Criminal investigations and prosecutions are being carried out against the building owner, building contractor, fnancial responsible professional members and building supervision officers who are determined to be at fault in the construction of buildings that resulted in death or injury, in terms of the ‘negligent homicide offence’ regulated in Article 85 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) and the ‘negligent injury offence’ regulated in Article 89 of the TCK.
The 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which evaluated the appeal application of a case filed after the Van earthquake in 2011, signed a precedent-setting decision. In the decision, it was emphasised that the contractor, who was found to have used poor quality materials in the construction of the collapsed building, should be sentenced for ‘manslaughter with conscious negligence’.
The decision was as follows: “In the Zoning Law No. 3194, it is stated that the owner and contractor of the building is responsible for the construction of the building from the moment the construction of the building is started, in terms of having a construction in accordance with the rules in force, and that he is responsible as a defendant for not showing the attention and care on his part. As a result of the examination of the core samples taken from the building that collapsed in the earthquake by technical experts, it was determined that the concrete used could not even meet the minimum concrete class of C16 specified in the Regulation on Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas, although the Regulation on Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas published in 1997 stipulates that concrete with C20 or higher strength must be used in buildings in first and second degree earthquake zones. It has been determined that there are inadequacies in the reinforcement detailing of the existing structural elements of the building, there are differences in column dimensions, reinforcement diameters and quantities according to the expert report and project data, and there is adherence dissolution between cement paste and aggregate in the concrete samples. It is understood that these inadequacies and deficiencies were effective in the collapse of the building; the defendants did not fulfil their obligations at the project stage, at the construction stage and at the completion stage of the collapsed building, and that the conditions of conscious negligence have occurred for the defendants who acted against the obligation of attention and care in terms of this foreseeable result. It is obvious that the building owner and the contractor, as well as the professional members of the fnancial responsible professions and the building supervision officers are responsible for the construction of the building in accordance with the provisions of the existing legal and administrative legislation and the technical conditions of the building from the moment of the construction of the building. Due to their failure to fulfil these responsibilities, it is understood that the failure to construct the building in accordance with the legal, administrative and technical conditions is effective in the collapse of the building, that is, there is a causal link between the collapse of the building and the failure of the perpetrators to fulfil their responsibilities, and that the perpetrators who act contrary to the obligations of attention and care in terms of the foreseen result are criminally responsible at the degree of conscious negligence.”
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking