills) and a civil damages lawsuit are conceptually different tools.

Planned outage notice duty (a common liability trigger)

Regulations define “notification” for planned interruptions as informing final consumers about the date and start/end times at least 48 hours before the interruption begins, using mass communication tools. (LEXPERA)

If a business suffers damage during a planned interruption that was not properly notified (or was extended beyond the notified period without reasonable measures), the lack of proper notice can become a powerful fault indicator in litigation and expert reports.

Force majeure and “excused” interruptions

The quality framework also contains a structured approach to force majeure: it lists typical categories (natural disasters, pandemics, war, sabotage, mass events, etc.) and ties “force majeure” classification to Board acceptance upon application, with an emphasis on whether the interruption was unavoidable despite due diligence and all measures taken. (LEXPERA)

Practical effect in court: distribution companies often plead force majeure; the dispute becomes whether (i) the event qualifies, and (ii) the company proved it took all feasible preventive and responsive measures.

Bill-offset compensation: not the end of the story

Under the quality framework, compensation may be offset from the distribution fee portion of bills and can continue in subsequent billing cycles until fully offset. (LEXPERA)
Separately, the market has also seen public reporting that compensation related to interruptions may be reflected directly in bills without consumers applying, based on EPDK decisions reported in 2025. (KARAR)

Important: these credits are not automatically “full damages” for every case. They are a regulatory minimum mechanism. A claimant with proven additional loss may still pursue a civil claim.

---

4) The main legal grounds for compensation lawsuits

In Turkish practice, electricity distribution liability claims usually rely on one or more of the following:

A) Contractual liability (breach of contractual/statutory service obligations)

Even when a consumer’s main retail contract is with the supplier, distribution companies have statutory service obligations shaped by sector regulations (connection, reconnection, interruption management, quality standards). Courts and experts frequently treat violations of these obligations as a form of breach-type conduct supporting compensation.

B) Tort liability under the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK)

Where damage occurs through a wrongful act (negligent maintenance, unsafe infrastructure, failure to warn, defective operation), tort liability becomes the central framework (general tort rules are in TBK). (mgm.adalet.gov.tr)

Typical tort damage patterns:

• burned appliances due to voltage fluctuation,
• fire caused by line faults or transformer incidents,
• electrocution due to unsafe clearance, poor insulation, or missing protective measures.

C) “Danger enterprise” liability (strict/no-fault style exposure)

Turkish doctrine and practice frequently discuss electricity network operation as an activity with significant inherent danger, triggering a stricter responsibility analysis than ordinary negligence in appropriate cases (the TBK contains a “danger liability” concept). (mgm.adalet.gov.tr)

What this means in litigation: even if the company argues “we have permits and comply generally,” courts may still focus on whether the harm is a typical risk of the hazardous activity and whether safety standards and supervision were sufficient.

D) Consumer protection dimension (when the claimant is a consumer)

Turkey’s consumer law framework is designed to protect consumers’ economic interests and provide compensation-oriented safeguards. (Ticaret Bakanlığı)
When the claimant is a consumer (not acting for commercial/professional purposes), disputes may fall under consumer procedures and forums depending on the claim type and amount.

---

5) Common claim scenarios and how liability is usually analyzed

Scenario 1 — Unplanned outages causing equipment damage (industrial, commercial, residential)

Typical facts

• sudden outage or repeated micro-cuts,
• voltage sag/spike when power returns,
• equipment damage (UPS failure, industrial control systems, refrigeration units, elevators, medical devices).

Legal issues

• Was the outage a distribution-grid event or upstream transmission/supply event?
• Were protection systems and network operations compliant?
• Is there a provable causal link between voltage event and the specific equipment failure?

Evidence that wins cases

• service logs (call center records, SCADA/outage reports if obtainable),
• device service reports linking failure to voltage anomaly,
• expert electrical engineering opinion (harmonics, transient analysis),
• invoices and repair/replacement documentation,
• witness statements + timestamped photos/video.

