Traffic accident compensation is calculated by evaluating together the type of loss, the proven net income, the relationship of the health condition to the accident, the duration or rate of incapacity for work, age, fault and prior payments. Two people with the same disability rate may receive different amounts. The insurance company’s offer, the expert’s loss calculation and the amount the court will award are also not always the same.
For a sound calculation, the first step is to determine which loss is being claimed; the data for each period is then examined. The calculation used for permanent loss of working capacity cannot be applied as is to temporary loss of earnings, caregiver expense or non-pecuniary damages. This guide explains how the figure is formed and with which questions a report can be reviewed.
Which losses are included in the traffic accident compensation calculation?
In injury cases, treatment expenses, temporary loss of earnings, permanent loss of working capacity and the impairment of economic future; in death cases, funeral expenses and loss of support require different examinations. If death does not occur immediately, the bodily losses of the intervening period also come onto the agenda. The basic distinction rests on Articles 53 and 54 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK). Non-pecuniary damages, however, are assessed separately under TBK Art. 56. [1]
When preparing the file, three questions should be asked for each claim: From which event did the loss arise, which period does it belong to, and with which document can it be shown? A hospital invoice may explain one expense, the employer’s letter on wage deduction another loss, and a health board report the permanent impairment. The existence of one document does not mean that other losses are also proven.
The same economic loss should not be added again under two different names. For example, when the loss of earnings for the period of temporary total incapacity for work is calculated, it should be shown which method is used for the same days in the permanent-loss calculation. By contrast, the need for care and the loss of working capacity may be separate losses; they are not deemed included in one another merely because they arise from the same accident.
Vehicle repair, diminished value and loss of use are also dealt with separately. The bodily-injury examples in this guide cannot be used as a valuation method for vehicle damage.
Which income is taken as the basis in the compensation calculation?
Payroll, bank records and actual wage are examined together
The key issue in the calculation is to determine the person’s earnings reliably. For an employee, payrolls, bank payments, the employment contract, Social Security Institution (SGK) records and employer statements should be assessed together. Carrying forward a regular wage component and a one-off payment in the same way may produce an erroneous result. Taking a document stating gross wage directly into the net income column must also be checked separately.
The examination should not be limited to the month of the accident. Regularity in earlier months, job changes, incomplete work and known wages in the later period may affect the calculation. Differences between documents should not be converted into an average without explanation in the report. It should be clear with which record the claimed high income is verified.
In its decision of May 29, 2025 concerning a doctor’s income, the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) found it inappropriate to use the minimum wage for the future period instead of the last known and proven earnings. By contrast, in another decision dated May 8, 2025, a high-income assumption not supported by the file data was criticized. These two examples show that neither the minimum wage nor a claim of high wage is an automatic choice. [5–6]
Self-employed persons, business owners and unregistered workers
For earnings from self-employment, tax records, activity documents, collections and the nature of the profession matter. The sales turnover of a business and the net earnings tied to a person’s own labor are not the same data. For example, treating all the collections of a business that has material, employee and rent expenses as personal monthly income may inflate the calculation. What economic magnitude the records show should be explained by financial examination.
In a claim of unregistered work as well, the profession, the actual work and the wage are investigated. Whether the file needs a comparable-wage inquiry is assessed; the figure stated by the person making the claim alone is not conclusive data. The lack of an income document should not be confused with the conclusion that no permanent bodily loss arose at all.
A useful preparation from the reader’s perspective is to build an income list by month instead of stating a single figure: amount, employer or activity, payment document and explanation. This way, the income used in the calculation report and the documents submitted can be compared line by line.
How are the disability rate, temporary incapacity for work and the need for care distinguished?
The permanent rate alone is not sufficient
In the calculation of permanent loss of working capacity, the basis of the report is as important as its percentage. The applicable regulation, the date of the accident, the person’s age, the examination findings and the permanent consequences attributable to the accident must be determined. The effect of pre-existing conditions is separated from the condition created or aggravated by the accident. It is not correct to take every disability certificate as the basis for this compensation without examining its reasoning.
The decision of the Court of Cassation dated May 30, 2024 resolving the conflict between decisions emphasizes that disability must be examined under the regulation applicable on the date of the event. The periods in the decision relating to adult reports should not be applied by disregarding the need for special assessment of children. Indeed, the current general conditions of compulsory motor liability insurance subject adult and child reports to separate regulations. [4,7]
The condition that the SGK seeks for granting a monthly pension or income is not the same as all the requirements of private-law compensation. It cannot be said that no loss calculation will be made merely on the ground that a social security threshold was not reached. First, it should be explained which right and which report is being examined.
The recovery period and the need for a caregiver are separate medical questions
In temporary incapacity for work, the length of the recovery period and the person’s loss of activity in that period are assessed. Even if the permanent rate is zero, there may be a documented temporary loss or expense. By contrast, the same payment cannot be made in all files without establishing the relationship between the number of days in the sick-leave certificate and the concrete loss of earnings.
In care expenses, the nature of the assistance needed, its daily scope and its duration must be determined. The permanent disability rate cannot be used in place of the rate or duration of the need for care. In preparing the file, what assistance is needed in bathing, dressing, movement, medication use and other daily activities should be explained together with the medical findings. Where a relative provides the care, the nature of the service performed should also be recorded.
If there are two conflicting health reports, choosing the higher one or taking the average of the rates is not a solution. The finding from which the contradiction arises and whether the relevant specialties are on the board are examined. The decision of the Court of Cassation dated March 6, 2025 is a concrete example of this review. [8]
How do age, the active period, the passive period and the life table affect the amount?
Distinction between the known period and the future period
In the period up to the calculation date, wage and duration data can be investigated. In the future period, assumptions are used. This distinction is not the same as the distinction between the active period in which the person works and the later passive period. In a report, the start and end dates of both classifications should be understandable.
For example, when the report date changes, some months that previously belonged to the future may now move to the known period. Updating only the total amount does not automatically make the new wage documents and period boundaries correct. A supplementary report should show which data changed.
The social security rule on retirement age and the active-period assumption in the loss calculation are also not identical. Using the same age in every file without examining the person’s profession and employment situation may remain unreasoned. Why the passive period is included in or excluded from the calculation should also be explained separately.
What do TRH 2010 and the progressive annuity method mean?
TRH 2010 is the life table used in assessing expected life span. It does not show a person’s exact date of death. The decision of the 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated May 30, 2024 explains the practice favoring the TRH 2010 table in the relevant traffic accident calculations. This decision is not a unification-of-case-law decision; it concerns resolving the conflict between regional courts of appeal. [7]
The progressive annuity method (progresif rant), in turn, refers to evaluating future incomes through increase and discount operations. In the income decision dated May 29, 2025, it is stated that the known period is handled with the earnings actually realized and the later period by increasing the last known earnings by 10 percent annually and discounting by 10 percent. These technical rates are not the same as the interest requested because a debt is paid late. [5]
In the legal literature, the actuarial suitability of the method is debated. Kaya and Karaman, in their 2022 study, criticized the progressive annuity approach and compared alternative technical interest assumptions. This scholarly criticism does not mean that the requested method can be freely chosen in every case. The report should explain the legal basis of the method, the date of the event and the procedural stage of the file. [10]
Children, students, retirees and persons not working in paid employment
The absence of paid employment alone does not eliminate the economic effect of permanent bodily loss. Carrying out daily life or domestic activities with greater exertion is assessed separately. However, it cannot be concluded from this that the same temporary loss of earnings will be paid to all non-working persons.
For children and students, age, educational status, assumptions about the future working period and current effects on daily life are examined separately. For retirees, if there is actual work, its income and nature are investigated. Adding the retirement pension and work earnings in the same column may obscure the real cause of the loss.
That this distinction may be contested in practice is also seen in the dissenting opinion in the decision dated April 7, 2026 concerning a 69-year-old homemaker. Permanent loss of capacity, temporary loss of earnings and care expense should be assessed separately. [9]
How are the fault rate and contribution to the increase in loss assessed?
