Introduction
Public service liability in Turkey is a fundamental part of Turkish administrative law. It determines when individuals, companies, investors, property owners, patients, taxpayers, public employees or other persons may claim compensation from the administration for damage caused by public services, administrative acts, administrative actions or administrative omissions.
In modern public law, the administration is not above the law. Public authorities have broad powers, but those powers must be exercised lawfully, carefully, proportionately and in accordance with public service requirements. If the administration causes damage while performing a public service or exercising public authority, the injured person may be entitled to compensation before administrative courts.
The constitutional foundation of administrative liability is Article 125 of the Turkish Constitution. This article states that judicial review is available against administrative acts and actions and expressly provides that the administration shall be liable to compensate damages resulting from its acts and actions. It also limits judicial review to legality control and allows suspension of execution where the administrative act is clearly unlawful and may cause damage that is difficult or impossible to compensate.
In practice, public service liability may arise from defective road maintenance, public hospital malpractice, unlawful demolition, failure to supervise construction, wrongful administrative enforcement, unlawful tax collection, defective municipal services, police or security operations, administrative delay, failure to implement court decisions, environmental harm, infrastructure damage or regulatory negligence.
What Is Public Service Liability in Turkey?
Public service liability refers to the responsibility of the administration to compensate damage caused in connection with public service activities. The administration may be the central state, a ministry, municipality, governorate, public university, public hospital, tax office, regulatory authority, social security institution or another public body.
The key question is whether the damage is legally attributable to the administration. If a person suffers loss merely because of private conduct between private parties, the dispute may belong to civil courts. However, if the damage arises from a public service, public authority, administrative act or administrative omission, administrative courts may have jurisdiction.
Public service liability is usually pursued through a full remedy action, known in Turkish as tam yargı davası. Full remedy actions are compensation lawsuits filed before administrative courts by persons whose personal rights have been directly harmed by administrative acts or actions. The Turkish administrative litigation system recognizes full remedy actions as one of the main types of administrative cases under Law No. 2577.
Constitutional Basis of Administrative Liability
Article 125 of the Constitution is the central legal basis. It provides that recourse to judicial review is available against all administrative acts and actions. This rule ensures that public authorities are subject to court supervision. More importantly for compensation claims, the same article provides that the administration shall be liable to compensate damages resulting from its acts and actions.
This constitutional rule has two practical consequences. First, the administration cannot avoid liability merely because the damage occurred during public service. Second, injured persons are not required to accept unlawful or harmful administrative conduct without remedy. If legal conditions are met, they may claim compensation.
Administrative liability is also connected to the rule of law, equality before public burdens, proportionality, legal certainty and protection of individual rights. The administration exists to serve the public interest, but public interest cannot justify leaving a specific person to bear an excessive, unlawful or abnormal burden without compensation.
Service Fault: The Main Basis of Liability
The most common basis of public service liability in Turkey is service fault, known as hizmet kusuru. Service fault occurs when a public service is not performed, is performed late, is performed poorly, or is performed in a defective manner.
In other words, the administration may be liable if the public service fails to meet the standard expected from a lawful and properly functioning administration.
Examples of service fault include:
A municipality failing to repair a dangerous road defect; a public hospital failing to diagnose or treat a patient properly; a public authority delaying a legally required permit without justification; a tax office unlawfully enforcing a non-finalized debt; a municipality demolishing a building without following legal procedure; a public institution failing to take safety measures in a public facility; or an administration ignoring a court decision.
Service fault does not always require proving personal fault of a specific public officer. In many cases, the issue is institutional. The court examines whether the public service as organized and performed by the administration was defective.
Forms of Service Fault
Service fault may appear in different forms.
Non-Performance of Public Service
The administration may be liable if it fails to perform a public service that it is legally required to provide. For example, if a municipality has a duty to maintain a public road and fails to take any safety measure despite a known danger, this may create liability.
Late Performance of Public Service
Delay may also create liability. If a public authority fails to process an application, issue a required document, respond to a lawful request or perform an administrative duty within a reasonable or statutory time, the delay may cause financial or personal harm.
Defective Performance of Public Service
Public service may be performed, but performed badly. This is common in healthcare, infrastructure, urban services, enforcement operations and public facility management. For example, if a public hospital provides treatment below the required standard, the administration may be responsible.
Unlawful Administrative Acts
An unlawful administrative act may cause damage. A license cancellation, demolition decision, disciplinary dismissal, tax enforcement action, deportation decision, permit refusal or regulatory sanction may be annulled by the administrative court. If the unlawful act also causes loss, a full remedy action may be filed.
Strict Liability of the Administration
Public service liability in Turkey is not limited to fault-based liability. In certain circumstances, the administration may be liable even where no classical service fault is proven. This is generally referred to as strict liability or liability without fault, known as kusursuz sorumluluk.
