INTRODUCTION
On January 21, 2025, a fire broke out at a hotel in Kartalkaya Ski Resort in Bolu, turning into a tragedy that deeply shook our country. In this unfortunate incident, many individuals were injured, and regrettably, some guests lost their lives. Following the fire, issues such as the adequacy of the hotel’s fire safety measures, the responsibility of the management, and the effectiveness of inspection processes sparked widespread public debate. In the aftermath, both judicial and administrative investigations were initiated by the relevant authorities, and legal proceedings were launched against the hotel management and other responsible parties. This catastrophe, which must be evaluated within the scope of administrative, legal, and criminal liability, has led to legal proceedings for numerous victims and their families.
In this article, legal and criminal liability will be examined, and the legal remedies available for victims and their families to seek justice will be detailed. A comprehensive analysis will be conducted on the legal avenues that can be pursued in the victims’ and their families’ quest for justice.
A. PRIVATE LAW LIABILITY
Legal Protection of Victims
Hotel enterprises are obligated to provide their guests with a safe accommodation service. In this regard, the Law on the Protection of Consumers No. 6502 (“LPC”) aims to ensure the reliability of the services provided by safeguarding the health and safety of consumers. Article 1 of the LPC mandates the adoption of protective measures in the public interest to safeguard the health, safety, and economic interests of consumers. Accordingly, the provision of services that pose a threat to consumer safety is prohibited.
Pursuant to the section titled “Obligations Arising from Tortious Acts” under the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (“TCO”), any person who causes harm to another through a wrongful and unlawful act is obliged to compensate for such damage. Additionally, Article 576 of the TCO stipulates that operators of accommodation facilities are responsible for ensuring the security of their guests’ belongings and, more broadly, for providing a safe environment.
In this context, it is evident that the hotel enterprise in question must comply with the following obligations, as well as other requirements stipulated by the applicable legislation:
- Complying with fire safety standards,
- Keeping emergency exit plans updated and easily accessible,
- Ensuring that fire alarm systems are operational,
- Informing guests about potential emergency situations.
However, in the case of the Kartalkaya hotel fire, allegations have emerged that the hotel neglected fire safety measures. It has been reported that fire alarm systems were not functioning, emergency exits were insufficient, and fire extinguishing equipment was inadequate. Such negligence may give rise to the hotel’s liability for breach of contract and tort. Consequently, guests affected by the fire and the families of those who lost their lives may pursue legal action against the hotel. These claims primarily involve lawsuits for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
Claims for Pecuniary Damages
Individuals who suffered damages in the fire may file lawsuits to seek compensation for their financial losses. These claims differ for those who were injured and for the families of those who lost their lives. While hotel guests qualify as consumers under the LPC, they may seek compensation for breach of contract under the same law. Meanwhile, the relatives of deceased individuals may claim compensation under the TCO based on the hotel’s gross negligence or fault within the scope of tort liability. Those who have suffered harm due to a wrongful act may file claims for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages under the TCO. Lastly, individuals who were injured but were not hotel guests (such as visitors) may also initiate compensation claims under the TCO within the framework of tort liability.
Within this scope:
- Claims for Pecuniary Damages by Injured Individuals: They may seek compensation for their damages, including medical expenses, loss of earnings, loss of work capacity, and future care costs.
- Claims for Compensation by the Relatives of Deceased Individuals: The family members of those who lost their lives may claim compensation for loss of support. Additionally, funeral and burial expenses may also be claimed.
Lawsuits for Non-Pecuniary Damages
In addition to pecuniary damages, individuals affected by the fire and their relatives may also claim non-pecuniary damages. Non-pecuniary compensation is sought to address the psychological and emotional suffering experienced by the victims. The amount of non-pecuniary damages is determined based on the severity of the incident and the condition of the victims. Within this scope:
- Psychological Effects Experienced by Injured Individuals: Trauma caused by the fire, including fear, stress, and depression, may be considered within the scope of non-pecuniary compensation.
- Pain and Suffering of the Relatives of Deceased Individuals: The psychological harm suffered by spouses, children, and parents due to the loss of their loved ones may be taken into account in claims for non-pecuniary damages.
Time Limit and Prescriptive Period for Filing a Compensation Lawsuit
According to Article 16 of the LPC, unless a longer period is stipulated by law or agreed upon in the contract between the parties, liability arising from defective services is subject to a two-year limitation period starting from the date of service performance. However, if the defect has been fraudulently or grossly negligently concealed, limitation provisions do not apply. Under the TCO, in compensation claims arising from tort, a lawsuit must be filed within two years from the date the damage and the liable party become known, and in any case, within ten years from the occurrence of the act. If the act also constitutes a criminal offense subject to a longer limitation period under criminal law, the criminal limitation period shall apply. In this regard, it is essential to emphasize that victims must take limitation periods into account to avoid loss of rights.
Competent Court in Compensation Lawsuits
Individuals who have suffered damages due to the fire must file their compensation lawsuits before the competent and authorized court against the hotel enterprise. In this context, for victims who qualify as consumers under the LPC, the competent court for their claims will be the Consumer Courts. However, for victims who are not hotel guests, the competent court will be the Civil Courts of First Instance.
B. CRIMINAL LIABILITY
In the context of the Kartalkaya hotel fire, not only private law liability and compensation lawsuits but also criminal liability and criminal proceedings come into question. Considering that the fire resulted in deaths and injuries, it can be argued that the elements of homicide and injury offenses under the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (“TPC“) have been met.
Within the scope of the ex officio investigation initiated for the Kartalkaya hotel fire tragedy, it is necessary to determine the specific offense attributed to those responsible. If it is established that the acts of the responsible parties fall within the scope of negligence and/or that the investigation has been conducted inadequately, victims must file a criminal complaint through a petition. However, if an ex officio investigation has already been initiated for both offenses, there is no need for victims to file an additional complaint.
According to Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271, individuals who have suffered harm due to the offense may intervene in the ongoing criminal case as a “participant” (intervener). In this process, victims or the relatives of deceased individuals may apply to the court to join the case as interveners. Those who obtain the status of a participant may request the punishment of the defendants, submit evidence, and attend hearings. However, it should be noted that a criminal case only determines the criminal liability of the defendants; victims must file a separate civil lawsuit to claim compensation for their pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
C. CONCLUSION
The fire tragedy in Bolu Kartalkaya has once again brought to the forefront the responsibilities of hotel enterprises regarding fire safety and the effectiveness of inspection mechanisms, leading to significant consequences in terms of both legal and criminal liability. Hotel operators are obligated to provide their guests with a safe accommodation environment, and any breach of this obligation results in liability under the LPC and TCO. Victims may file lawsuits in civil courts to seek pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, while the responsible parties may also face criminal liability. In conclusion, to ensure the protection of victims’ rights, it is crucial to closely monitor the legal proceedings related to this incident.