In a fault report, how the accident occurred is examined first. The point of collision, speed, visibility, right of way, camera footage and technical findings need to be evaluated. A conclusion in the accident report should not be carried into the calculation program as fixed data when there is a serious objection or contradiction. In the decision dated April 7, 2026, the ground for reversal is that the disputed fault was not sufficiently investigated by an expert report. [9]
The injured person’s contribution to the accident and contribution to the aggravation of the injury are different questions. When an allegation concerning a helmet or seat belt is assessed, the event, the location of the injury and causation should be examined together. It is not correct to apply every equipment debate as an automatic 20 percent reduction to all heads of loss. It should also be checked that the same fact is not made a ground for reduction twice. [1,6]
Fault attributed to the driver of the vehicle in which a passenger was traveling does not automatically become the passenger’s personal fault. Where there are several liable parties, liability toward the injured person and the allocation among the liable parties themselves are separated. It is therefore not appropriate to transfer the two-party example below as is to every multi-vehicle accident. The operator’s liability is further assessed under the rules in Art. 85 and the following articles of the Highway Traffic Law (KTK). [2]
Example calculation showing the effect of income, disability and fault
A simplified example for a one-year period only
The amounts below are entirely hypothetical; they are not the current minimum wage, an insurance limit or a payment in a court decision. It is assumed that income does not change during the same 12-month period, that the permanent-loss calculation is applicable for the relevant period, and that there are no other reductions or payments. The injured person’s fault is assumed to be 25 percent, and the liability share to be used in the calculation 75 percent.
| Assumption | One-year example calculation | Example period loss |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly net 40,000 Turkish lira (TL); loss 20 percent | 40,000 × 12 × 0.20 × 0.75 | 72,000 TL |
| Monthly net 60,000 TL; loss 20 percent | 60,000 × 12 × 0.20 × 0.75 | 108,000 TL |
| Monthly net 40,000 TL; loss 10 percent | 40,000 × 12 × 0.10 × 0.75 | 36,000 TL |
The table shows the effect of two inputs while the other assumptions remain unchanged. A 50 percent increase in income increased the period amount in the first row by 50 percent as well. Halving the loss rate halved the amount in the same narrow example. If fault or another variable is also changed, the result must be recalculated.
These results are not total compensation. The life table, the future-period calculation, the active and passive periods, care expense, prior payments, interest and insurance limits have not been added to this example. In particular, there is not enough data to multiply 72,000 TL directly by any remaining-lifetime figure and declare it the file’s definite claim.
Why is the temporary incapacity for work example different?
Suppose a person with a monthly net income of 40,000 TL is completely unable to work for three months and loses all of their earnings in that period. On these assumptions alone, the loss for the period is 120,000 TL; with the same 75 percent liability share, it is 90,000 TL. In reality, the continued payment of wages, partial work, the nature of the SGK payment and the recovery period are investigated separately.
The permanent disability percentage is not used in this example, because the loss examined is the temporary loss of earnings in a specific period. To add the two examples together, it must be shown separately that the periods and losses do not overlap. Caregiver and treatment expenses are also assessed under their own headings with appropriate evidence.
How does the loss of support calculation differ in a fatal accident?
The subject of the support calculation is not the distribution of the deceased’s entire future income to the heirs. The economic support the rights holder has lost is investigated. The inheritance share cannot be used in place of the support share. The deceased’s own consumption, the number of persons receiving support, the relationships and the durations affect the calculation. [1]
In preparing the calculation, a separate record should be kept for each person: age, support relationship, educational or employment status and the foreseeable duration of the support. The end of a child’s support period may change the allocation in later periods. Applying a fixed family percentage to all years may overlook this change.
That the deceased was a child, a retiree or a person without a regular wage does not end the examination either; the concrete or expected support relationship is assessed. Likewise, the same amount cannot be established for everyone on the basis of the kinship record alone. Funeral expenses, the treatment period before death and the relatives’ non-pecuniary claims should not be dissolved into the support calculation.
How are SGK payments and prior insurance payments taken into account?
Not every social security payment is deducted
Under TBK Art. 55, social security payments that cannot be subject to recourse and payments not made with the aim of performing the compensation debt cannot be deducted from the loss or compensation. The statement “the SGK made a payment” alone is therefore not sufficient. The type of payment, its period, its recourse nature and the relevant head of loss should be investigated. [1]
In practical review, the payer institution, date, amount, explanation and the loss to which it relates are written in the payment table. It is checked whether the same amount is used both in the income calculation and in the deduction from the result. Showing the principal, interest and expenses paid by the insurer as a single total also makes a sound comparison difficult.
