Occupational Health and Safety Violations in 2026

Occupational Health and Safety Violations in 2026. As of 2025, occupational health and safety (OHS) practices in Türkiye have become a critical financial and legal risk area for businesses, with administrative fines increasing by 43.93% and the judiciary increasingly focusing on “conscious negligence” in workplace accidents. Employers and authorized personnel are no longer considered to have sufficiently complied with regulations; in line with recent Supreme Court precedents, they must demonstrate a proactive and demonstrable safety culture at every stage, from “certified ledger” processes to risk assessment. Otherwise, they will inevitably face severe sanctions ranging from work stoppages to imprisonment.

1. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

1.1. Scope of the Study and Legal Basis

In the legal system of the Republic of Turkey, occupational health and safety (OHS) is a special field shaped around the constitutional rights to “life” and “work,” equipped with mandatory rules regarding public order. The Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331, which entered into force in 2012, is accepted as the milestone of the transition from a reactive (remedial) approach to a proactive (preventive) approach in Turkish working life. This law has expanded the umbrella of protection by covering not only workers employed under an employment contract but also all employees, apprentices, and interns in the public and private sectors.

Occupational accidents and occupational diseases trigger a multi-layered liability regime in the legal plane. In the event of an occupational accident, the employer and other relevant responsible parties (employer representatives, OHS professionals, subcontractors) face sanctions from three different legal disciplines simultaneously:

1. Administrative Law: Administrative fines and work stoppage sanctions based on the state’s supervisory authority.
2. Private Law (Compensation Law): Compensation for material and moral damages of the injured party or their relatives.
3. Criminal Law: Punishment of acts that offend public conscience with custodial sentences (imprisonment).
4. Social Security Law: Recourse of expenses incurred by the Social Security Institution (SGK) to the parties at fault.

This report examines the subject in all its dimensions, from administrative sanctions that have increased dramatically with the revaluation rate of 43.93% updated for 2025, to the “conscious negligence” and “approved book” precedents of the Court of Cassation that marked the year 2024.

1.2. Basic Dynamics of Legal Liability

The nature of liability in OHS violations has evolved with recent judicial decisions. Understanding of liability, which used to be based only on the “fault” principle, is now blended with “danger liability” and “strict liability” principles due to technological developments and increased industrial risks. The employer cannot suffice with fulfilling the minimum conditions mandated by the legislation; they are obliged to take the highest level of safety measures allowed by science and technology. This obligation is defined as the “employer’s duty of care/supervision” in Court of Cassation decisions, and the violation of this duty forms the basis of both compensation and criminal liability.

2. ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS REGIME AND 2025 PROJECTION

Administrative sanctions are tools with high deterrence and quick results applied directly by the administration (Ministry of Labor and Social Security) without the need for a court decision. While Article 26 of Law No. 6331 regulates administrative fines, Article 25 regulates “suspension of work,” which is a heavier sanction.

2.1. Legal Nature of Administrative Fines and 2025 Increases

In accordance with Article 17 of the Misdemeanor Law No. 5326, administrative fines are increased annually at the “Revaluation Rate” determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 298 (repeated) of the Tax Procedure Law. The revaluation rate determined by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance for 2025 is 43.93%. This rate has carried the cost of OHS violations to unsustainable dimensions for businesses. The fundamental legal policy here is to direct employers towards safety with a rational choice by keeping the “cost of taking measures” lower than the “cost of paying fines.”

2.1.1. Calculation Method of Administrative Fines

In Law No. 6331, administrative fines are not determined as fixed amounts but according to a matrix system that varies according to the nature of the violation, the hazard class of the workplace, and the number of employees.

• Hazard Class Multiplier: Fine amounts are applied as the base amount in the “Less Dangerous” class, increased by 50% in the “Dangerous” class, and increased by 100% in the “Very Dangerous” class.
• Employee Count Multiplier: As the size of the workplace increases, fines increase exponentially on the assumption that the number of people affected by the violation increases.

