Claiming compensation from a municipality for damage caused by flooding or an infrastructure failure requires a legally meaningful connection between the damage and the performance of a public service. Heavy rainfall does not by itself relieve the municipality of liability, and damage to a property does not by itself prove the municipality's fault. The responsible authority, the deficiency in the service, the amount of the damage and the causal link are examined together.
In full remedy actions arising from administrative acts, an application to the relevant administration is required first under Article 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK). As a rule, the application is made within one year of learning of the act that caused the damage and in any event within five years of the date of the act. However, traffic accidents, subscription relationships and private-law transactions may be subject to different rules on jurisdiction and time limits. This article was prepared on the basis of legislation and decisions accessed on October 14, 2026.
When does service fault arise?
A public service that does not function at all, functions late or functions poorly forms the basic framework for assessing service fault. Inadequate planning of a storm drain line, failure to clear a known blockage, neglected sewer maintenance or failure to take the necessary precautions at an excavation site may be examined under this heading, depending on the facts. Article 125 of the Constitution is the constitutional basis for the administration's obligation to compensate damage arising from its own acts and actions. [1]
For liability, it is not enough to show a deficiency in the service; the causal connection between that deficiency and an actual, personal loss must also be shown. That rain fell in the area on the same day a business was flooded does not by itself explain where the water came from. A storm drain line, sewer backflow, construction on a neighboring parcel and the plumbing inside the building are separate possibilities.
Why does the division of responsibilities matter?
The district municipality, the metropolitan municipality, the water and sewerage authority, the highway authority and other public bodies may each have assumed different duties in the same incident. The district municipality is not the defendant for every loss that occurs within municipal boundaries. The responsibility for road maintenance, the owner of the line, the maintenance protocol and the work records for the day of the incident must be investigated. The allocation of duties under Laws No. 5393 and No. 5216 and, where relevant, Law No. 2560 is the starting point for this review. [2–4]
Carrying out the work through a contractor does not automatically remove the administration's liability either. On the other hand, a private-law claim brought directly against the contractor may be examined in a different court system. The choice of defendant should not be made merely on the basis of a logo on a vehicle or an employee's statement. The tender file, work orders and documents showing responsibility at the site should be requested.
The administrative court does not have jurisdiction over every municipal loss
Damage caused by administrative acts arising from the establishment and operation of a public service is, as a rule, the subject of a full remedy action. However, disputes that the law specifically leaves to the ordinary courts and the administration's private-law relationships are assessed separately. Filing in the wrong branch of the judiciary costs both time and money, and the application of the provisions that protect the time limit depends on certain conditions.
Damage from infrastructure excavation: a Court of Jurisdictional Disputes example
In its decision of February 5, 2024, E.2023/545, K.2024/40, the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi) examined a dispute over damage to electric cables during İSKİ works. The majority held the administrative courts competent for a claim arising from the performance of a public service. The dissenting opinion favored the ordinary courts, based on the nature of the parties and the tort relationship. [5]
This decision is not a flooding case; it is a jurisdiction decision on excavation damage. It does not mean that compensation will necessarily be paid or that the administration's fault has been established. It is particularly important in showing that moving a claim that belongs to the administrative courts into enforcement without a judgment and an action for annulment of objection does not resolve the jurisdiction problem.
Traffic accident caused by a road pothole: the special jurisdiction rule
The ordinary courts have jurisdiction over liability actions within the scope of Article 110 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918 (KTK). In its decision of May 3, 2021, E.2021/280, K.2021/273, the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes assessed under this provision an insurer's claim for damage to a vehicle that fell into a pothole alleged to have been created by a municipal road project. [6]
For this reason, using the phrase "the municipality's service fault" in a petition does not turn a traffic accident dispute into an administrative case. It must be determined whether the incident falls within the traffic legislation. On the other hand, not every sidewalk injury or every flooded property is a traffic accident. In consumer disputes arising from a subscription contract, the provisions of consumer law may also come into play.
How do the application to the administration and the filing deadlines work?
