The Administration's Liability for Compensation Due to Injury and Disability on Duty

Public servants face various risks while performing their duties and occasionally suffer injuries, disability, or more severe consequences. In particular, public employees on duty, such as police officers, gendarmerie, and coast guard personnel who constitute law enforcement forces, undertake high-risk missions to ensure the peace and security of citizens.

In this article, the liability of the administration in cases of injury or disability occurring during duty, Law No. 2330 compensation payments made within the scope of, legal basis, procedural law, items of claim, expert witness calculations, and litigation strategies will be addressed.

---

Legal Basis for the Administration's Liability for Compensation

Article 125/last paragraph of the Constitution, explicitly stipulates that the administration is liable to compensate for damages arising from its own acts and transactions. İYUK m.2/1-b states that individuals whose personal rights are directly violated due to administrative acts and actions may file a full remedy action (tam yargı davası).

Being injured on duty and duty disability (vazife malullüğü) are not the same concept. Injury refers to the impairment of bodily integrity. Duty disability, on the other hand, pursuant to Article 47 of Law No. 5510, is a special status recognized under social security law upon the fulfillment of the specified conditions. Receiving a duty disability pension or cash compensation pursuant to Law No. 2330 does not automatically preclude a full remedy action against the administration in every case; however, a balancing set-off (denkleştirme) is applied to prevent duplicate payments for the same damage.

When the special and extraordinary risk to which a public servant is exposed due to their duties materializes, strict liability (kusursuz sorumluluk) of the administration may arise even if no concrete fault of the administration in the establishment or operation of the service can be proven. Conversely, if the damage stems exclusively from the public servant's personal behavior outside the scope of duty, or if the causal link between the administrative activity and the damage is severed, liability for compensation may not arise, or a deduction from compensation may be made to the extent of the injured party's contributory negligence (müterafik kusur).

---

Procedural Law Analysis

Competent Court and Legal Basis

In claims for compensation from the administration due to injury or disability on duty, the dispute falls, as a rule, within the jurisdiction of the administrative judiciary. Since the lawsuit pertains to the financial liability of the administration arising from the performance of public service, the competent forum is the court of first instance, the administrative court. The legal basis is the provisions regarding full remedy actions under Article 2/1-b of the İYUK, .

Jurisdiction (Authorized Court)

Pursuant to Article 36 of the İYUK, In full remedy actions not arising from administrative contracts, the jurisdiction hierarchy is as follows: the court authorized to resolve the dispute giving rise to the damage, the place where the service is rendered or the act is performed, and the plaintiff's place of residence. For instance, in the event of an injury resulting from an official vehicle accident that occurred in Ankara pursuant to an assignment order, the jurisdiction of the administrative court where the incident took place shall be evaluated as primary.

Administrative Application and Litigation Period

Regarding damages arising from administrative acts Article 13 of the İYUK shall apply. Before filing an administrative lawsuit, the injured party must:

• Within one year from the date on which they learned of the damage and the administrative act,
• In any event, within five years from the date of the act,

submit a written application to the relevant administration requesting compensation for their damages.

In the event that the administration rejects the request entirely or partially, starting from the day following the notification of the rejection; or if the administration fails to respond within thirty days, starting from the expiration of this thirty-day period, within the sixty days stipulated in Article 7 of the İYUK, a full remedy action shall be filed.

Mediation as a Mandatory Condition for Litigation

As a general rule, there is no mandatory mediation requirement as a condition precedent for a full remedy action to be brought against the administration due to injury or disability sustained in the line of duty. The administrative application governed by Article 13 of the İYUK corresponds not to mediation, but to a prerequisite specific to full remedy actions arising from administrative acts.

Fees and Remedies

Since a full remedy action is of a pecuniary nature, the amount in dispute must be stated in the petition. Article 16 of the Fees Lawrequires the amount in dispute to be stated in actions where the value can be determined. Pursuant to Article 45 of the İYUK , as a rule, appeals against administrative court decisions must be filed within thirty days from service.

---

Analysis of Claims

It is permissible to assert the following claims together; however, each item shall be examined separately in terms of independent damage, adequate causation, and the prohibition of double recovery.

Head of Claim	Legal Basis and Criteria	Commencement of Interest	Critical Note
Treatment Expenses	TBK m.54/1; documented expenses not covered by the administration	As a rule, the date of application/default to the administration or the date of the lawsuit	The one-year and five-year application regime under Article 13 of the İYUK applies
Temporary Incapacity and Loss of Earnings	Article 54/2 of the TBK; report, payroll, actual loss of income, and SSI (SGK) payments together	Date of application or lawsuit	Even if remained on duty, the damage should not be deemed non-existent
Permanent Incapacity / Loss of Earning Capacity	Article 54/3 of the TBK; disability rate, occupational status, active-passive period	Date of application or lawsuit	Expert witness examination is decisive; SGK pensions are offset
Loss of Effort Compensation	Additional expenditure incurred while sustaining life and duties due to permanent disability	Date of application or lawsuit	Separate pecuniary damage item in the decisions of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay)
Caregiver Expense	Emergence of the need for permanent or periodic assistance of another person; medical report	Date of application or lawsuit	Proof with concrete medical data independent of the disability rate
Income Differential / Retirement Bonus Differential	Comparison of peer duty income with duty disability pension and additional payments	Date of application or lawsuit	Double deduction of the same payment is not permitted
Non-Pecuniary Damages	TBK m.56; violation of bodily integrity, pain, anguish, reduction in the enjoyment of life	Date of administrative application/default or lawsuit	The amount is not automatic; an equitable amount is determined
Non-Pecuniary Damages of Relatives	In cases of severe bodily harm TBK art. 56/2 ancillary criterion	Date of application or lawsuit	Degree of proximity and the severity of the incident must be substantiated
Law No. 2330 Payments	Security, public order, traffic, fire, and explosives duties	According to the administrative payment procedure	Separate regime from full remedy damages; equalization issue
Duty Disability Pension	Law No. 5510, Article 47 and related social security status	According to the pension allocation regime	Different from administrative full remedy actions for damages; their determinations are separate
Law No. 5233 Payments	Damages arising from terrorism or counter-terrorism activities	According to the administrative procedure	Special and limited payment system for material damages; non-pecuniary damages are separate

---

Calculation of Pecuniary Compensation

The purpose of material damages is not to provide unjust enrichment, but to eliminate the difference between the current state of assets and the state they would have been in had the damaging event never occurred. The following data should primarily be gathered for the calculation:

• Date of the incident and employment relationship,
• Definitive medical board report,
• The permanent or temporary disability rate,
• The benchmark salary and additional payments that would be receivable if remaining in active duty,
• The duty disability pension, retirement pension, and other social security incomes actually received,
• Treatment, prosthetic, rehabilitation, and care expenses,
• Active and passive periods,
• Current life expectancy table,
• Special statutory payments made due to the incident.

Council of State 10th Chamber, E. 2017/2555, K. 2022/1058 has established in its ruling numbered that the portion of the duty disability pension exceeding the ordinary disability pension cannot be deducted from the damages a second time as a benefit arising from the incident.

---

Criteria for Non-Pecuniary Compensation

Moral compensation is not a payment compensating for a decrease in assets. Its purpose is to provide appropriate redress for the psychological equilibrium disrupted due to severe injury or permanent disability, and the decrease in the joy of living. Council of State 10th Chamber, E. 2021/6447, K. 2022/3612 emphasizes in its ruling numbered that moral compensation is intended to compensate for the diminution in a person's moral values.

The following elements stand out in the determination of the amount: the severity and permanence of the injury, loss of organ or function, duration of treatment and repeated interventions, degree of dependency in daily life, impact on professional and working life, circumstances of the incident, severity of the administration's service fault, and the fault of the injured party or a third person.

---

Precedent Case Law – Council of State Decisions

Ruling	Incident and Legal Issue	Reasoning and Conclusion	Evaluation
Council of State 10th Chamber, E. 2022/2659, K. 2025/4587, D. 16.10.2025	Claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages by a public servant who was severely injured on duty and granted duty-disability status	It was stated that the damage suffered by the public servant due to their duty must be compensated based on strict liability. The rejection ruling regarding the loss of effort and caregiver expenses was overturned.	A highly favorable precedent. Demonstrates that the defense of "receiving a salary" does not nullify pecuniary damages.
Council of State 10th Chamber, E. 2017/2555, K. 2022/1058, D. 02.03.2022	Retirement of a police officer with duty-disability status following an injury sustained on duty; calculation of pecuniary damages	It was accepted that actual damages must be calculated based on precedent service income, duty-disability pension, and other payments; and that duplicate set-offs cannot be made.	Favorable precedent. Can be used in income differential and actuarial calculations.
Council of State 10th Chamber, E. 2019/1049, K. 2023/3997, D. 22.06.2023	Financial compensation claim of the relatives of the police officer who lost his life in the line of duty	It was emphasized that the expert calculation must entail a periodic comparison of the precedent duty salary, additional payments, and SSI pensions	Favorable precedent. The income equalization method serves as a guide for disability disputes
Council of State, 10th Chamber, E. 2021/6621, K. 2022/3428, D. 22.06.2022	Police officer who suffered a 77% permanent loss of labor capacity in an accident while on duty with an official motorcycle	It was stated that the damage suffered by the public official due to their duties must be compensated within the scope of strict liability	Mixed in nature yet favorable principles. Important regarding the principle of strict liability
Council of State, 10th Chamber, E. 2018/3901, K. 2022/3939, D. 19.09.2022	Injury and loss of exertion capacity in a duty-related terrorist attack	It was accepted that the administration shall compensate damages having a causal link to the public service; and that loss of exertion capacity may constitute an independent damage	Mixed in nature yet favorable principles. Important for the assessment of loss of exertion capacity
Council of State, 10th Chamber, E. 2017/408, K. 2021/5396, D. 10.11.2021	An event excluding administrative activity where the injured party's own conduct is decisive	It was stated that the administration shall not bear liability for compensation if there is no causal link between the damage and the administrative activity, or if the damage arises solely from the conduct of the injured party	Adverse/Restrictive precedent. The administration may base its defense of acting outside the scope of duty and the severance of the causal link on this