Strict liability is based on fairness and public-law principles. If a person suffers abnormal and special damage because of a public service or public activity, it may be unjust to leave that person alone with the burden. The administration may then be required to compensate the damage.
Strict liability may arise in cases involving dangerous public activities, public works, extraordinary risks, public security situations or situations where equality before public burdens requires compensation. Academic commentary and administrative-law practice commonly discuss strict liability through concepts such as risk principle, social risk and equalization of public burdens.
Risk Principle
The risk principle applies where public activities create a special danger. If the administration carries out a dangerous activity or uses dangerous tools, and a person suffers damage because of that risk, compensation may be possible even without proving ordinary negligence.
Examples may include dangerous public works, security operations, operation of hazardous public facilities, use of public vehicles or infrastructure projects that create special risks.
The rationale is simple: where the administration creates or controls a risk in the public interest, persons who suffer special damage from that risk should not necessarily bear the loss alone.
Equality Before Public Burdens
Another important principle is equality before public burdens. Public services are carried out for the benefit of society as a whole. However, if one person or a limited group suffers a special and abnormal burden because of an administrative activity carried out in the public interest, compensation may be necessary to restore fairness.
For example, a lawful public works project may still cause unusual damage to a specific property owner. Even if the project serves the public interest and no individual officer acted negligently, the affected person may argue that they should not bear a disproportionate burden for a public benefit enjoyed by all.
Social Risk Principle
The social risk principle is another form of strict administrative liability. It is usually discussed in relation to damage caused by widespread social events, public security risks, terrorism or extraordinary public-order situations where the individual victim should not be left without remedy.
The principle does not mean that the administration is automatically liable for every harmful event in society. Rather, it is used in exceptional circumstances where public-law fairness, social solidarity and the role of the administration in maintaining public order justify compensation. Turkish administrative-law scholarship emphasizes the role of Council of State case law in shaping social risk responsibility.
Public Hospital Liability
One of the most common areas of public service liability is medical treatment in public hospitals. If a patient suffers damage because of diagnosis error, treatment delay, surgical mistake, medication error, failure to monitor, emergency-service negligence, hospital infection, inadequate informed consent or defective organization of health services, the administration may be liable.
Because public hospitals provide public health services, compensation claims are generally brought before administrative courts through full remedy actions. The defendant is usually the relevant public administration, not merely the individual doctor.
Medical liability cases require strong evidence. Hospital records, laboratory results, imaging documents, prescriptions, operation notes, consent forms, nursing records, expert reports and medical board opinions are central. The claimant must prove damage, causation and defect in the public health service.
Municipal Liability
Municipalities may be liable for damage caused by defective local public services. Municipal liability may arise from road defects, pavement accidents, sewerage problems, water infrastructure, public parks, construction supervision failures, unlawful demolition, zoning decisions, failure to inspect unsafe structures, waste management, municipal vehicles or local public facilities.
For example, if a person is injured because of an unmarked road excavation, the municipality may be responsible. If a property is damaged because of defective sewerage infrastructure, compensation may be claimed. If a municipality unlawfully demolishes a structure without following Article 32 of the Zoning Law procedure, the owner may seek compensation.
Municipal liability cases often require technical evidence. Photographs, incident reports, witness statements, municipal correspondence, expert opinions, repair invoices, title deeds, zoning records and medical reports may be necessary.
Liability for Public Roads and Infrastructure
Public road and infrastructure cases are common examples of public service liability. The administration responsible for road maintenance, traffic safety, drainage, lighting, signs, barriers or public works must take reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable harm.
Liability may arise where there are potholes, missing warning signs, unsafe roadworks, defective drainage, unlit dangerous areas, collapsed infrastructure, open manholes, defective bridges or failure to secure construction zones.
In such cases, the claimant must identify the responsible administration. Depending on the location and road type, responsibility may belong to a municipality, metropolitan municipality, highways authority or another public institution. Correctly identifying the defendant administration is essential.
Liability for Unlawful Administrative Enforcement
Administrative enforcement may also create liability. Tax enforcement, e-attachment, bank account blockage, seizure, demolition, sealing, closure, license cancellation or collection of public receivables may cause serious financial damage if carried out unlawfully.
For example, if a tax office issues a payment order for a debt that does not exist, has already been paid, is time-barred or has not become final, the taxpayer may challenge the act and may also seek compensation for damage caused by enforcement.
Similarly, if an administration enforces an act despite a court’s suspension of execution decision, this may create additional liability. Turkish administrative procedure requires the administration to implement court judgments and stay-of-execution decisions without delay, and implementation cannot exceed thirty days after notification to the administration.
Liability for Failure to Implement Court Decisions
Failure to implement court decisions is a serious violation of the rule of law. Administrative courts may annul unlawful acts or grant suspension of execution. Once such a decision is notified, the administration must take the necessary steps.
