The subscriber, the owner of the immovable property and the person who actually used the electricity are not always the same person. Who is liable for an unauthorized electricity use debt, and on what ground, is determined by examining the contract, the period of use, the act, transfer and inheritance rules together. The question of liability cannot be resolved as a whole by looking only at the land registry or at the name on the bill.
The sources were last checked on October 9, 2026. This guide addresses liability for the monetary debt and for damages. Personal criminal liability is explained separately in the criminal law guide.
Three different grounds of liability
| Relationship | Basic issue to examine |
|---|---|
| Subscription contract | The party to the contract, its scope, its termination and notifications |
| Actual use / tort | The person who carried out the consumption and the interference, and the period |
| Statutory or contractual succession | Inheritance, assumption of debt, transfer of a business and related special provisions |
A person’s liability may be established on one of these grounds, but the conditions of each ground must be shown. If more than one person is to be held liable, the legal basis of the joint liability must be explained. A generalization such as “the subscriber and the user are always liable in the same way” is not sufficient. [4, Arts. 49, 61, 112, 195–202]
If the tenant used electricity without authorization, does the owner pay?
Owning the property does not automatically mean taking on every electricity debt of another person. It is examined whether the owner is a party to the subscription contract, whether the owner took part in or knew of the act, the period of use, and whether there is any other ground of liability.
For an owner who left the subscription open, the risk arising from the contract may be assessed separately. By contrast, the position of a person who properly terminated the contract and handed over the use is not the same as that of a person who continued the use with their own knowledge while the contract was still in force.
For the tenant too, the lease alone is not sufficient. The start and end of the actual use, the handover of the keys, the meter readings and the billing period must be examined together. Consumption before moving in should not be charged to a new tenant merely because the address matches. [1][4]
Does a previous subscriber’s debt prevent a new subscription?
The debt of a former user does not become the debt of a new user merely because they will live at the same property. The new applicant’s relationship with the previous person, the actual transfer of use and the conditions for entering into a contract are examined. Situations such as the same person continuing under another name in appearance, or an express assumption of the debt, are assessed separately.
If the application has been rejected, it is important to obtain the reason for the rejection in writing. An application file is built from the new lease or ownership document, the handover date, identity and installation information. If there is an unjustified obstruction even though the relevant conditions are met, a claim for the removal of the interference (muarazanın giderilmesi) and for an appropriate contract or performance may come into question. For an urgent energy need, an interim injunction is considered if its conditions exist. [1][3]
If paying the previous debt is being considered only so that a subscription can be opened, it should be examined separately whose debt the payment is made for and under what record. Paying another person’s debt may give rise to later problems of refund and recourse.
Why is the document decisive when a subscription is terminated?
Terminating the subscription contract by moving out, ceasing operations or handing over the keys are not the same act. A closure application to the relevant company, the final meter reading and the closure document should be obtained. If a dispute arises over how it was processed in the company’s system, the dated documents held by the applicant become important.
The Constitutional Court’s Şengül Açıkgöz decision
In its decision Şengül Açıkgöz, Application No. 2018/37889, January 10, 2024, the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM) examined being held liable for later consumption despite a document showing that the subscription had been terminated and the statement of the official. In particular in §§24–26, it assessed that the consequences of the company’s obligation to maintain its records cannot be transferred in a way that places an excessive burden on the applicant, and found a violation of the right of property. [6]
The decision should not be read as meaning that all former subscribers are released from every debt. Its practical importance lies in the assessment of genuine closure documents and substantive defenses, and in the fact that a deficiency in the company’s archive is not treated as decisive on its own. For this reason, the closure application and the final meter reading document should be kept accessible for a long time.
For which debts are heirs liable?
Valid property debts of the deceased are different from personal criminal liability. The passing of debts on the acquisition of the inheritance and the liability of the heirs are subject to the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK). Criminal liability does not pass by inheritance. The fact that the company’s assessment is called a “penalty” in everyday language does not by itself determine its legal nature for inheritance purposes. [7, Arts. 599, 641][2, Arts. 20, 64]
First, it is examined whether the debt actually belonged to the decedent. Consumption after the death should be assessed separately according to the actual user and the contract situation. The fact that the detection date falls after the death does not show that all the consumption took place after the death; the period of the account matters.
Disclaimer of inheritance and other options
Under Article 606 of the Turkish Civil Code, the general period for disclaiming an inheritance is three months; the start is determined according to the type of heir and the provisions on becoming aware. A presumptive disclaimer by court judgment (hükmen ret), the official estate inventory, official liquidation and acts that may amount to acceptance of the inheritance lead to different results. These should not be decided in a single sentence merely by looking at an electricity bill. [7, Arts. 605–610, 619 et seq.]