2.1.2. 2025 Critical Violation and Penalty Amounts Analysis

The table below presents the estimated fine amounts for some critical violations calculated by applying the 43.93% increase rate for 2025 and their legal bases:

Insight and Analysis: When 2025 fines are examined, it is seen that the lawmaker focuses especially on “continuous” acts (such as failure to appoint, failure to renew risk assessment). Systemic failure is punished rather than a one-time violation. For example, pursuant to Article 6/1-ç, failure to fulfill the measures notified in writing by OHS professionals or OSGBs in accordance with the law is punished separately for each measure title. This situation makes the employer’s approach of “I had the risk assessment done, I shelved it” criminally impossible.

2.2. Work Stoppage Sanction (Closure)

Suspension of work (work stoppage) is the heaviest administrative intervention, meaning the temporary removal of the employer’s power of disposition over production means. This sanction is based on the principle of the supremacy of the right to life at the point where “freedom of enterprise” and “right to life” in the Constitution conflict.

2.2.1. Reasons for Stoppage and Concept of “Life-Threatening Danger”

Pursuant to Article 25 of Law No. 6331 and the Regulation on Suspension of Work in Workplaces, work stoppage is based on two main grounds:

1. Life-Threatening Danger Detection: A matter constituting a life-threatening danger to employees must be detected in the workplace premises, working methods, or work equipment. The regulation defines the concept of “life-threatening danger” as “danger arising during the execution of work that targets the life or bodily integrity of employees, involving the risk of death or loss of bodily integrity.”
2. Absence of Risk Assessment (Presumed Danger): In workplaces classified as very dangerous;
   • Mining works,
   • Metal works,
   • Construction works,
   • Works involving dangerous chemicals,
   • Workplaces where major industrial accidents may occur, failure to conduct a risk assessment is a reason for direct suspension of work without seeking a concrete danger. This regulation proves that the lawmaker sees risk assessment as a “sine qua non” safety condition for these sectors.

2.2.2. Decision Making and Implementation Process

The process begins with the determination of the labor inspector. However, the inspector cannot make a stoppage decision alone (except for emergencies). The process works as follows:

• Committee Decision: A committee consisting of three labor inspectors authorized for OHS inspection examines the report of the detecting inspector and decides within 2 days.
• Sealing: The decision is transmitted to the local administrative authority (Governor’s Office/District Governor’s Office), and the workplace is sealed by law enforcement forces (police/gendarmerie).
• Emergency Stoppage: If the inspector determines that the life-threatening danger is urgent enough to require immediate intervention, they can use their initiative to stop the work without waiting for the committee decision.

2.2.3. Legal Consequences and Obligation to Pay Wages

Suspension of work does not relieve the employer of the obligation to pay wages to workers. Pursuant to Law No. 6331 Art. 25/6 and Regulation Art. 13; the employer is obliged to pay the wages of employees who remain unemployed due to work stoppage or to give them another job suitable for their profession or situation without a reduction in their wages. This article is based on the “employer’s risk area” theory, stating that the wage risk belongs to the employer if work stops without the worker’s fault.

2.2.4. Crime of Breaking the Seal

Continuing production activities in a sealed workplace for purposes other than remedying deficiencies or removing the seal without permission constitutes the crime of “Breaking the Seal” under Article 203 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). This crime stipulates a prison sentence of 6 months to 3 years, carrying an administrative violation directly into the field of criminal law. The employer can apply to the Provincial Directorate of Labor and Employment Agency for “temporary unsealing” to remedy deficiencies.

3. COMPENSATION LIABILITY UNDER PRIVATE LAW

When a work accident or occupational disease occurs, the injured worker or, in case of death, their rightful heirs have the right to file a lawsuit for material and moral compensation against the employer. The legal basis of these lawsuits rests on the violation of the employer’s duty to protect the worker (Turkish Code of Obligations – TBK Art. 417).

3.1. Legal Nature of Liability: Fault or Danger?

According to established precedents of the Court of Cassation, the employer’s liability is essentially fault-based liability. That is, for the employer to be held responsible, they must have failed to take a measure required by legislation or science (negligence). However, this concept of “fault” is interpreted quite broadly by the Court of Cassation. The employer is obliged to take not only the rules written in the legislation but also all measures required by science, technology, reason, and logic.