The 2026 amendment and a proportional deduction example
Law No. 7589 added to TBK Art. 55 the rule that, in compensation for loss of working capacity and loss of support, the amount paid with the aim of performance until the investigation phase (tahkikat) begins is deducted in proportion to the compensation on the payment date. Because of the transitional provision, the new regulation applies to damage-causing events occurring after its entry into force on July 31, 2026. For earlier events, the old provisions continue to apply. [3]
An assumption showing only the logic of the calculation: Suppose the value of the same loss item of the same person on the payment day is 1,000,000 TL and the payment made is 300,000 TL. The paid ratio is 30 percent. If the later assessment value of the same scope is assumed to be 1,500,000 TL, the remaining 70 percent amounts to 1,050,000 TL.
This example cannot be applied automatically to all payments and agreements. The sameness of the scope of the loss in the numerator and denominator, the legal nature of the payment and its timing must be determined first. A payment made to another person, care expense or interest is not added to the same calculation haphazardly. If there is a release, settlement or waiver document, its legal effect is examined separately; a mere difference calculation does not automatically eliminate the consequences of the document.
Why are the insurance limit and the total loss not the same?
Determining the total loss and determining the amount a particular insurer will pay are separate stages. The type of coverage, the limit on the date of the accident, the validity of the policy, other rights holders in the same accident and prior payments are examined. The policy limit is not a fixed amount to be paid without the actual loss being proven at that level. For the loss above the limit, the position of other liable parties is assessed separately. [2,4]
The 2026 amendment to the general conditions regulates temporary and permanent incapacity for work under the disablement coverage; temporary and permanent caregiver expenses under the medical expense coverage. The amendment’s entry into force is July 1, 2026; to which contracts it will apply under C.11 must also be checked. Knowing only the year of the accident is therefore not enough. For old policies, the earlier regulation and judicial practice are examined separately. [4]
When evaluating an insurance offer, requesting a breakdown instead of the total payment is useful: Which income, which report, which period, which fault and which payment deduction has been used? Before the missing data is identified, no legal conclusion can be drawn merely from the offer being low or high.
Non-pecuniary damages are not calculated by a disability multiplier and are outside the scope of compulsory motor liability insurance. In voluntary policies, special non-pecuniary coverage, if any, is investigated separately. Mechanically applying the ratio found for pecuniary loss to the non-pecuniary claim is not appropriate. [1–2]
How is an expert report reviewed and an objection prepared?
A calculation report should not be examined only from the results page. The link between data, assumptions and result should be visible. The person preparing the file or the attorney can use the following checklist:
- Income: Which document and which month is relied on? Is the net and gross distinction correct?
- Medical basis: Have the applicable regulation, the relationship with the accident, the recovery period and the permanent rate been explained?
- Periods: On what grounds were the boundaries of the known, future, active and passive periods set?
- Fault: Have the disputed event data been examined; has the same fact been used in two reductions?
- Method: Can the life table, income growth and discount operation be audited?
- Payments: Has each payment been matched with the same person, period and head of loss?
- Result: Are the principal, interest, coverage limit and remaining amount separated from one another?
An objection should point to the erroneous line and the data requested to be corrected. For example, instead of saying “my income is wrong,” it can be explained that the bank and wage records for specific months were not taken into the report’s income column. If the document on which the alternative calculation rests is stated, the dispute can be narrowed more easily. This review does not replace medical expertise or actuarial examination.
In court proceedings, under Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) Art. 281, within two weeks from the notification of the report, the correction of deficiencies, an explanation or a new expert may be requested. Under the conditions in the law, a one-time additional period of at most two weeks, to be requested within this same period, may be granted; extension is not automatic. The judge assesses the report together with the other evidence. In arbitration, the relevant procedure and the notification in the file must be followed separately. [11]
In which respects do Court of Cassation decisions shed light on the calculation?
