- Av. Lider Tanrıkulu

1. INTRODUCTION

The International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention No. 155 on Occupational Health and Safety and the Working Environment dated 03.06.1981 was approved and ratified by the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) on 07.01.2004 with Law No. 5038, but entered into force on 22.04.2005. While the Republic of Turkey was still a party to Convention No. 155, ILO adopted the Framework Convention No. 187 on Occupational Health and Safety Promotion on 15.06.2006. The legislature ratified and approved it on 15.05.2013 with Law No. 6485. However, before 16.01.2014, the effective date of Convention No. 187, the Turkish Grand National Assembly adopted the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 on 20.06.2012. Dozens of regulations such as Regulation on Occupational Health and Services, Regulation on Duties, Authorities, Responsibilities and Training of Occupational Safety Specialists, Regulation on Health and Safety Conditions in the Use of Work Equipment, Regulation on Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment were published one after another and a new era was started in business life.

The concept of occupational health and safety, which has rapidly entered into business life, has created a more effective legal infrastructure in terms of criminal proceedings compared to the previous period. Deaths and injuries occur as a result of the failure to duly fulfill the provisions of the legislation on occupational health and safety, and investigations arising from the crimes of negligent manslaughter and negligent injury are initiated, arrest warrants are issued against the suspects (employers, employers’ representatives and OHS specialists) and even sentences for punishment are announced as a result of the trials.

Although emphasizing the factors of negligence, we also attempt to clarify the topic in this article using examples, well-established case law, and doctrinal judgments that fall within the purview of occupational safety specialists. Hence, the topic will be assessed in light of how all the aforementioned rules and regulations are really applied to negligent offenses.

The legislation has imposed very heavy occupational health and safety responsibilities on OHS specialists and has placed a weight on the shoulders of specialists that is almost approaching perfect liability in terms of the duty of care and diligence. In practice, there is no doubt that employers or employer representatives view occupational safety legislation as an angary and that most business authorities currently resist its implementation. Of course, the economic costs of occupational safety practices are also one of the reasons for employer resistance. In this case, it would be appropriate to explain the situation between the occupational safety specialist and the employer in the simplest way as a “run with the hare and hunt with the hounds” due to the gaps in the legislation and the disempowerment of OHS specialists in terms of their powers.

The fact that workers are the other group resisting occupational safety measures is also surprising. Another problem for the occupational safety expert is the stance of workers who see the wearing of protective equipment such as hard hats, safety belts, gloves and many other rules introduced within the scope of occupational safety as restricting their work.

While the employer and the worker together resist occupational safety practices, the occupational safety specialist tries to fulfill the duty assigned to him/her by laws and regulations. Due to the sometimes-common interests of the employer and the employee, the employer and the occupational safety specialist are constantly confronted with each other. However, in the event of occupational accidents, in addition to the responsibility of the employer, the occupational safety specialist who fails to fulfill his/her duty of care and attention as required by the legislation is also held responsible.[1]

In essence, our article will examine the elements of negligence, including the duty of care and diligence, in terms of the responsibilities imposed on the part-time specialist by the occupational safety legislation.

2. DISTINCTION BETWEEN PART-TIME AND FULL-TIME OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY SPECIALISTS

Again, the legislator, this time in paragraph 6 of Article 8 of Law No. 6331, stipulates: “In cases where a workplace physician and occupational safety specialist must be assigned full-time due to the determined working hours, the employer shall establish a workplace health and safety unit. In this case, without prejudice to the provisions of the law to which the employees are subject, the weekly working hours determined in accordance with the Labor Law dated 22/05/2003 and numbered 4857 shall be taken into consideration.”, another classification of occupational safety specialists has been introduced and the distinction between full-time and part-time occupational safety specialists based on the duration of the assignment has been tacitly accepted.

Similarly, in the second paragraph of the same article, the legislator has regulated that occupational safety service is a service that can be provided within the scope of consultancy, this time by saying “workplace physician and occupational safety specialist assigned to provide consultancy.”