3.1.1. Strict Liability Cases

In some cases, the employer may be held responsible even without fault. Relevant articles of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) regulate these exceptions:

• Employer’s Liability (TBK Art. 66): If a worker employed by the employer causes damage to another worker or a third party while performing their job, the employer is held responsible for this damage. The employer can escape liability if they prove they showed necessary care in selecting, instructing, and supervising the employee (Exculpatory Proof).
• Danger Liability (TBK Art. 71): If the activity of the enterprise presents a “significant danger” by its nature (e.g., explosive production, high voltage line operation), the owner and operator of this enterprise are strictly liable for the damage caused. Here, the employer’s defense of “I took every measure” is not heard; because the risk stems from the nature of the enterprise.
• Building Owner’s Liability (TBK Art. 69): The building owner (employer) is strictly liable for damages arising from defects in the construction or deficiencies in the maintenance of a building or other construction works.

3.2. Types of Material Compensation and Calculation

Material compensation that can be claimed as a result of a work accident varies depending on whether the worker survives:

1. In Case of Bodily Harm (Injury):
   • Treatment Expenses: All medical expenses during the recovery process not covered by SGK.
   • Loss of Earnings: Wage loss incurred during the period of being reported sick (The part not completed by the temporary incapacity allowance).
   • Loss of Working Power Compensation: In case of permanent incapacity (disability), the potential income loss the worker will suffer throughout their future working life. Calculated using actuarial methods (PMF 1931 or TRH 2010 life tables are used).
   • Shaking of Economic Future: Loss of career expectation or promotion chance due to the accident.
2. In Case of Death:
   • Funeral Expenses.
   • Compensation for Loss of Support: It is the material loss suffered by people whom the deceased worker was obliged to look after or supported (spouse, children, parents). This compensation is evaluated under compensation law, not inheritance law; meaning those who reject the inheritance can also claim this compensation.

3.3. Moral Compensation

Moral compensation is money awarded to alleviate the pain, sorrow, and suffering felt as a result of a work accident. The Court of Cassation emphasizes that moral compensation “should have a deterrent effect, although it is not a means of enrichment.” Moral compensation amounts are kept high, especially in cases where the employer is grossly at fault or measures are consciously not taken.

3.4. Joint and Several Liability (Principal Employer – Subcontractor)

One of the most important protection mechanisms of labor law is joint and several liability. Pursuant to Labor Law No. 4857 Art. 2/6; the principal employer is jointly and severally liable with the subcontractor for obligations arising from the Law, employment contract, or collective bargaining agreement to which the subcontractor is a party, regarding the subcontractor’s workers in that workplace. This means; when a subcontractor worker has an accident, they can file a compensation lawsuit against only the subcontractor, only the principal employer, or both. Principal employers are generally targeted because their solvency is higher. After paying the compensation, the principal employer can have recourse to the subcontractor according to the fault ratio (internal relationship). However, if there is “collusion” (fraudulent subcontracting), the subcontractor worker is considered the worker of the principal employer from the beginning, and the principal employer becomes directly responsible.

4. SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION’S RIGHT OF RECOURSE (COMPENSATION OF PUBLIC LOSS)

Work accidents and occupational diseases constitute not only an individual loss but also a burden on the social security system (public loss). SGK has the right to demand back (recourse) the aids provided to the victim (hospital expenses, allowances, allocated income) from the employer at fault. This right is regulated in Articles 21 and 23 of the Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510.

4.1. Fault-Based Liability of the Employer (Art. 21/1)

The basic condition for SGK to file a recourse lawsuit is that the work accident occurred as a result of the employer’s intent or act contrary to legislation on occupational health and safety.

• Proof: The Institution determines that the employer acted contrary to the legislation through inspector reports. The Court of Cassation requires the employer’s fault to be definitively determined by an expert in recourse lawsuits.
• Recourse Amount: The amount that can be requested from the employer is limited to the employer’s fault ratio.
• Ceiling Calculation (Court of Cassation Precedent): The Court of Cassation has developed the “Ceiling System” to prevent the destruction of the employer due to the “social state” principle. Accordingly, the employer’s liability is limited to the multiplication of the employer’s fault ratio by whichever is lower of:
  1. The first advance capital value (PSD) of the income allocated by SGK (Internal Ceiling),
  2. The actual material damage the insured could request according to general provisions (External Ceiling).

4.2. Strict Liability: Unregistered Employment (Art. 23)

Article 23 of Law No. 5510 regulates the type of recourse that punishes employing uninsured workers most severely. If a work accident happens to an uninsured (illegal) worker whose statement of entry was not submitted within the time limit, SGK collects all expenses incurred and the first advance capital value of the allocated income from the employer, even if the employer has no fault in the accident. In this case:

• The employer’s fault ratio is not looked at.
• “Inevitability” defense is not heard.
• Even if the accident is entirely due to the fault of the worker or a third party, the employer is held responsible. This is one of the strictest “strict liability” cases in Turkish law, aimed at combating unregistered employment.

4.3. Liability of Third Parties (Art. 21/4)

If a third party (e.g., a driver of another company bringing materials to the workplace) caused the accident, SGK can also have recourse to this person. However, the liability of third parties is limited to half of the first advance capital value of the allocated income.

5. CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CUSTODIAL SENTENCES

Work accidents constitute crimes of “Negligent Killing” (Art. 85) or “Negligent Injury” (Art. 89) within the meaning of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). Unlike civil lawsuits, the principle of “suspect benefits from doubt” and “individuality of penalties” applies in criminal cases. Companies (legal entities) cannot commit crimes and cannot go to prison; therefore, those tried are real persons (Boss, General Manager, Site Manager, OHS Specialist, etc.).

5.1. Mental Element of Crime: Types of Negligence

The state of mind with which the defendant acted (mental element) in work accidents is the most critical factor determining the amount of the sentence.

5.1.1. Simple Negligence (TCK Art. 22/2)

It is the failor causing an unforeseen result by acting contrary to the duty of attention and care.

• Example: The employer forgetting that the machine maintenance time has come and the machine breaking down and injuring the worker. The perpetrator did not foresee the result.

5.1.2. Conscious Negligence (TCK Art. 22/3) – 2024 Court of Cassation Trend

It is the perpetrator continuing the action by relying on “luck,” “skill,” or the thought that “nothing will happen,” even though they foresaw the result. According to TCK, in case of conscious negligence, the penalty is increased by one-third to one-half.

• Example: In recent decisions of the 12th Penal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2023-2024), situations where “obvious and known risks” are ignored are evaluated as conscious negligence. An accident caused by a driver speeding excessively in a residential area or working at height without a safety net being explicitly installed is included in the scope of conscious negligence. In decision 2024/390 E. of the 12th Penal Chamber, it was emphasized that whether the defendant’s action reached the level of conscious negligence must be discussed.

5.1.3. Probable Intent (TCK Art. 21/2)

It is the state where the perpetrator foresees the result and “accepts” it (says “so be it”). It is rarely applied in work accidents. However, prosecutors can prepare indictments with “probable intent” in cases where a vital measure (e.g., gas sensor or ventilation system in a mine) is deliberately not installed to avoid costs and death is inevitable.

5.2. Subjects on Trial and Liability Criteria

5.2.1. Employer and Employer Representative

The Court of Cassation views the employer as the “head of the organization.” However, if there is a delegation of authority in large enterprises, criminal liability passes to senior executives (Factory Manager, Project Manager) who have taken over the authority, use the budget, and have the authority to give instructions. Delegations of authority made on paper are invalid; the person taking over must have the necessary technical knowledge and actual power.