Use of the minimum wage instead of proven income
Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber, May 29, 2025, E.2024/750, K.2025/8898: In a file where the injured person, a doctor, had last known earnings, the use of the minimum wage in the future-period calculation was criticized and the decision was reversed. The fact that a wage document for the future did not yet exist did not justify disregarding the existing proven earnings. The practical value of the decision is that the income assumption rests on file data; it does not accept the same wage coefficient for every profession. [5]
Unsupported high-income assumption and deficiency in the medical report
Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber, May 8, 2025, E.2023/12891, K.2025/7453: In a file concerning a motorcycle accident, the fact that an income assumption of 2.06 times the minimum wage was not supported by records was examined. In the decision, a reversal was given by also addressing, in the assessment concerning the facial scar, the board’s composition of expertise and the contributory fault connected with the helmet. The difference from the previous decision is whether the high-income fact was proven. The reduction in this file cannot be carried to other accidents as a fixed rate. [6]
Life table and the health regulation applicable on the date of the event
Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber, May 30, 2024, E.2024/3323, K.2024/5474: The conflict between regional courts of appeal was resolved on the basis of the TRH 2010 table and the disability regulation applicable on the date of the accident. The decision explains the history of the different methods and regulatory changes. That the conclusion concerns the life table and the health regulation does not mean that all lower-court explanations mentioned in the decision are a separate judgment of the Court of Cassation. [7]
The presence of the relevant specialty in conflicting reports
Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber, March 6, 2025, E.2025/1089, K.2025/3897: In reports containing different rates relating to a chest-area injury, the absence of a chest diseases specialist was assessed. The decision was reversed, stating that time and appropriate examination should be provided for a deficiency that can be completed. What matters in practice is to resolve the formation of the report and the medical contradiction before choosing a rate. This conclusion does not mean that every kind of incomplete application is unconditionally valid. [8]
Temporary loss of a non-working person: distinguishing the majority and the dissent
Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber, April 7, 2026, E.2024/12923, K.2026/3812: In the decision concerning a 69-year-old homemaker, the majority rejected the other objections raised on appeal; it reversed because the disputed fault was not investigated with an expert report. In the dissenting opinion, the acceptance of temporary loss of earnings for a person not working in income-generating employment was also objected to. The decision is therefore not an affirmance in its entirety; nor can the dissenting opinion be presented as the majority’s reasoning. The file shows why permanent loss of capacity and temporary loss of income need to be discussed separately. [9]
What should be considered regarding the application, the filing date and the interest calculation?
The three dates do not serve the same function
| Date to examine | Importance for the calculation or procedure | Record to look for in the file |
|---|---|---|
| Date of the accident and of the event causing the loss | Disability regulation, coverage limit and the TBK Art. 55 transition | Event and health records |
| Date the policy was concluded | Application of the general conditions amendment to the contract | Policy and its annexes |
| Dates of the lawsuit and of notification | Procedural transition, increase of the claim and objection to the report | Court records and notifications |
Postponing all applications until the compensation calculation is complete is not a correct preparation method. KTK Art. 97 provides for a written application to the insurer; if no reply is given within fifteen days or there is a dispute about the claim, the route of litigation or arbitration comes onto the agenda. The eight-business-day payment period starting from the submission of the necessary documents under KTK Art. 99 is a different provision. In the statute of limitations, alongside the general two- and ten-year structure, the possibility of a longer criminal statute of limitations and acts affecting the period are assessed. [2]
The 2026 procedural amendment and the claim amount
Law No. 7589 repealed HMK Art. 107; it continued the application of this article in lawsuits filed earlier. The provision added to HMK Art. 109 regulates that a partial claim can be increased once until the end of the investigation phase, and that in respect of the increased part the statute of limitations is deemed interrupted on the date of the lawsuit. Old petition samples should therefore not be transferred directly to a new lawsuit. [3]
Technical discount and interest on the claim are different
The new interest rule of TBK Art. 55 provides statutory interest for in-scope loss of working capacity and loss of support, from the date of the event on the amount belonging to the known earnings period and from the date of the decision on the amount belonging to the unknown period. The transition rule tied to the date of the event is important here as well. For the insurer, the conditions of application and default are examined separately. [2–3]
Instead of applying a single interest start date to all heads in the report, the basis of each claim should be clearly written. Technical discount concerns the calculation of the principal; it should not be merged with default interest in the same column. A single unexplained total prevents a sound comparison of the offer and the expert report.
Conclusion
In traffic accident compensation, the starting point for reaching the right result is not choosing a high or low figure; it is determining the head of loss, the income, the medical basis and the period. Fault, prior payments and coverage limits can be applied meaningfully only on this foundation.
When preparing the file, income documents should be broken down by month, the legal and medical suitability of health reports should be examined, payments should be listed by type, and the source of every assumption in the report should be questioned. When the accident, policy and lawsuit dates are checked together, both calculation errors and the use of a wrong transition rule are easier to notice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does everyone receive the same compensation for 10 percent disability?
No. The same rate may lead to different results when income, age, period, fault and other data differ. A definite payment tariff cannot be built on a single rate. The amounts in the example calculation section show only limited assumptions.
If my salary has not decreased, can I claim compensation for permanent incapacity for work?