If the administration refuses, delays or only formally pretends to implement a judgment, the affected person may suffer additional damage. In such cases, compensation may be claimed. This is especially important in reinstatement cases, permit disputes, zoning matters, tax refunds, disciplinary decisions and public employment disputes.
A judgment that remains unenforced is not an effective remedy. Therefore, Turkish administrative law treats non-implementation as a potential source of administrative liability.
Full Remedy Actions in Public Service Liability Cases
The main procedural tool for compensation is the full remedy action. Law No. 2577 recognizes full remedy actions as lawsuits filed by persons whose personal rights have been directly violated by administrative acts or actions.
A full remedy action may be filed:
Directly, where the damage arises from an administrative action; together with an annulment action, where an unlawful administrative act also caused damage; or after an annulment judgment, where the claimant first seeks cancellation and later claims compensation.
Choosing the correct method depends on the case. If the main problem is an unlawful administrative decision, an annulment action may be necessary. If damage has already occurred, a full remedy action may be added. If an act is both unlawful and damaging, both remedies may be considered.
Pre-Litigation Application Requirement
In many full remedy actions arising from administrative actions, the injured person must first apply to the administration and request compensation before filing a lawsuit. Article 13 of Law No. 2577 is particularly important in this respect. Legal commentary on amendments to Law No. 2577 explains that persons whose rights are violated by administrative acts or actions and who seek compensation must apply to the administration first in relevant cases; if the administration rejects the request or remains silent, a full remedy action may be filed. The 2021 amendments reduced certain administrative response periods from 60 days to 30 days.
This requirement must be handled carefully. A premature lawsuit may face procedural objections. On the other hand, waiting too long may cause limitation problems. The application should clearly identify the event, damage, legal basis, amount claimed and evidence.
Deadlines in Public Service Liability Cases
Deadlines are critical. Administrative litigation deadlines in Turkey are strict and courts may examine them ex officio.
For ordinary administrative lawsuits, the general period under Law No. 2577 is usually 60 days before administrative courts and 30 days before tax courts, unless special laws provide otherwise.
In full remedy cases arising from administrative actions, special pre-litigation application periods may apply. The claimant must determine when the damage occurred, when it was learned, when the responsible administration became known, when the application was made, when rejection occurred, and when the lawsuit period began.
Because public service liability cases often involve complex facts, limitation analysis should be one of the first steps in legal strategy.
Elements of Administrative Liability
To succeed in a public service liability claim, the claimant generally needs to establish several elements.
Damage
There must be legally recognizable damage. This may be material damage, moral damage or both.
Material damage includes medical expenses, repair costs, loss of income, loss of profit, property damage, business interruption, additional expenses or financial loss caused by administrative conduct.
Moral damage includes pain, suffering, emotional distress, damage to reputation, violation of personal rights, loss of family life or severe psychological impact.
Administrative Conduct
The damage must be connected to an administrative act, action or omission. The claimant must identify what the administration did or failed to do.
Unlawfulness or Liability Basis
In service fault cases, the claimant must show that public service was defective. In strict liability cases, the claimant must show that compensation is justified under risk, social risk or equality before public burdens.
Causation
There must be a causal link between the administrative conduct and the damage. If the damage was caused entirely by the claimant’s own fault, a third party, force majeure or an unrelated event, liability may be reduced or rejected.
Direct Personal Impact
The claimant must show that their personal rights or legally protected interests were directly affected. Full remedy actions are not abstract public-interest cases; they are compensation claims for concrete harm.
Causation and Contributory Fault
Causation is often the most contested issue. The administration may argue that the damage was caused by the claimant’s own negligence, a third party’s conduct, natural disaster, unforeseeable event or lack of connection with public service.
For example, in a road accident case, the administration may claim that the driver was speeding. In a hospital case, it may claim that the damage resulted from the patient’s underlying condition. In a municipal infrastructure case, it may argue that the damage was caused by a private contractor or neighboring property owner.
The court may apportion responsibility depending on the circumstances. If both the administration and the injured person contributed to the damage, compensation may be reduced.
Evidence in Public Service Liability Cases
Evidence is decisive. Administrative compensation cases are document-heavy and often require expert review.
Useful evidence may include:
Administrative decisions, application petitions, rejection letters, photographs, video recordings, police reports, accident reports, hospital records, expert opinions, invoices, repair estimates, bank statements, income records, employment records, title deeds, zoning documents, tax records, witness information, correspondence with the administration and court decisions.
In technical cases, expert examination is often central. Medical malpractice cases require medical expert analysis. Infrastructure cases may require engineering reports. Property damage cases may require valuation reports. Loss of profit claims may require financial experts.
A strong petition should not merely list documents. It should explain how each document proves damage, causation, service fault or the amount of compensation.
