1. Strict Liability of the Building Owner (TCO Articles 69-70):
Regulation: In accordance with Article 69 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the owner of a building or a construction work is obliged to compensate for damages arising from “deficiencies in the maintenance” of the building. This liability is a form of strict liability; meaning the owner is held responsible for the damage even if they have no personal fault in the occurrence of the maintenance deficiency.
Right of Prevention: TCO Article 70 grants the person facing the danger of damage from a structure the authority to request from the right holders that necessary measures be taken to eliminate this danger.
2. Duties and Responsibilities of the Manager in Condominium Ownership (CMO Articles 35, 38):
General Maintenance: In accordance with CMO Article 35/b, the manager is obliged to take the necessary measures for the protection, maintenance, and repair of the main immovable property.
Elevator Responsibility: CMO Article 35/l (Added: 2015) defines it as the primary duty of the manager to ensure that monthly maintenance and annual inspections of elevators are carried out in accordance with technical regulations for their safe operation.
Capacity as Agent: The manager is responsible to the condominium owners just like an agent (CMO Article 38). In case of negligence, a right of recourse may arise against them from the condominium owners.
3. Elevator Safety and Operational Obligations:
Maintenance Contract: In accordance with Article 14 of the Elevator Operation and Maintenance Regulation, the building manager is obliged to sign a written maintenance contract with an authorized service.
Safety Labels: During inspections carried out in accordance with the Elevator Periodic Control Regulation; elevators that receive a red label (unsafe) must be immediately taken out of service, and deficiencies in elevators with blue/yellow labels must be rectified within the specified periods. The follow-up of these processes is the responsibility of the building manager.
4. Fire Safety Systems (Fire Regulation Art. 84, 124, 125):
Principle of Continuity: Fire detection, alarm, and extinguishing systems must be kept operational at all times.
Periodic Tests: Periodic inspection, testing, and maintenance of these systems, as specified in the relevant standards, must be carried out by the building owner or manager (Art. 84).
Responsibility Sharing: In buildings subject to condominium ownership, the responsibility for fire safety belongs directly to the building manager (Art. 125).
5. Points to Consider in Practice:
Causal Link: In Supreme Court practices, when a causal link is established between neglected maintenance and damage (e.g., the elevator’s brake system failing due to lack of maintenance), the owner’s and manager’s liability increases.
Criminal Liability: In cases where injury or death occurs as a result of neglected maintenance, public lawsuits can be filed against the responsible persons for crimes of “manslaughter/injury by negligence” under the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK).
Audit Records: Regular keeping of maintenance slips, periodic inspection reports, and service contracts is a critical means of proof to avoid liability or determine the fault ratio in a possible dispute.
1. Regulatory Framework and Legal Basis
Legal liability regarding maintenance and repair neglects is shaped within the framework of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), the Condominium Law (KMK), and relevant technical regulations:
Absolute Liability of the Building Owner (TCO art. 69-70): The building owner is obliged to compensate for damages arising from deficiencies in the maintenance of the structure. This is a case of absolute liability. Those facing the risk of damage may request measures to be taken from the rights holders (TCO art. 70).
Manager’s Liability in Condominiums (CML art. 35, 38): The manager is obliged to take the necessary measures for the maintenance and protection of the main immovable property. Particularly, ensuring monthly maintenance and annual inspections of elevators is the manager’s primary duty (CML art. 35/l). The manager is liable to the unit owners as an agent.
Elevator Safety: The building manager/owner must sign a written maintenance contract with an authorized service. The use of red-labeled (unsafe) elevators must be stopped, and deficiencies in blue/yellow-labeled ones must be rectified within the given timeframe.
Fire Safety Systems: Keeping fire detection, alarm, and extinguishing systems operational at all times and performing their periodic tests is the responsibility of the building owner or manager (Fire Regulation art. 84, 124, 125).
2. Judicial Analysis Regarding Elevator Maintenance and Repair Negligence
Judicial decisions indicate that the responsibility for elevator maintenance and control is shared between both the building management and the maintenance company, but a lack of oversight directly renders the manager liable.
Building Owner/Manager’s Obligation: In the decision of Bakırköy 3rd Civil Court of Commerce (2021/695 E., 2022/947 K., 05.10.2022), it was stated that the building owner/manager is obliged to have the elevator maintained once a month and undergo periodic inspection once a year, and that malfunctions arising from the neglect of this duty cannot be attributed to the contractor company. Similarly, İstanbul 3rd Civil Court of Commerce (2019/311 E., 2024/395 K., 21.05.2024) emphasized that the responsibility for monthly maintenance lies with the building owner or manager.
Fault and Criminal Liability: In its decision, the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2023/2433 E., 2023/1561 K., 10.05.2023) found the manager who failed to rectify an elevator malfunction in a timely manner and did not prevent the use of the faulty elevator to be “primarily at fault.” The 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2020/6309 E., 2023/4984 K., 14.11.2023) held the operators 100% at fault due to platforms that did not undergo periodic inspections and lacked safety equipment.