A person harmed by an administrative act must state clearly, in the prior application under İYUK Article 13, the date and place of the incident, the service held responsible, the items of damage and the payment demand. A complaint such as "clean the drain" alone is not the same as a request that the right to compensation be honored. The registration number of the application and the date it reached the administration should be kept. [7]
| Stage | Basic rule | Document that should be in the file |
|---|---|---|
| Learning of the act and the damage | One-year application period; in any event five years from the act | Records showing the date of the incident and when it was learned |
| Compensation application to the relevant administration | Mandatory application before suit | Petition with the demand, attachments and receipt |
| Express rejection | General filing period after notification of the rejection | Rejection letter and notification |
| No response | Filing period after thirty days without a response | Date the application was delivered |
| Full remedy action | As a rule, sixty days | Application file, calculation of damage and evidence |
The date of learning is not simple in every file. For a hidden infrastructure leak or damage that becomes apparent later, it may be disputed when the incident, the damage and the administrative connection were learned. Obtaining a report later does not automatically restart the period for an incident that was already known. Continuing damage and a single act whose effects continue are also not the same thing.
What happens if the wrong court was approached?
İYUK Article 9 provides, where a case filed in the ordinary courts is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, for transfer to the administrative courts under certain conditions within a thirty-day period starting the day after the decision of lack of jurisdiction becomes final. İYUK Article 13/2 also contains a special provision on the prior application in this situation. These provisions are not tools for saving time limits without limit; the timing of the first case, the nature of the decision and the date it became final must be examined. [7]
If the damage arises not from an administrative act but from an administrative decision, such as an unlawful license cancellation, the options in İYUK Article 12 come into play. Seeking compensation together with an annulment action, or later under the relevant conditions, should not be confused with the Article 13 timetable for damage caused by acts. There is no general mandatory mediation requirement for an administrative full remedy action; for disputes that go to the ordinary courts, mediation is examined separately according to the nature of the claim.
Heavy rainfall and the force majeure defense
The administration may argue that the damage could not be prevented because of the extraordinary intensity of the rainfall. In assessing this defense, meteorological data, past floods in the area, the design capacity of the infrastructure, maintenance records and warnings given in advance are important. Heavy rainfall is not the same finding as damage being unavoidable even though all reasonable precautions were taken.
The defense of the injured party should not be limited to the claim that "it floods every time it rains." Earlier applications, photographs and intervention records may show that the recurring problem was known. The administration, for its part, may document that the line was clean and adequate, that the damage arose from an independent building defect, or that personal precautions that should have been taken were not taken.
The Council of State's 2026 flooding decision
In its decision of February 9, 2026, E.2024/4025, K.2026/634, the 8th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay) assessed damage to a business in Ankara in the rainfall of June 7, 2022. The Chamber quashed the part rejecting the compensation claim for insufficient examination. It stated that the duties of the administrations concerned, the infrastructure conditions, the legal and factual status of the business and matters requiring meteorological expertise must be investigated. [8]
The decision did not itself award compensation. Its importance lies in requiring the technical and administrative aspects of the incident to be investigated, rather than accepting heavy rainfall alone as a reason that removes liability. For the claimant, the result is that the concrete questions linking the service deficiency to the damage must be taken to the expert review.
How are damage and loss of earnings documented?
It is important to document the damage immediately after the incident. Once personal safety is ensured, photographs and video, the direction the water came from, the water level, the position of the damaged items and the condition of the surrounding infrastructure can be recorded. A dangerous area should not be entered solely to collect evidence. Fire department, municipal, water authority and insurance records should be obtained.
Items of pecuniary damage
- Necessary repair costs for the structure and fixed installations.
- The actual loss of damaged stock, machinery, fixtures and personal belongings.
- Reasonable cleaning, drying, drainage and loss-mitigation costs.
- Provable business interruption and net loss of earnings.
- Depending on the facts, expenses and losses arising from bodily harm.
Invoices, stock lists, accounting records, service reports, scrap or salvaged value and the insurance payment are assessed together. The entire price of a new machine bought to replace an old one cannot be treated as damage automatically without discussing depreciation and the increase in value. The same loss cannot be collected twice, from both the insurer and the administration; the insurer's subrogation may also affect the right to claim.
In a loss of earnings claim, turnover must be distinguished from net profit. The period the business remained closed, past records, seasonality, canceled orders and saved expenses are examined. A hypothetical expectation of growth is not the same as income shown concretely to be likely to materialize. Non-pecuniary compensation is likewise not automatic for every property damage; personal effects and the legal conditions must be explained separately.
What questions should be put to the expert?
