As a rule, the administration is obliged to indemnify. The damages that are the direct result of the service it performs and for which a causal. Link can be established. However, as an exception to the aforementioned rule. The administration is obliged to compensate for certain damages. That it is obliged to prevent but cannot prevent. Without seeking a causal link. This principle, which is called social risk based. On the understanding of collective responsibility. Has been accepted by scientific and judicial jurisprudence.
It is known and observed that the so-called terrorist incidents. Which have intensified in a certain region of our country, are directed against. The state, aim to destroy the constitutional order of the State. And that such incidents. Do not arise from personal animosity against the persons and institutions damaged.
The persons who have suffered damages due to the aforementioned acts. Who have not participated in the terrorist acts in any way. Do not suffer damages as a result of their own faults and actions. But as a result of the social turmoil in the society. In short, the cause of the damage is being a member of the society. The damages incurred as stated above must be compensated by the administration, which is obliged to prevent terrorist incidents. But failed to prevent them, according to the principle of social risk explained above, without taking into account their special and extraordinary characteristics and without looking for a causal link. In fact, the compensation of the damages caused by terrorist incidents. By the administration and thus sharing. Them to the society is a requirement of equity and will be in accordance with the principle of social state.
In the case, it is understood that the plaintiffs’ murisi. Whose death was not based on any personal. Animosity and did not have any fault of his own. Was killed as a result of widespread terrorist activities against.
The state and the integrity of the country. Simply because he was the village headman and a member of the society. In this respect, even if it is determined that there is no service defect of the administration. In the case in dispute. The extraordinary damages that occur in a time and place where states of emergency. Are in force must be compensated. By the administration in accordance with the principle of social risk, and there is no compliance. With the law in the court decision that rejects. The compensation lawsuit on the grounds. That there is no service defect of the administration and that the conditions. Of the principle of social risk have not been fulfilled (10th Chamber of the Council of State – Decision: 1993/3777).
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking