The existence of an inspection report on unauthorized electricity use does not by itself show that all the allegations in the report and the calculated debt are correct. The type of use alleged must be checked against the meter, the connection, photographs, video, laboratory and consumption records. To whom, to which period and to which installation the use belongs cannot be set apart from the technical findings either.
The source check date of this guide is October 9, 2026. It is based in particular on the text of Articles 42–45 of the Electricity Market Consumer Services Regulation (EPTHY), including the 2025 amendments. [1]
Who bears the burden of proof?
Under Article 190 of Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (HMK), unless the law provides otherwise, the party who derives a right in its favor from an alleged fact bears the burden of proof. The company must explain the unauthorized-use fact on which it bases its claim and the calculation. The mere fact that the person who files an action to establish non-liability is the “plaintiff” does not automatically reverse the burden of proving the company’s claim. [3]
However, the defenses “I never used it,” “I paid the debt” and “I terminated the contract on such-and-such date” are not the same. For counter-facts that affect the debt, such as payment or termination, the documents of the party asserting them are important. Leaving the burden of proof to one side with an abstract slogan may conceal the real problem of the file.
In criminal proceedings, on the other hand, the elements of the offense and the defendant’s connection to it must be established to the level of proof required for conviction. A calculation assumption in a civil case does not replace, in a criminal file, the conclusion that the person intentionally interfered. [2, Arts. 20–21][4, Arts. 217, 223]
What information must the report contain?
The reader should be able to understand from the report not only the conclusion but also the examination that led to it. EPTHY Article 43 and the relevant annexes require the finding to rest on correct observations and documents. [1]
| Area of review | Link sought | Why does a deficiency matter? |
|---|---|---|
| Place of use | Clear address, installation and meter information | The record of another apartment or business may be mixed up |
| Time | Date of the finding, the prior action and the basis for the starting point | The debt period and the applicable legislation may change |
| Act | Which interference was determined and how | It affects the choice of the type of unauthorized use and the calculation method |
| Person | Concrete link to the actual user | The subscriber and the user may be different persons |
| Technical data | Capacity, device, meter reading, current and measurement information | It makes it possible to recalculate the amount of consumption |
| Annexes | Photograph, video, report, replacement record | They serve to verify or refute the conclusion |
The absence of a signature does not invalidate every finding; the consumer’s signature does not make every calculation beyond dispute either. By whom and with what explanation the document was signed is examined. If there is an objection annotation, its full text should be preserved.
The limit of the inspection on entering a home or workplace
EPTHY Article 50/2 provides that the consumer must not interfere with the meter and metering system and must not obstruct the distribution company’s access. There is also a provision on relocating the metering system if access is obstructed. This obligation does not mean that company staff are granted authority to search every part of a home without limit and by force. The inviolability of the home and the relevant procedural safeguards are separately protected. [1][5]
During the inspection, the identity and duty information of the staff can be verified; the procedure to be carried out, the meter number and a sample of the report can be asked about. While objections to the inspection are being put on the record, there should be no physical obstruction or interference with the installation. If the meter is in a common area, the legal status of that area, and if it is in a closed home, the legal status of the home, should not be confused.
If a dispute arises, who was present, what access was requested, what was obstructed and which document was drawn up should be made concrete. The fact that the company has applied to law enforcement does not mean that every debt and technical allegation is confirmed either. The aim is both to make a legitimate meter inspection possible and to keep documented the legal limits of the procedure and the consumer’s objection.
Photographs and video: What must have been proved?
EPTHY Article 43/7 provides for photographs and/or video in findings; in the situations within Article 42/1-a, b and c, a video recording is additionally required. The images must make the place of use and the details of the unauthorized consumption method comprehensible. [1]
A photograph showing only a cable does not always reveal which line and which device the cable feeds. Likewise, an image taken near the seal may not on its own prove that consumption was measured incorrectly. The location, date, meter serial number and the other records in the field are evaluated together.
The copies requested should be legible; if there is a video, one should not settle for just a few screenshots. The cut or unconnected parts of the footage, those that do not show the relevant link, should be specified concretely. Instead of producing new records by unlawful means, the proper obtaining and preservation of the existing records should be requested.
Meter interference and the laboratory report
How is a meter fault distinguished from interference?
A meter stopping, low consumption or a seal problem is a reason for inspection; it does not by itself show that all the conditions of unauthorized use have been met. What the interference was and how it affected correct measurement must be explained. Alternatives such as aging, technical fault, incorrect connection or the measurement multiplier must be evaluated with reasons.
EPTHY Article 43 regulates the relevant replacement, examination and notification procedures where meter interference is suspected. The meter serial number, the removal-installation record, the photographs and the laboratory report must point to the same device. Because there are different steps of finding where only the metering system has been interfered with, it is also incorrect to treat the same laboratory document as mandatory in every case. [1, Art. 43/2]
Concrete questions to put to the report
- Is the meter examined the same as the meter taken from the scene?
- By which test or observation was the interference finding determined?
- Do the findings really prevent correct measurement; has the effect been explained?
- On what technical ground has the possibility of a fault been excluded?
- Can the starting date of the interference be determined, or is it assumed?
- Was consumption before and after the meter replacement compared under the same season and conditions of use?
Instead of the sentences “the laboratory said unauthorized use” or “the meter was faulty,” answers to these questions should be sought. Where necessary, a supplementary report or a new expert examination suitable for the court’s review is requested.
Remote reading and smart meter records
The Automatic Meter Reading System (OSOS) and similar systems can provide detailed consumption data. However, a drop in consumption may rest on other causes such as the closure of the workplace, a change of device, solar generation, the season or reduced use.
EPTHY Article 43/10 introduces a special provision for findings through remote reading and monitoring systems where entry to the site is obstructed and this is documented by a photograph or video containing the date and location. When an inspection can be made on site, the necessary correction is also considered. This provision is not a general presumption that allows an unauthorized-use conclusion to be drawn without limit from any consumption graph. [1]
In the objection, the raw data, which time interval was used, data gaps and the consistency of the meter clock can be questioned. If the meter number has changed, how the records of the two devices were matched must be explained. A technical interpretation should not be reduced to a selected screenshot.
How is the link to the person and the period established?
Being present at the place where the electricity is used does not show that all past consumption belongs to the person. The start of the lease, the handover of keys, the closing of the subscription, the transfer of the business, and employee and production records are compared on a timeline.
For example, if a tenant who moved in three months earlier has been charged for a one-year period, the objection does not rest only on the height of the amount. The contradiction between the alleged starting point, the earlier meter action and the date of moving in is shown. In this hypothetical example, the aim is not to state the result in advance but to identify which document will affect the result.
Consumption history must also be used carefully. The summer period of an empty home and the winter period of a crowded family cannot be directly equated. Conversely, merely saying “I use very little electricity” does not remove the technical records. A comparison with concrete usage data is needed.
Expert examination and objecting to the report
The court may refer to a court-appointed expert on matters whose resolution requires special or technical knowledge. The expert explains the technical calculation; the expert does not replace judicial functions such as which court is competent or who will be held legally responsible. The judge evaluates the report together with the other evidence. [3, Arts. 266, 279, 282]
A verifiable report must contain at least the following information: the version of the legislation applied, the type of unauthorized use, the calculation method, the documents used, the start and end dates, days and hours, capacity, tariff, coefficient and, if any, the consumption deducted. How the result figure was reached must be capable of being recalculated.
Under HMK Article 281, in civil proceedings, within two weeks from service a party may request that deficiencies in the expert report be remedied, an explanation be given or a new expert be appointed. In cases requiring special or technical work, provided that the application is made within the first period, an additional period of at most two weeks, granted once only, may come into question. The additional period is not automatic. [3]
An effective objection is not limited to the sentence “we do not accept the report.” By saying, for example, “50 kW was taken instead of 30 kW; the project on which it is based is not in the file” or “it has not been explained why the consumption invoiced for the same period was not deducted,” the effect of the error on the calculation is shown. However, special provisions such as the deduction exception in the calculation for a separate line are also observed. [1, Art. 44/5]
What can be done before evidence is lost?
If the meter is to be replaced, the installation renewed or the business closed, later examination of the existing situation may become difficult. Preservation of evidence is considered under the conditions of HMK Article 400 and the following articles. This procedure does not show that the main case has been won; it serves to establish properly a finding that could be lost. [3]
A person may keep photographs of the existing situation from his or her own secure area and archive correspondence and delivery documents. A person should not carry out his or her own “experiment” by interfering with the seal, the meter or the electrical connection. If a technical procedure is needed, authorized persons and a recorded process should be used.
Frequently asked questions
Is the company’s report certainly correct because it is an official document?
A finding drawn up by the company is not regarded as a document that conclusively proves the whole dispute merely because of its title. The nature of the document and the supporting records are evaluated in the proceedings.
If there is no photograph, is the debt necessarily canceled?
The absence of the records that the legislation requires is an important objection. However, an automatic result cannot be stated without examining which type of finding is involved and the other evidence.
Is it sufficient to compare the consumption of the old and the new meter?
It may not be sufficient on its own. Conditions that affect consumption, such as the season, the number of users, activity and changes of devices, must also be compared.
Does a private technical report replace the court’s expert?
An expert opinion may be submitted under HMK Article 293. This opinion does not automatically replace the court’s evaluation of the evidence or the expert examination that it considers necessary. [3]
Conclusion: The path from the finding to the conclusion must be visible
A sound finding links the correct meter, the correct installation, the correct person and the correct period. A conclusion is convincing not because it is stated strongly but because its bases can be verified. The objection must be built with the same clarity: pointing out the missing document, showing the technical contradiction and making the request for re-examination concrete.
For the numerical review of the calculation you can go to the guide on calculating the charge, for the application options to the guide on objections and lawsuits, and for the general framework to 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 / No. 30436; Articles 42–49 and 52, in particular, including the amendments of January 14, 2025 / No. 32782.
- Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu). Legislation Information System / Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı). Articles 2, 20–21, 64, 163/3, 168/5, 203.
- Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu). Ministry of Justice. Articles 190, 199, 266–293, 389–400 and following.
- Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu). Ministry of Justice. Articles 147, 149, 217, 223; procedural and transitional provisions as of the date of the decision.
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası). Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi). Article 21; inviolability of the home.