Scenario 2 — Spoilage and cold-chain losses (restaurants, markets, warehouses)

Regulatory quality compensation may not cover “goods loss,” because that framework focuses on service quality performance rather than production/goods/service loss. (LEXPERA)
So claimants usually pursue civil damages, proving:

• interruption duration and temperature exposure,
• inventory records,
• disposal reports, insurance documents (if any),
• supplier invoices and sales records.

Scenario 3 — Business interruption and lost profit (manufacturing downtime)

This is where disputes become high value. A successful claim often requires:

• proving the outage was attributable to the distribution company (not internal facility fault),
• proving the company’s breach/fault (maintenance deficit, infrastructure inadequacy, failure to notify planned outage),
• quantifying loss with accounting evidence and expert analysis.

Expect the defense to argue:

• force majeure,
• claimant’s failure to mitigate,
• internal facility fault,
• speculative lost profit.

Scenario 4 — Fire allegedly caused by distribution lines or network faults

A leading pattern in Turkish case law is litigation over whether a fire originated from the distribution line and whether the distribution company’s fault/safety failures were established with proper expertise. For example, Yargıtay has reviewed cases where the fire was alleged to be caused by an electricity distribution line and the dispute focused on evidentiary and liability evaluation. (LEXPERA)

Evidence checklist

• fire department report (origin/cause),
• forensic/electrical expert report,
• grid maintenance records (if obtainable via court),
• weather data if force majeure is alleged,
• photos of line, poles, clearance, insulation state.

Scenario 5 — Electrocution and bodily injury/death (high-stakes liability)

These cases often involve:

• unsafe line height/clearance,
• missing warning signs,
• inadequate insulation,
• improper maintenance,
• unauthorized/unsafe interventions.

They can trigger:

• material damages (treatment costs, loss of earning capacity, support deprivation),
• moral damages (non-pecuniary),
• potentially criminal investigations alongside civil claims (separate track).

In high-stakes cases, expert evidence (electrical safety, occupational safety, accident reconstruction) typically determines outcome more than witness testimony.

Scenario 6 — Unlawful or premature disconnection / delayed reconnection

Consumer services rules include specific timelines for reconnection—commonly referenced as 24 hours in urban/suburban zones and 48 hours in rural zones in relevant situations. (LEXPERA)
Unlawful disconnection can lead to:

• direct damages (spoiled goods, production stoppage),
• reputational harm arguments (harder to prove),
• moral damages in exceptional scenarios (fact-dependent).

Key practical point: if the disconnection violated notice requirements or contractual process, it becomes easier to establish fault.

---

6) The “force majeure” defense and the real burden-of-proof battle

Distribution companies frequently rely on:

• storms, heavy snowfall, landslides,
• earthquakes,
• sabotage or third-party interventions,
• large-scale regional events.

But under the quality regulation approach, “force majeure” classification is not simply “bad weather happened.” The concept is tied to whether the event was unavoidable despite due diligence and all measures and whether it exceeded intervention capacity, with Board-accepted classification logic. (LEXPERA)

How claimants counter force majeure

• show the event was foreseeable for the region/season,
• show maintenance backlog (old poles, overdue transformer maintenance),
• show insufficient redundancy or poor investment planning,
• show delayed response (slow repair dispatch, poor crisis communication),
• use expert evidence to argue the harm could have been prevented/limited.

---

7) Regulatory compensation vs. civil damages: don’t confuse them

Regulatory compensation (service-quality payments)

• Often calculated via formulas or tables, linked to outage indices and thresholds.
• Often credited via bills and offset against distribution fees. (LEXPERA)
• Designed as standardized minimum accountability.

Civil damages (lawsuits)

• Individualized: proven actual loss + causation + fault/strict-liability basis.
• Can include repair/replacement, consequential losses, lost profit (where proven), and moral damages in suitable cases.
• Requires strong evidence and expert evaluation.

Practical approach: treat regulatory compensation as “baseline,” and build the civil case only where the loss is meaningful and provable.