Material Compensation
Material compensation aims to restore the financial position of the injured person. It may include actual loss and, where legally provable, loss of expected gain.
For individuals, material damages may include treatment expenses, loss of salary, disability-related loss, travel costs, rehabilitation expenses and repair costs.
For companies, damages may include loss of profit, business interruption, extra operational costs, loss of contracts, damage to equipment, storage costs, financing costs and losses caused by unlawful administrative enforcement.
Material damages must be proven. Courts generally require documents, calculations and expert assessment. Unsupported estimates may be rejected or reduced.
Moral Compensation
Moral compensation may be awarded where administrative conduct causes serious non-pecuniary harm. This is common in cases involving bodily injury, death, unlawful detention-like administrative measures, severe reputational damage, serious violation of personal rights or failure to implement a judgment.
Moral compensation is not punitive in the ordinary sense. Its purpose is to provide partial satisfaction for non-material harm. The amount depends on the severity of the violation, degree of suffering, conduct of the administration and circumstances of the case.
Public Officer Fault and Administrative Liability
Sometimes damage is caused by an individual public officer. Turkish public law generally distinguishes between personal fault outside public service and fault committed during the performance of public duties.
Where the harmful conduct is connected to public service, claims are usually directed against the administration before administrative courts. If a public officer acts outside the scope of public duties or commits a purely personal act, private-law liability may become relevant. Comparative legal materials on Turkey distinguish between abuses committed outside civil service, which may lead to tort claims under general rules, and conduct committed while performing public service, which is treated differently.
In practice, the claimant should carefully identify whether the damage arose from public-service activity or a purely personal act. This affects jurisdiction, defendant identity and legal basis.
Public Service Liability and Foreign Investors
Foreign investors in Turkey may also rely on public service liability principles. Administrative acts affecting licenses, permits, zoning rights, tax status, customs procedures, public tenders, investment incentives or regulatory approvals may cause significant financial loss.
For example, unlawful cancellation of a license, delay in issuing a permit, wrongful tax enforcement or defective municipal zoning decision may damage an investment project. In such cases, the investor may consider annulment and full remedy actions before administrative courts.
Foreign investors should preserve all documents, including official correspondence, investment records, financial projections, contracts, bank documents, tax records, expert reports and evidence showing the causal link between administrative conduct and financial loss.
Practical Legal Strategy
A strong public service liability case should begin with a clear legal diagnosis.
First, identify the harmful event. Was it an administrative act, administrative action or omission?
Second, determine the responsible administration. In complex public services, multiple public bodies may be involved.
Third, decide whether the case requires an annulment action, a full remedy action or both.
Fourth, check whether a pre-litigation administrative application is required.
Fifth, calculate all deadlines.
Sixth, collect evidence proving damage, causation and liability.
Seventh, prepare a detailed compensation calculation.
Eighth, request expert examination where necessary.
In high-value or urgent cases, the petition should be structured with separate headings for jurisdiction, admissibility, factual background, liability basis, causation, damages, evidence and final requests.
Common Mistakes in Public Service Liability Claims
The first mistake is filing before the wrong court. If the damage arises from public service, administrative courts are usually competent.
The second mistake is failing to make a required pre-litigation application. In many administrative action cases, the claimant must first apply to the administration.
The third mistake is missing deadlines. Public service liability claims are time-sensitive.
The fourth mistake is failing to prove causation. Damage alone is not enough; the claimant must connect the damage to administrative conduct.
The fifth mistake is submitting weak damage calculations. Compensation claims should be supported by documents and expert analysis.
The sixth mistake is suing the wrong administration. In road, municipal, healthcare, education and regulatory matters, identifying the responsible public body is essential.
Conclusion
Public service liability in Turkey is a key mechanism for holding the administration accountable. Article 125 of the Turkish Constitution clearly states that the administration is liable to compensate damages resulting from its acts and actions. This constitutional rule allows individuals, companies and foreign investors to seek compensation when public services are performed unlawfully, defectively, late, poorly or in a way that imposes an abnormal burden.
The most common basis of liability is service fault. However, Turkish administrative law also recognizes strict liability principles such as risk, social risk and equality before public burdens in appropriate cases. Claims are generally brought through full remedy actions before administrative courts. Law No. 2577 recognizes full remedy actions as a main type of administrative lawsuit for persons whose personal rights are directly harmed by administrative acts or actions.
A successful claim requires more than proving that harm occurred. The claimant must establish administrative conduct, damage, causation, a legal basis for liability and procedural compliance. Evidence, expert reports, correct defendant identification, deadline calculation and damage assessment are all crucial.
For anyone harmed by defective public service in Turkey, public service liability provides a powerful legal remedy. When properly prepared, a full remedy action can compensate material and moral damages, reinforce administrative accountability and ensure that individuals do not bear unlawful or disproportionate burdens created by public authority.
Yanıt yok