In this case, part-time occupational safety expertise is considered as part-time work based on an employment contract within the scope of the Labor Law, while consultancy includes providing consultancy services to the employer within the scope of the service contract concluded between the OSGB/employer and the OSGB/expert.

Within the context of our article, both cases will be referred to as part-time and will be used as such, since they are the opposite of full-time in terms of both consultancy and part-time work types. In this case, when we talk about a part-time occupational safety expert, we mean an occupational safety expert who provides services with an employment contract, while when we talk about part-time occupational safety, we mean an expert who provides both consultancy services and part-time occupational safety services.

3. PRINCIPLES OF ASSIGNMENT AND CLASSIFICATION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY SPECIALISTS

Occupational safety specialists are subject to legal classification according to the hazard class of the workplace with paragraph 8/5 of Article 8 titled “Workplace physicians and occupational safety specialists” of the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331. Pursuant to the classification set forth by the legislator, specialists with A, B and C class certificates can be assigned in very dangerous, dangerous, and less dangerous workplaces, respectively. Class A specialists may work in all workplaces, Class B specialists may work in less dangerous and dangerous workplaces and finally Class C specialists may only work in less dangerous workplaces.

Article 12 of the Regulation on the Duties, Authorities, Responsibilities and Training of Occupational Safety Specialists published in the Resmi Gazete (Official Journal) dated 29.12.2012 and numbered 28512 sets the working hours of occupational safety specialists as follows

  1. In areas classified as less dangerous, at least 10 minutes per employee per month.
  2. In areas classified as dangerous, at least 20 minutes per employee per month.
  3. In areas classified as very dangerous, at least 40 minutes per employee per month.

In addition to all these; at least one full-time occupational safety specialist is assigned for each employee in workplaces classified as less dangerous and having 1000 or more employees. If the number of employees is more than an integer multiple, an occupational safety specialist is additionally assigned for at least 10 minutes per employee per month, considering the remaining number of employees. The effective date of the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 for workplaces with fewer than 50 employees and classified as less dangerous was accepted as 31.12.2023.

In workplaces with 500 or more employees in the dangerous class, at least one full-time occupational safety specialist is assigned for every 500 employees. If the number of employees is more than an integer multiple of 500, an additional occupational safety specialist is assigned for at least 20 minutes per employee per month, considering the remaining number of employees.

In workplaces with 250 or more employees in the very dangerous class, at least one full-time occupational safety specialist shall be assigned for every 250 employees. If the number of employees is more than an integer multiple of 250, an additional occupational safety specialist shall be assigned for at least 40 minutes per employee per month, considering the remaining number of employees.

Although the working hours are determined by the Regulation, the relevant article of the Regulation is continued as “Occupational safety specialists provide services in the workplace for the period specified in the contract.” It is mentioned that the parties can freely determine the working hours in the contract between them in the light of the principle of freedom of contract. This freedom is undoubtedly accepted within the scope of freedom provided that it meets the minimum working hours mentioned above. In the end, although the contracts that do not meet the minimum working hours will be considered valid in terms of the performance obligations of the parties in terms of the law of obligations, the mere failure to conclude the contract in accordance with Article 121 of the Regulation for both the OHS specialist and the employer will result in administrative sanctions for all three.

Indeed, with reference to Article 34 of the Regulation on the Duties, Authorities, Responsibilities and Training of Occupational Safety Specialists, “Failure of occupational safety specialists to comply with the working hours determined by the Ministry according to the hazard classes” regulated in Annex-8 is considered a violation of medium degree and requires twenty warning points. A parallel regulation has been introduced for OSGBs with the reference to Annex-7 of Article 21 of the Regulation on Occupational Health and Safety Services, and “Failure to ensure that occupational safety specialists or occupational physicians or other health personnel work for periods appropriate to the number of employees and the hazard class of the workplace to which the service is provided” is considered a moderate violation and a penalty of 30 warning points for each workplace. It is understood that the employer must comply with the minimum duration rule in an OHS service procurement contract made by outsourcing with OSGB. A service contract signed below this period should be considered as a reason for warning for OSGB and OHS specialist alone. Likewise, the parties express their will that they will not comply with this rule even before the contract is signed. In addition, the monthly working hours specified in the employment contract of the OHS specialist working with a part-time employment contract cannot be below the minimum working hours to be calculated according to the number of employees. If the number of employees is below the minimum working hours, the part-time OHS specialist will again face a warning in accordance with Annex-8.

The last paragraph of Article 12 of the Regulation on the Duties, Authorities, Responsibilities and Training of Occupational Safety Specialists is regulated as “Occupational safety specialists cannot work overtime outside the workplace where they work full time.” In this case, considering the working hours of occupational safety specialists, the distinction between full-time and part-time occupational safety specialists mentioned in Law No. 6331 is also expressed here.

4. NEGLIGENT CRIME

A. Negligence

Negligence is regulated in Article 22 of Law No. 5237 in six paragraphs. The legislator has defined negligence as the realization of an act without foreseeing the consequence specified in the legal definition of the crime due to the violation of the obligation of attention and care.

Although the Law No. 765 does not explicitly regulate negligence, it is regulated with phrases such as “imprudence”, “carelessness”, “inexperience in profession and art”, “failure to comply with regulations, orders, and instructions”, “indifference or imprudence”, “by mistake and recklessness”, “indulgence and carelessness”. While it is accepted both in the doctrine and in practice that these crime types are not regulated separately in the Law No. 5237 and that they are included in the pattern of negligence, this is not considered as a deficiency.[2]

This behavior may occur either in an executive or negligent manner. It is seen that the majority of investigations and lawsuits in terms of occupational safety specialists are filed due to the negligent failure to fulfill the duties imposed by the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 and the related regulations, and therefore the death or injury of one or more workers.

Indeed, in any accident occurring at a work site, prosecutors have to investigate whether there is an occupational safety expert assigned to the responsible enterprise. As a matter of fact, the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its decision dated 24.06.2020, considered the failure to determine whether an occupational safety specialist was assigned at a construction site where an occupational accident occurred as a reason for reversal.[3] For occupational safety specialists, who are likely to be included as suspects in the investigation in every occupational accident, “negligence” has become an important professional term that should be known in detail.

Although there is no consensus on the elements of negligence in the doctrine, according to the general acceptance, five elements are required for the existence of negligence in a crime.[4] The Court of Cassation also constantly refers to the five-element distinction in the doctrine and accepts this distinction.[5] Accordingly, the elements of negligence are the act which is regulated in the law as a crime that can be committed with negligence, a prohibited behavioral rule previously regulated in the law has been realized by acting contrary to the obligation of attention and care, the result was not foreseen although it was foreseeable, the result was not intended, and the causal relation (causality) between the act and the result is accepted.

B. Elements of Negligence

a. The Crime Being a Crime Committed by Negligence

Negligence is an exceptional moral element compared to intentional offenses. Likewise, Article 21 of the Law No. 5237 stipulates that the commission of an offense depends on the existence of the element of intent. According to the article, intent is “the realization of the elements in the legal definition of the crime knowingly and intentionally”. The legislator has chosen to punish the consequences that do not reach the intention intensity but cause some damage due to people acting contrary to the obligation of attention and care, for example, not fulfilling the duties assigned to them with negligence, with this exception provision brought to Article 22. In order for the act to be punished on the grounds of negligence, there must be a clear regulation in the relevant criminal norm that the crime can be committed with negligence. When we consider a work accident, if the occupational safety specialist acts in violation of the obligation of attention and care in terms of the duties imposed on him in the laws and regulations; provided that the other elements of negligence are met, it will be held liable for the negligent forms of the crimes of human killing and injury.

I. Negligent Homicide

i. Causing the Death of a Person

Article 85 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 titled Negligent Homicide”. Pursuant to the article, the person who causes the death of a person by negligence is punished with imprisonment from
three to six years. The investigation of the crime of negligent homicide is not subject to complaint, and the competent authorities take action ex officio upon learning that a person has caused the death of a person by negligence.

ii. Qualified Forms of the Offense of Manslaughter by Negligence.

If the act has caused the death of more than one person or the death of one or more persons and the injury of one or more persons, the person shall be punished with imprisonment from three to fifteen years.

II. Negligent Injury

i. Simple Form of the Offense of Causing Injury by Negligence

Article 85, Paragraph 1 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 is regulated under the title of Negligent Injury”. Accordingly, a person who causes pain to another person’s body or impairment of health or perceptual ability by negligence shall be sentenced to imprisonment from three months to one year or to a judicial fine.

ii. Qualified Conditions of the Offense of Causing Injury by Negligence

Paragraph 85/2 of the Law No. 5237 lists the qualified forms of negligent injury. In the cases listed in the relevant paragraph, the fact that the result that occurs due to the behavior subject to negligence causes aggravating damages is considered as a reason for incitement.[6]

The investigation and prosecution of the crime of negligent injury is subject to complaint, except for the qualified forms of the crime committed with conscious negligence. If the victim of negligent injury does not have a complaint, an investigation cannot be initiated ex officio.

b. Voluntariness of the Action

In order to establish that an act subject to a crime is committed with negligence, the act of the perpetrator must be voluntary. The act of the perpetrator may be negligent as well as executive. In terms of occupational safety specialists, it is seen that the action is mostly committed by negligent action. Although executive acts are easier to detect than negligent acts, it is seen that negligent acts in terms of occupational safety specialists are mostly caused by actions such as not fulfilling legal obligations as required. The definition of responsibilities through legislation facilitates the identification of negligent acts. For example, in a workplace classified as less dangerous, according to paragraph 6/5 of the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles of Occupational Health and Safety Trainings of Employees, occupational safety trainings must be given at least once every three years. Article 11 of the same regulation stipulates that these trainings must be at least eight hours long. The organization of these trainings is not a task directly assigned to the occupational safety specialist. This duty is the responsibility of the employer pursuant to Article 5/1 of the same regulation.[7] However, the occupational safety specialist has the obligation to determine the deficiencies and defects, measures and recommendations regarding occupational health and safety and to notify the employer in writing pursuant to paragraph 8/1 of the Occupational Safety Law No. 6331. In the event of an accident arising from the failure to fulfill this obligation, the occupational safety specialist may be considered responsible together with the employer/employee representative. It is also seen that occupational safety specialists who fulfill all these responsibilities are acquitted in many cases because they do not have a negligent behavior.[8] As can be understood from the example, the voluntary action revealed by negligence is “not fulfilling its responsibility, not taking measures”.

c. Unintended Consequences

The fact that the result was not intended reveals that the act subject to negligence occurred in accordance with the will of the perpetrator, but the result that occurred was not intended by the perpetrator. In order for negligence to occur, the unintended result must occur. We cannot talk about criminal liability due to negligence when the unintended result does not occur. However, if there is another penal regulation in the relevant administrative legislation related to the act of execution or negligence, action can only be taken in accordance with this regulation. For example, in accordance with paragraph 4/1-a of the Occupational Safety Law No. 6331, if the employer or the employer’s representative, who is responsible for preventing occupational risks, taking all kinds of measures, and providing training to the employee, fails to fulfill these duties, he/she will face a fine of one thousand TL for each obligation in accordance with paragraph 26/1-a of the same Law. Therefore, as in the example above, failure to fulfill the training obligation will only result in an administrative fine against the employer in cases where there is no injury or death due to the work accident but will not make the employer liable for the crimes of negligent homicide or injury.