---

Established Principles Derived from Rulings

Principle	Explanation
1. Principle of Strict Liability	Damages suffered by a public official due to their duties may be compensated under the principle of strict liability, even if the fault of the administration cannot be proven
2. Condition of Personal Fault	This principle is subject to the condition that the injured party's own personal fault is not the primary or sole cause of the damage
3. Rule of Balancing	Duty disability pensions and SSI payments are taken into account when calculating the actual damage; however, the same benefit cannot be offset a second time
4. Independent Heads of Damage	Loss of effort and caregiver expenses constitute distinct items of pecuniary compensation under appropriate conditions
5. Independence of Non-Pecuniary Damages	Non-pecuniary damages are a means of satisfaction independent of the calculation of pecuniary loss
6. Limitation in Terrorist Incidents	In terrorist incidents and counter-terrorism operations, the special payment system of Law No. 5233 may be decisive and restrictive regarding pecuniary damages

---

Evidence Assessment and Matching

The success of a full remedy action depends on proving the nexus between the duty and the incident, as well as the damages through technical documents, rather than merely claiming “I was injured on duty”.

Evidence	Fact Proved
ANNEX-1: Duty Order, Duty Roster, Shift Record	That the injury occurred during or due to the performance of duty
ANNEX-2: Incident Report, Law Enforcement Report, Work Accident Record	The time, location, manner of occurrence, and parties involved in the incident
ANNEX-3: Camera Footage, Vehicle Tracking Record, Inter-Institutional Correspondence	The administration's obligation regarding organization, supervision, security, or vehicle allocation
ANNEX-4: Hospital Epicrisis, Surgery Records, Medical Board Reports	Nature of the injury, treatment process, permanent damage
ANNEX-5: Definitive Disability or Impairment Report	Permanent labor / earning capacity loss rate
ANNEX-6: SGK or Relevant Institution Correspondence	Duty disability status, pensions, payments made
ANNEX-7: Payrolls, Comparable Personnel Payrolls, Personnel Files	Income differential, loss of additional payments, comparable income calculation
ANNEX-8: Invoices, Receipts, Treatment and Transportation Documents	Uncovered treatment, care, prosthetic, and transportation expenses
ANNEX-9: Care Requirement Report and Care Service Documents	That the caregiver expense is necessary and actual
ANNEX-10: İYUK Article 13 Application, Notification Document	The fulfillment of the procedural precondition and application within the statutory timeframe
ANNEX-11: Criminal Investigation or Disciplinary Investigation Documents	The cause of the incident, fault ratio, and administrative negligence
ANNEX-12: Request for Expert Examination	Expert determination of actuarial, disability, loss of earning capacity, and care calculations

Important Note: Regarding medical reports, the determination that “an injury exists” must be distinguished from the determination that “this injury has caused permanent disability, loss of earning capacity, or need for care.” The Court places greater weight on objective medical data demonstrating functional loss and its impact on daily life rather than abstract complaints.

---

Counterparty's Potential Defenses

“The Incident is Not Related to Official Duties”

The Administration may claim that the incident occurred outside of working hours, outside the place of duty, or during personal activities. To counter this defense, the duty order, shift schedule, transportation assignment, institutional vehicle record, and incident reports must be submitted together. Article 47 of Law No. 5510, covers not only the place of duty, but also certain incidents occurring during the commute to and from work using a vehicle provided by the administration.

“The Public Official Has Personal Fault”

The Administration may rely on facts such as acting contrary to legislation or orders, prohibited acts, the influence of alcohol or drugs, or traffic rule violations. The response strategy is not to leave the allegation of no fault in the abstract, but to substantiate it with incident reports, technical reports, camera footage, and expert reports. Even if the public official has a certain degree of fault, this does not always completely eliminate compensation.

“Duty Disability Pension Granted; Compensation Can No Longer Be Claimed”

This defense is not absolutely correct. Council of State 10th Chamber, E. 2017/2555, K. 2022/1058 numbered decision, it has accepted that duplicate offsetting should not be made. The response must be formulated as, “only actual benefits covering the same loss can be offset once, using a correct calculation method”.

“There is No Pecuniary Loss Because They Continued to Work”

This defense is particularly common regarding personnel who continue to remain on active duty. Council of State 10th Chamber, E. 2022/2659, K. 2025/4587 numbered decision demonstrates that the fact of actual work and receiving a pension does not automatically eliminate independent items of loss such as loss of effort or the need for a caregiver.

“Only Law No. 5233 Applies to Terrorist Incidents”

In incidents connected with terrorism Law No. 5233 establishes a special payment regime for pecuniary losses. Council of State 10th Chamber, E. 2021/6447, K. 2022/3612 numbered decision indicates that where there is no fault of the administration or a ground for strict liability, the special statutory system may be limiting in terms of pecuniary losses.

---

Judge's Perspective

The administrative court generally seeks answers to five fundamental questions in duty-related injury and disability files:

• Did the incident truly occur during or due to the performance of official duties?
• Is there an adequate causal link between the damage and the administrative activity?
• Is there a service fault by the administration, or have the conditions for strict liability been met?
• Is the fault of the injured party or a third person of such magnitude as to eliminate or reduce liability?
• Have the claimed items of damage been accurately calculated as real, documented, and taking prior payments into account?

The main point that must be proven to the judge is not merely that the injury occurred during the performance of duty. It must be demonstrated that a material and legal connection has been established between the incident and the execution of the public service, and that the items of damage are detailed through medical, financial, and actuarial documents.

Key Weaknesses to Avoid:

• Claiming high and abstract pecuniary damages before the disability rate is finalized,
• Concealing the duty-disability pension from the case file,
• Confusing loss of earning capacity with loss of income,
• Overlooking the administrative application period under Article 13 of İYUK (Administrative Litigation Procedure Law).
• In the event of a terrorist incident of Law No. 5233 relying on general principles without considering its special regime.

---

Litigation Strategy

The general strategy should not be built upon a single abstract claim of “fault of the administration”; rather, it should be established on four complementary main lines:

1. Line of Duty Nexus

Demonstrating that the injury arose within the scope of public service through assignment records, duty rosters, official vehicles, duty locations, and incident reports.

2. Line of Liability

Primarily asserting concrete service fault; if this cannot be proven, asserting strict liability based on the special and unusual risks to which the public official was exposed due to their duties.

3. Line of Damages

Distinguishing between medical treatment, income differential, permanent loss of labor capacity, loss of effort, need for a caregiver, and non-pecuniary damages; requesting appropriate evidence and expert calculation for each.

4. Line of Offsetting

Duty disability pension, SGK payment, 2330 or Law No. 5233 to present any payments transparently, yet object to any duplicate set-offs in the calculation of actual damages.

---

Conclusion

Claiming compensation from the administration due to injury and disability in the line of duty is not merely an abstract “coverage of expenses„. Constitution, İYUK and Council of State jurisprudence, requires that the damages suffered by the public official in the line of duty be demonstrated in detail with technical documents, that an appropriate nexus of causation be established, and that the actual damages be calculated.

Particularly for the protection of the rights of law enforcement officers, security personnel, and others working in high-risk duties, it is crucial to file a strategically structured lawsuit with a solid legal basis and supported by evidence. In terrorist incidents, armed conflicts, and public order duties, 2330, Law No. 5233 and the joint evaluation of general full remedy action principles will be decisive in formulating the most effective defense strategy.

---

About Us – Contact Information

Atty. Batın YILMAZ

Bar Association Information:

• Istanbul Bar Association No. 1: 77008
• Union of Turkish Bar Associations: 187392

Address:
Yakuplu Mahallesi, Hürriyet Bulvarı Skyport Residence Kat:12 No:133
Beylikdüzü, İstanbul

Contact:
📞 Telephone: 0 532 669 34 90
📞 Alternative Phone: 0 532 732 34 90