5.2.2. Occupational Safety Specialists (IGU) and “Approved Book” Defense

Occupational safety specialists are in a position of “guidance,” not “execution.” Therefore, direct punishment of the specialist for a measure not taken by the employer is unlawful. However, for the specialist to be considered faultless, they must present evidence that they “did their duty.” Precedent Decision of the 12th Penal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2016/4331 E.): This decision is in the nature of an “acquittal warrant” for IGUs. According to the decision, if the IGU;

1. Detected the danger,
2. Notified the employer in writing (via Approved Book or e-signed system),
3. Notified the Ministry when the life-threatening danger was not remedied, they are deemed to have fully performed their duty and cannot be held responsible for the accident. The specialist cannot step into the employer’s shoes to spend money or stop the work.

However, if the specialist did not see an obvious danger in the risk assessment or suggested a wrong/incomplete measure (e.g., suggesting a waist-type belt instead of a parachute-type harness for working at height), they are tried for causing death by negligence due to professional incompetence and punished.

5.2.3. Site Manager and Field Supervisors

The Court of Cassation takes “the moment the accident happened” as the basis for determining liability. According to Yargıtay 12. CD 2017/4789 decision; the person who has actual audit and supervision authority at the site at the time of the accident is responsible. Criminal liability cannot be attributed to a site manager who is on annual leave at that time or has no duty in the field. This decision is critical in showing that liability stems from “actual audit power,” not “status.”

6. INEVITABILITY (UNEXPECTED EVENT) AND CAUSAL LINK

The employer’s strongest defense mechanism in legal and criminal processes is the principle of “inevitability.”

• Definition: Events that cannot be prevented with the current level of technology despite taking all measures required by legislation and science (e.g., an unexpected natural phenomenon, a scientifically unforeseeable chemical reaction).
• Legal Consequence: If the event occurred as a result of 100% inevitability, no fault can be attributed to the employer, and a recourse lawsuit cannot be filed. However, the Court of Cassation interprets the principle of inevitability very narrowly. For example, in the event of a “concrete nail breaking and entering the eye,” the employer cannot make an inevitability defense by saying “I cannot prevent the nail from breaking”; because they could have prevented the damage with the “use of goggles” measure.

Breaking the Causal Link: The causal link is broken in three cases, and the employer is relieved of responsibility:

1. Force Majeure: Unavoidable external factors such as earthquakes, floods.
2. Gross Fault of the Victim: The worker committing suicide or knowingly putting themselves in danger despite clear warnings.
3. Gross Fault of a Third Party: In decision Yargıtay 21. HD 2012/5289; it was ruled that the employer could not be held responsible for workers who died as a result of the plane carrying workers crashing due to pilot error, because the pilot’s fault broke the causal link.

7. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT

The legal consequences of occupational health and safety violations have risen well above the “tolerable risk” level in the 2025 perspective. In light of the data and judicial decisions detailed in our report, the following main conclusions are reached:

1. Economic Deterrence Has Peaked: The 43.93% increase in administrative fines has pulled OHS compliance costs below non-compliance costs. Especially for enterprises in the very dangerous class, the penalty for not employing an OHS specialist and physician has reached 3-4 times the cost of employing these personnel. This situation has transformed OHS from being a “legal obligation” into a matter of “financial rationality.”
2. Judiciary Leans Towards “Conscious Negligence”: Decisions of the 12th Penal Chamber of the Court of Cassation are moving away from the tendency to view work accidents as simple “carelessness.” Every situation where risks are foreseen but not prevented is evaluated under “conscious negligence,” which means longer prison sentences for defendants and the inability to convert the sentence into a fine.
3. Document and Proof Culture is Vital: The key to freedom for OHS professionals and employer representatives is the “Approved Book” and written minutes. The judiciary does not take “verbal warnings” into account; it bases its decisions on written and notified documents.
4. Strict Liability is Expanding: Especially in the fields of unregistered employment (Art. 23) and danger liability (TBK 71), the employer’s defense of “I have no fault” has become invalid.

In conclusion; employers and managers handling OHS processes not only with the reflex of “avoiding punishment” but with the philosophy of “corporate sustainability” and “human-oriented management” will both minimize legal/criminal risks and protect the reputation of the enterprise.