The review should not consist only of a monetary calculation of the damage. The source of the water, the capacity of the line, the adequacy of maintenance, the technical characteristics of the rainfall, the suitability of the building's connections and the parties' contribution to the damage should be investigated. Where necessary, expertise in construction, infrastructure, meteorology and financial calculation should be used together.
If the incident site is expected to change because of repairs, preservation of evidence under the appropriate procedure is considered. After the case is filed, a request for preservation of evidence in the administrative courts is addressed to the court hearing the case under İYUK Article 58. A private expert report may be useful; it does not by itself replace the court's site inspection and expert review. [7]
The injured party's fault, interest and enforcement of the judgment
The administration may rely on facts such as unauthorized use of a basement, a wrong drain connection, the absence of necessary protective devices, or keeping goods in a risky place despite warnings. The concrete effect of these circumstances on the occurrence and aggravation of the damage is investigated. A violation on the part of the building does not remove the administration's entire liability in every case; nor is the injured party's fault disregarded.
In the petition, the pecuniary and, if any, non-pecuniary claims, the interest claim and the reasoning for its starting date must be clear. The type and starting date of interest are determined by the nature of the dispute; it cannot be said that commercial interest runs from the date of the incident in every municipal damage case. İYUK Article 16/4 allows the amount in a full remedy action to be increased once, up to the final decision, upon payment of the court fees. This option does not make the explanation of the damage in the first petition unnecessary. [7]
Court fees, site inspection and expert costs and the risk of the opposing side's attorney's fee should be taken into account when planning the amount claimed. For a person with insufficient means, the conditions for legal aid may be examined. After the decision, bank account details for payment are notified to the administration in writing; the enforcement regime in İYUK Article 28 is followed. The availability of appeal and further appeal depends on the type and amount of the decision and the current provisions on legal remedies.
Conclusion
The key elements that determine success in a compensation claim against a municipality are choosing the right administration and branch of the judiciary, protecting the time limit for the prior application and documenting technical causation. Instead of generalizations that attribute flooding only to rainfall or only to infrastructure, all the causes of the incident should be investigated. The scope of compensation is likewise determined by the actual loss, the possibilities for mitigating the damage and the parties' contributions.
Related articles: Sealing and Closure of a Business; Compensation for Sealing and Business Closure
Frequently Asked Questions
My home was flooded; can I sue the municipality directly?
In a compensation claim arising from an administrative act, an application under İYUK Article 13 is, as a rule, required first. The responsible service and authority must be identified first; if there is a subscription or another private-law relationship, the route may differ.
If the municipality says "natural disaster," does the right to compensation end?
No. The foreseeability and preventability of the incident and the infrastructure and maintenance conditions are assessed technically. If there is a genuine force majeure that breaks the causal link, the result may be different.
If insurance has paid, can I also receive the same amount from the municipality?
The same damage cannot be collected twice. The scope of the insurance payment, the damage not paid and the insurer's right of subrogation are examined together.
Does a vehicle damaged in a road pothole go to the administrative court?
Liability claims arising from a traffic accident and falling within KTK Article 110 are heard in the ordinary courts. Asserting them against a municipality does not by itself make the administrative courts competent.
If the amount of compensation cannot be fully calculated at the start, can a case not be filed?
It can be filed; however, the damage and the claim must be set out clearly. In a full remedy action, the one-time increase of the amount under İYUK Article 16/4 may be used under its statutory conditions.
Sources and legal bases
- [1] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Art. 125: Full text
- [2] Law No. 5393 on Municipalities (Belediye Kanunu), especially Arts. 14–15: Full text
- [3] Law No. 5216 on Metropolitan Municipalities (Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kanunu), especially Art. 7: Full text
- [4] Law No. 2560 on the Establishment and Duties of the Istanbul Water and Sewerage Administration General Directorate (İstanbul Su ve Kanalizasyon İdaresi Genel Müdürlüğü Kuruluş ve Görevleri Hakkında Kanun), especially Art. 2: Full text
- [5] Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi), February 5, 2024, E.2023/545, K.2024/40, majority and dissenting opinion, official full text: Full text
- [6] Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi), May 3, 2021, E.2021/280, K.2021/273; application of Article 110 of Law No. 2918, official full text: Full text
- [7] Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), Arts. 9, 12, 13, 16, 28, 36 and 58: Full text
- [8] Council of State (Danıştay) 8th Chamber, February 9, 2026, E.2024/4025, K.2026/634, publication of the accessible full text: Full text