Responsibility of the Maintenance Company: In the decision of the Istanbul Anatolian 9th Civil Court of Commerce (2017/1149 E., 2021/148 K., 22.02.2021), it characterized the maintenance personnel’s actions without allocating sufficient time and without applying test procedures as “defective service.” The 12th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (2016/1032 E., 2017/6008 K., 06.07.2017), on the other hand, ruled that the maintenance officer who failed to identify and report parts that needed to be replaced was primarily at fault.
Inspection and Labeling: According to the Istanbul 6th Civil Court of Commerce (2019/755 E., 2023/736 K., 25.10.2023), the use of elevators with red labels or without a certificate of conformity poses a serious safety risk and legal responsibility for building owners. However, if the manager has fulfilled all legal obligations and obtained a “green label,” they may be deemed faultless in the event of an accident (Supreme Court 12th Criminal Chamber, 2025/382 E., 2025/5210 K., 12.06.2025).
3. Fire Safety Systems and Installation Negligence
The lack of maintenance of fire systems is evaluated within the scope of the owner’s strict liability and gives rise to heavy compensation obligations to the extent that a causal link is established.
Availability of Systems: In the decision of the Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber (2019/3455 E., 2019/9978 K., 11.12.2019), it was stated that not keeping fire extinguishing systems operational at all times gives rise to the owner’s responsibility, and the tenant’s fault would not entirely eliminate this responsibility.
Periodic Testing and Maintenance: In the decisions of the Bakırköy 4th Civil Court of Commerce (2018/403 E., 2020/48 K., 16.01.2020) and Kayseri Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi 6th Civil Chamber (2026/318 E., 2026/478 K., 03.03.2026), it was emphasized that the periodic control and testing of fire detection and extinguishing systems by the building owner or manager is a legal obligation.
Electrical Installation and Technical Maintenance: The Supreme Court 11th Civil Chamber (2008/6123 E., 2010/2149 K., 25.02.2010) held the owner responsible for not renewing the aging electrical installation. The İstanbul 10th Civil Court of Commerce (2021/407 E., 2023/41 K., 16.01.2023) found the plaza management 30% secondarily at fault for not subjecting the electrical installation to periodic inspection once a year.
Faulty Installation and Design: In the decision of the İstanbul 20th Civil Court of Commerce (2019/314 E., 2024/109 K., 09.02.2024), it was stated that even if the system’s periodic tests were performed, the service provider company was responsible due to its faulty design, causing late fire detection, and incorrect identification (presented as a PIR detector).
4. Table of Responsibility and Fault Distribution
| Responsible Party | Type of Negligence | Legal Consequence / Degree of Fault | Supporting Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Building Manager | Failure to arrange periodic elevator inspection | Primary Fault / Criminal Liability | Supreme Court 12th Criminal Chamber, 2023/2433 |
| Building Owner | Fire system not being operational | Strict Liability (TCO 69) | Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber, 2019/3455 |
| Maintenance Company | Failure to report deficiencies / Faulty maintenance | Primary Fault / Compensation | Supreme Court 12th Criminal Chamber, 2016/1032 |
| Site Management | Failure to rectify reported defect within 1 month | 40% Primary Fault | Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 3rd Civil Chamber, 2019/266 |
| School Management | Failure to sign a maintenance contract for 2 months | Secondary Fault | Council of State 8th Chamber, 2019/5417 |
| Plaza Management | Failure to have the electrical installation inspected annually | 30% Secondary Fault | Istanbul 10th Commercial Court of First Instance, 2021/407 |
5. General Assessment and Conclusion
In light of judicial decisions, negligence in maintenance and repair yields results within the framework of the following basic principles:
Causal Link: When a link is established between lack of maintenance and damage, the owner’s liability is inevitable. However, if it is proven that the systems are complete and operational, it is possible to be relieved of liability (Istanbul Anatolian 5th Civil Court of First Instance, 2021/869 Case No. ).
Agency Liability: Managers are liable as agents under the Condominium Law (KMK), and if they fail to have technical inspections carried out, they face both compensation and criminal sanctions.
Contractual Obligation: Maintenance companies are not only obliged to fix malfunctions but also to identify and report elements that endanger the system’s safety.
Burden of Proof: Periodic maintenance slips, service contracts, and inspection reports are the most critical means of proof in disputes.
Resources and Our Related Articles
Official source: Condominium Law No. 634 (mevzuat.gov.tr)
Legal Ways to Change the Site Manager and Appoint a New Manager
- What Can Apartment Management Do If the Tenant Does Not Pay Dues?
- Who Has the Authority to Collect Dues in Collective Buildings?
Why Is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?
Maintenance and repair negligence lawsuits are based on strict liability (TCO art. 69), the manager’s agency liability (PCL art. 38), joint and several liability, and the correct establishment of the causal link. For those who have suffered damages, directing the compensation to the correct addressee; for the management/owner, proving innocence or the degree of fault with maintenance documents is critically important. Considering the criminal aspect as well, managing the process correctly from the beginning prevents loss of rights.
2M Law Office provides support to apartment and site residents, those who have suffered damages, and managements in **Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe** and **Gebze/Kocaeli** line regarding condominium and site management law, compensation lawsuits arising from elevator/fire/installation accidents, and manager liability. For an evaluation regarding your specific case: 2mhukuk.com
This article is for general informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice or attorney services. Each dispute should be evaluated under its unique circumstances.