Exceeding the limit of the unintended consequence may bring the offense within the limits of probable intent. Indeed, the fact that an employer has been warned many times in terms of occupational safety deficiencies and defects, and yet knowingly resists not taking the necessary measures goes beyond the unintended consequence.[9]

d. The Existence of a Casual Relation Between the Act and the Consequence

In order to talk about a negligent act, there must be a causal relation between the act subject to the crime and the result that occurs. If the undesirable result would not have occurred if the behavior had not occurred, the existence of a causal relation is mentioned. The third person or the victim’s own actions may have influenced the emergence of the causal relation.

The participation of the third person in the negligent act can be in two ways. There is no direct relationship between the third person’s actions and the causal relation, that is, there is no connection between the occurrence of the result and the actions of the third person. In the other possibility, the third person’s action directly affects the result, and the third person’s action is linked to the causal relation in terms of playing a role in the occurrence of the result. In terms of occupational accidents, such a relationship arises between the occupational safety specialist and the employer. According to paragraph 8/1 of the Law No. 6331, the OHS specialist’s failure to carry out an inspection to determine the defects in the workplace or to notify the employer in writing of the result of this inspection creates a proportional responsibility between the negligent behavior of the occupational safety specialist and the result in a possible occupational accident compared to the employer’s obligation to ensure occupational safety. Although both the employer and the occupational safety specialist are jointly at fault, since the provisions of participation pursuant to Article 40/1 of the TCK (Turkish Penal Code) can only be applied in crimes committed with intent, each perpetrator is responsible for his own fault pursuant to Article 22/5 of the TCK and the penalty is determined separately according to the rate of fault. In this case, considering the part-time occupational safety specialization; Since the responsibility to ensure workplace safety according to the Law No. 6331 is the responsibility of the workplace owner or representative, they will be considered as the primary defect, and the OHS specialist who does not fulfill the obligation of supervision and notification will become secondarily responsible. The crucial part of the responsibility to ensure the workplace safety.

In the crime of causing death by negligence, it must be clearly demonstrated that the death resulted from the work accident. In the event that a person who is discharged after a work accident dies days after being discharged; whether there is a causal relation between the death and the accident should be determined by forensic medical reports and the type of crime regulated in the law for the defendants should be determined accordingly.[10]

The causal relation between the act and the consequence is one of the most important elements for the OHS expert’s defense of acquittal. Likewise, the causal relation may be severed in many ways. For example, the actions of the victim also break the causal relation. In the event that a thief enters the construction site and falls to his death despite taking all kinds of security measures around a construction site, no fault can be attributed to the occupational safety specialist. Likewise, all safety preparations of the occupational safety expert are in a template in accordance with the instructions given to him by the regulations and adapted for those working on the construction site. Holding the OHS expert responsible for the injury or death of an untrained person who should not be at the work site after an accident at the construction site would mean that the causal relation is unfairly extended. However, if the first aid could not be provided to the person who trespassed on the construction site due to the fact that the workers were not provided with first aid and emergency training, the causal relation may be emphasized in terms of the criminal liability of the OHS specialist. However, if the person died at the time of the incident without the need for first aid, the causal relation disappears.[11] This is also because the undesired result did not occur, as explained above. There is no connection between the failure to provide first aid training (act) and the sudden death (result).

Therefore, in each case, it is necessary to look at whether the causal relation starts a new causal series as a result of the victim’s defective act and whether there is a causal relation between the defective act of the perpetrator and the result.[12] If the victim’s defect is completely unpredictable for the perpetrator, it will be accepted that there is no causal relation, while if the perpetrator can foresee the result despite the victim’s defect, the causal relation will be accepted as existing.