---

8) Where and how to file: forum selection in practice

Because your client base may include both consumers and businesses, the procedural path matters:

• Consumers may use consumer dispute mechanisms (consumer arbitration boards for small claims; consumer courts for larger or complex claims), depending on the dispute type and amount. (Ticaret Bakanlığı)
• Commercial/industrial users typically litigate in civil/commercial courts depending on merchant status and the nature of the claim (and may face mandatory mediation requirements for certain monetary commercial disputes—case-specific).

For bodily injury/death, claims usually proceed in civil courts with heavy reliance on forensic and technical experts, sometimes parallel to criminal proceedings.

(Because forum rules depend on status, claim type, and amount, a file-specific procedural check is always recommended before filing.)

---

9) Evidence strategy: what to collect in the first 72 hours

Electricity cases are evidence-sensitive. Encourage clients to collect immediately:

1. Outage timeline

• exact times of outage and restoration (screenshots, logs, written confirmations),
• planned outage notices (if any),
• neighborhood/business witness confirmations.

2. Damage documentation

• photos/video of damage and affected equipment,
• service technician report stating likely electrical cause,
• invoices for repair/replacement,
• inventory spoilage records and disposal documentation.

3. Causation support

• UPS logs, generator logs, building management system logs,
• fire department report (for fire cases),
• medical records (injury cases),
• independent electrician’s preliminary assessment.

4. Mitigation proof
   Courts often expect reasonable mitigation. Keep evidence showing:

• the claimant acted promptly to reduce loss,
• protective measures existed (where relevant),
• the loss was not inflated by inaction.

---

10) How distribution companies typically defend—and how to respond

Defense 1: “The interruption came from transmission / another entity”

Response:

• request court orders for outage origin records,
• triangulate with regional outage announcements and index data,
• use expert analysis to allocate responsibility.

Defense 2: “Force majeure”

Response:

• focus on due diligence and preventability,
• use maintenance records and investment plans (through court discovery),
• emphasize the regulation’s structured approach to force majeure acceptance. (LEXPERA)

Defense 3: “No causal link”

Response:

• obtain device-level technical reports,
• use electrical engineering expertise (transients, surge effects),
• show temporal proximity and pattern consistency.

Defense 4: “Regulatory compensation already paid; no further claim”

Response:

• distinguish standardized regulatory compensation from actual loss,
• show that goods/production/service losses may be outside the regulatory framework’s scope and require civil remedies. (LEXPERA)

---

11) Practical claim packages (client-attracting, court-ready)

Package A — Home/retail consumer (appliance damage + short outage)

• technician report + invoice,
• outage proof,
• bill + customer number,
• claim letter to distribution/supplier,
• consumer procedure filing if needed.

Package B — Restaurant/market (spoilage + interruption)

• stock list + invoices,
• cold-chain temperature logs (if available),
• disposal documentation,
• outage proof + witness list,
• quantified loss table.

Package C — Factory (downtime + defective products + lost profit)

• production records, shift logs,
• rejected goods documentation and quality reports,
• accounting evidence (sales, margins, capacity utilization),
• expert report request list (electrical + financial),
• causation timeline with all events and mitigation steps.

Package D — High-voltage accident (injury/death)

• forensic and occupational safety expert framework,
• medical records, disability assessment,
• scene photos, clearance measurements,
• network maintenance and inspection history requests,
• multi-defendant strategy (distribution, contractors, landowner if relevant).

---

12) Conclusion: strong claims are built on structure, not anger

Electricity distribution disputes are winnable, but they are rarely won with generic allegations. The winning model is consistent:

• Correct defendant mapping (distribution vs supplier),
• Regulatory baseline (quality and consumer service rules; notice duties; force majeure structure), (LEXPERA)
• Evidence discipline (outage origin + causation + quantified loss),
• Expert-led narrative (technical + financial),
• Clear distinction between bill-offset compensation and full civil damages. (LEXPERA)

If you are advising a business, the highest value is often achieved before litigation—by securing evidence early, forcing record disclosure through proper procedural steps, and presenting a loss model that an expert can defend.

---