That the salary remains the same does not by itself eliminate the permanent loss of capacity. The accident-related loss and carrying out activities with greater effort are assessed. Temporary loss of earnings should be examined separately; the conditions of the two claims are not the same.
If I have no income document, can no calculation be made?
The lack of documents does not mean the automatic rejection of all claims. The work and income situation is investigated; the basis of the claimed amount is assessed. Earnings above the minimum wage must be shown with concrete evidence, and existing documents must not be disregarded.
If two health reports give different rates, which one is used?
The higher rate or the arithmetic average is not selected automatically. The contradiction must be resolved by examining the reports’ suitability in terms of regulation, specialty, examination and causation.
I received a payment from the insurer; is a claim for the remaining loss possible?
A payment does not end the examination in every case by itself. The head to which the payment belongs, the calculation method, the date of the event and the legal consequence of the document signed are assessed. The proportional deduction rule of 2026 does not automatically apply to all old accidents.
Is the insurance limit the calculated total compensation?
No. The limit is the ceiling of a particular coverage; it does not replace the loss calculation. The proven loss may be lower than the limit or may exceed it. For the part exceeding it, other liable parties are assessed separately.
Within what time can an objection be made to the expert report?
In court proceedings, the basic period under HMK Art. 281 is two weeks from notification. If the conditions are met, an additional period requested within the time limit may be granted. In an arbitration file, the relevant procedure and the notified period must be checked separately.
Does an online calculation result bind the insurer or the court?
No. A tool is only as explanatory as the data entered and the assumptions in the software. It does not verify the medical report, the proof of income or the fault dispute. Instead of the result, the assumptions and the calculation breakdown should be examined.
Sources and legal bases
[1] Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations, in particular Arts. 49–56, 72 and 74. Copy of the law published by the TSB. For the 2026 additions to TBK Art. 55, [3] below was also used.
[2] Law No. 2918, Highway Traffic Law, in particular Arts. 85–88, 92, 96–99, 109 and 111. Copy of the law published by the TSB. The old Art. 90 text in the copy was not used as a current calculation rule.
[3] Law No. 7589 on Amendments to Certain Laws for the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary; adopted July 16, 2026, Official Gazette July 31, 2026, No. 33326; Arts. 18–20, transitional Art. 1/9–10 and Art. 26. TBMM text of the law and publication record.
[4] General Conditions of the Compulsory Financial Liability Insurance for Highway Motor Vehicles; A.2, A.5 and C.11; amendments of Official Gazette No. 33278 dated June 12, 2026 and the entry-into-force footnote. Text published by the TSB.
[5] Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber, May 29, 2025, E.2024/750, K.2025/8898. Full text of the decision, DeJure.
[6] Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber, May 8, 2025, E.2023/12891, K.2025/7453. Full text of the decision, DeJure. Because there is an inconsistency between the dates of the event and of the actuarial report in the accessed text, these dates were not used as the basis of the calculation example.
[7] Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber, May 30, 2024, E.2024/3323, K.2024/5474. Resolution of the conflict between regional court of appeal decisions. Full text of the decision, DeJure.
[8] Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber, March 6, 2025, E.2025/1089, K.2025/3897. Full text of the decision, DeJure.
[9] Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber, April 7, 2026, E.2024/12923, K.2026/3812; the majority reasoning and the dissenting opinion were examined together. Full text of the decision, DeJure.
[10] Mustafa İsmail Kaya and Funda Karaman, “Evaluation of the Decision of the 17th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, File No. 2019/3292 E., Decision No. 2021/1848 K., on the Method Used in Compensation Calculation under Compulsory Financial Liability Insurance” (Yargıtay 17. Hukuk Dairesi’nin 2019/3292 E., 2021/1848 K. Sayılı Zorunlu Mali Sorumluluk Sigortası Kapsamında Tazminat Hesaplamasında Kullanılan Yönteme İlişkin Kararının Değerlendirilmesi), Journal of Case Reviews (Karar İncelemeleri Dergisi), Volume 1, Issue 1–2, June–December 2022, pp. 401–426; in particular the abstract and pp. 421–424. Article PDF.
[11] Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure, Arts. 279–282. Copy of the law published by the Ministry of Justice. For the 2026 amendments to Arts. 107 and 109, [3] was also used. Source review date: October 12, 2026. DeJure links may require signing in.