It is also important how long the OHS expert has been working at the workplace subject to the accident, depending on the manner in which the accident occurred. Likewise, it requires a certain period of time for the OHS expert to take the necessary occupational safety measures, and the OHS expert should not be held responsible for the accident that occurs some time after the work has started. For example, an OHS expert who starts to work in a factory that has no risk assessment team and has not been risk assessed is not responsible for the accidents that will occur during the process of forming this team, collecting the documents related to hazard identification and identifying the hazards due to the causal link. Likewise, risk control steps can be taken after all these works are done. These examples should be evaluated separately for many jobs in each workplace. For example, with the OHS contract made for two hours a week, it is a long-term and serious work to provide training to the workers and to carry out and report dozens of inspections in the OHS legislation, and it is useful to discuss the adequacy of the OHS expert in the labor / time equation in each trial. In our opinion, the criminal court judge, who is obliged to investigate the truth, should not accept the mandatory OHS expert period regulated in the regulation as sufficient alone and should investigate whether the OHS expert has sufficient time to fulfill his/her responsibilities in each case.

In the OHS practices carried out in our country, it will be seen that the enterprises change specialists in short periods of time and even do not receive service in some months due to reasons such as the attitude of the enterprises, the working conditions of the OHS expert, the state policy applied in the field of OHS, the high OHS costs, the lack of OHS expert performance/salary balance, the interruption of the service due to the decrease in the number of employees in seasonal workplaces. In cases where OHS specialists are frequently changed or interrupted, the issue of which OHS expert is responsible for the occupational accident that occurs becomes a very controversial issue and it becomes difficult to determine the perpetrator of the negligent act. It is a well-known fact that employers see OHS specialists as a burden and that even in the simplest pressure on OHS specialists to ensure occupational safety, they go to the OSGB and change the specialist, and that OSGBs do not refuse these requests due to their financial interests. In such cases, it becomes almost impossible for successive OHS specialists to fulfill their obligations under the legislation. Each case should be discussed separately and in its own context, but we think that it is useful to consider that such situations bring to the fore the responsibility of the employer who does not receive effective OHS service and that the individual irresponsibility of OHS specialists who cannot work effectively will come to the fore.

Again, the occupational safety specialist will not be held responsible for accidents arising from situations that are not notified to the OHS specialist by the employer. For example, the OHS expert will not be held responsible for the fact that a newly hired person is not notified to the OHS expert and this person is victimized as a result of an occupational accident due to lack of training. In addition, part-time occupational safety specialists are not responsible for their failures in daily work follow-up.[13] However, the OHS specialist has the obligation to notify the employer of the need for periodic maintenance planning of work equipment.

e. Foreseeability of the Outcome

In order for the offense of negligence to occur, the perpetrator must be able to foresee the consequences of his/her act or omission.[14] Unforeseeable consequences can be defined as accident or coincidence. In cases where the result cannot be foreseen, the perpetrator cannot be expected to show the necessary care and attention, and the fact that care and attention are shown will not change the result.[15] Here, variables such as the age, manners, disability, education level, profession of the perpetrator are taken into consideration when determining foreseeability. Applying the model-agent[16] criterion to investigate the existence of the element of foreseeability is a practical solution. Accordingly, a group of OHS specialists of the same class with the same characteristics should be compared with the suspect or the accused to analyze whether the perpetrator could have foreseen the accident.

It is a requirement of social life that those engaged in certain activities know the dangers of their profession and take the maximum precautions to eliminate them. When determining the negligent liability of those who are novices in their profession and art, or those who do not fulfill the requirements of the regulations related to their profession, their personal characteristics are no longer taken into consideration when determining their liability for negligence due to unintended accidents. Likewise, it is assumed that the professional is competent enough to know that he/she must implement the measures regulated by the regulations binding him/her, and that he/she is equipped to foresee the dangers and eliminate them. It is within the knowledge of the holder of the professional license that the regulations prepared to ensure social order are put into effect with the aim of eliminating possible undesirable consequences and that failure to apply them will lead to an undesirable result. For these reasons, it is incumbent upon the professional to act in accordance with the professional regulations and to exercise due care and diligence accordingly. However, the distinction of being a novice or experienced in the profession can be evaluated within the scope of “the gravity of the fault based on negligence” in determining the basic penalty.[17]

f. Behavior Contrary to the Duty of Care and Attention

The legislator explained the justification of Article 22 of the Law No. 5237 as follows: “The distinctive feature of crimes is the existence of a voluntary act, which may be in the form of execution or negligence, and that one of the elements in the legal definition is not foreseen. However, this foresight must arise due to a breach of the obligation of “due care and attention”. Because it was not foreseen that the result defined in the law would occur because the necessary care and attention was not shown.”, emphasizing the obligation of care and attention.