The heir should clearly show the certificate of inheritance, the date of death, the period of consumption and, if any, the disclaimer or liquidation decision in the file with the company and in the court file. The internal relationship between an heir who pays the whole debt and the other heirs is assessed separately from liability toward the creditor.
Company, shareholder, manager and transfer of a business
The electricity debt of a company is not the same as the personal debt of a shareholder or a manager. Grounds such as the type of company, the party to the contract, a personal undertaking and participation in an unlawful act must be examined. Status as a manager does not by itself create unlimited personal liability for every private law debt. [4][5]
In a transfer of a business, the statement “we set up a new company” alone may not be sufficient. Article 202 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) on the transfer of assets or of a business, the provisions of commercial law, notifications and contractual arrangements are assessed. The date of transfer should be separated from the period of consumption and the detection date.
For the transferee, it is useful to examine the previous meter, the records of findings and the debt records. A sharing of expenses between the parties in the transfer agreement does not in every case remove statutory liability toward the creditor; on the other hand, it may be important for recourse in the internal relationship.
The fault of the electrician or the installation company
Where faulty installation, an incorrect connection or an unauthorized interference is alleged, the liability of the person who did the work is examined separately. The work order, the contract, the service report, the handover document and the technical findings should be preserved. The user’s liability toward the company and a claim for damage or recourse that the user may direct at the installer are not the same question for a lawsuit. [4]
A defense that “the electrician did it” is not sufficient without explaining the reality of the event and the user’s state of knowledge. Nevertheless, if the technician’s fault is documented, this fact may matter for fault, for the sharing of the loss and for the assessment of intent in the criminal file. First it must be determined who is responsible for which act.
How is a person-and-period file prepared?
| Document | What it shows |
|---|---|
| Lease, sale or business transfer agreement | Start and scope of the legal relationship |
| Key handover record | Actual handover and meter reading |
| Subscription opening/closing record | Contractual relationship and application date |
| Meter transaction and consumption statement | Technical period and connection with use |
| Death and inheritance documents | Estate, heir and distinction of periods |
| Work order and service report | The person who carried out the technical work |
Putting the documents in date order is as important as simply collecting them. After saying “this debt is not mine” in an objection, it should be shown why it is not mine and which link between the person and the period cannot be established. The contract or act on which the company relies should also be asked about expressly.
Frequently asked questions
Does every debt fall on me because I am the title holder?
No. Ownership, contract and actual use are different grounds of liability. The legal link between you and the debt must be shown.
What should I do if the tenant did not close the subscription when moving out?
Preserve the handover and meter documents and carry out the correct user and subscription procedure with the relevant company. To which period and person the previous debt belongs is examined separately.
Can a person who disclaimed the inheritance still be shown as a debtor?
The validity and scope of the disclaimer, and whether there is a separate debt arising from the person’s own use, are assessed. The disclaimer document should be submitted to the file.
Can an owner who paid the debt claim it back from the tenant?
The legal reason for the payment, the actual consumption, the lease provisions and the sharing of liability must be determined. Not every payment automatically gives rise to a right of recourse; documents are important.
Conclusion: The debt must be directed at a person through a legal link
An unauthorized electricity use debt can be explained neither only by the name on the bill nor only by the land registry. Who used it, on what date, whose contract was still in force, and on which provision does the liability rest? Documented answers to these questions determine the right counterparty. Although handover and closure records may look like a minor formality today, years later they can become the basic evidence in an important dispute.
For the route of application, see the objection and litigation guide; for an urgent energy need, the guide on power cuts; for the general framework, the main guide.
Sources and legal bases
- Electricity Market Consumer Services Regulation (Elektrik Piyasası Tüketici Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği). Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EPDK) / Legislation Information System (Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi). May 30, 2018 / 30436; in particular Articles 42–49 and 52, including the amendments of January 14, 2025 / 32782.
- Law No. 5237, Turkish Criminal Code (5237 sayılı Türk Ceza Kanunu). Legislation Information System / Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı). Articles 2, 20–21, 64, 163/3, 168/5, 203.
- Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure (6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu). Ministry of Justice. Articles 190, 199, 266–293, 389–400 et seq.
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu). Ministry of Justice. Articles 49–61, 72, 74, 77–82, 112, 146–147, 195–202.
- Law No. 6102, Turkish Commercial Code (6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu). Ministry of Justice. Articles 4–5, 5/A; provisions on companies and commercial relations.
- Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), Şengül Açıkgöz, Application No. 2018/37889, January 10, 2024. Constitutional Court. In particular §§24–26; Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) May 31, 2024 / 32562; document on the termination of the subscription and company records. Full text.
- Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code (4721 sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu). Ministry of Justice. Articles 599, 605–610, 619 et seq., 641.