As can be understood from the preamble of the article, the legislator has deliberately avoided determining the clear boundaries of the violation of the rules of social behavior and has left a wide area for both the individual and the practitioners in determining the social responsibility by saying “the obligation of due care and attention”. The duty of care and diligence consists of fulfilling the predetermined rules of behavior as required. These rules may be written or unwritten. Unwritten rules are those that arise from the individual’s experience or the expectations of society and impose a duty of care and diligence on the individual. Rules arising from all kinds of laws, regulations, ordinances, and alike are also considered written rules. Failure to fulfill the obligation of due care and attention may manifest itself in the form of taking the necessary measures to prevent the undesirable result or in the form of avoiding an action to prevent the undesirable result from occurring. Failure to take the necessary precautions to prevent the undesirable result occurs through negligent action, while failure to fulfill the obligation to refrain from an action that will cause an undesirable result is possible through an executive action.

The Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 is the basic legislation regarding the duty of care and diligence for OHS specialists. Likewise, according to Article 8/2 of this Law[18], the OHS specialist is obliged to notify the employer of deficiencies and defects, considering both the legislation and technical developments. The definition of “deficiencies and defects” is quite broad and obliges the OHS specialist to make determinations regarding all kinds of occupational safety legislation and other risks that may cause undesirable results and to notify the employer regarding these determinations. Considering how broad the legislation in this field is, it is understood that the legislator has adopted an approach that pushes the OHS expert to almost perfect liability.

In terms of fulfillment of the duty of care and diligence, the determination is not sufficient, and the legislator has also made it obligatory to make a written notification to the employer. Although the criminal court is obliged to reveal the material truth, we see that the written notification changes the course of the case during the proceedings. Considering that there is a conflict of interest and animosity between the OHS expert and the employer in the judicial process that starts after an occupational accident, trying to prove the case with witnesses instead of written evidence is a very difficult situation for lawyers. In many cases, it is even observed that the employer does not submit the relevant documents to the courts and tries to obscure the evidence. In this case, in order to prove the fulfillment of the duty of care and diligence, copies of the annual work plan and annual evaluation report, as well as the records of the occupational health and safety trainings provided to the employees should be sent to the OSGB.[19]

In practice, it is observed that written notifications cannot be signed by employers, and that employers and their representatives are far from the seriousness of the situation, and therefore act negligently and refuse to accept written notifications and refrain from receiving them. In order to avoid these situations, it would be appropriate for OSGBs to include a clause in the contract they sign with employers stating that written notification will be made by e-mail. Even if all these are not provided, in order to produce evidence, all kinds of notifications should be made via e-mail to the corporate address of the employer/employer’s representative or directly to the corporate address.

C. Conscious Negligence

In the event that the result occurs despite the fact that the person does not want the foreseen result, conscious negligence is mentioned. The element of not foreseeing the result, which is one of the elements of negligence, is replaced by foreseeing the result.

It is accepted that the employer foresees the result and will now be liable for conscious negligence in the work accident that occurs due to the employer’s continuous warning by the occupational safety expert about the defects and deficiencies and failure to take the necessary occupational safety measures despite these warnings.[20]

5. DETERMINATION OF THE BASIC PENALTY

In determining the basic penalty to be imposed on the occupational safety specialist for failure to fulfill the obligation of care and diligence, the judge should consider the fault of the perpetrator, the gravity of the damage caused, the manner in which the offense was committed, and the place and time of the offense, which are among the criteria in Articles 61/1 and 22/4 of the TCK, and should impose an equitable penalty between the lower and upper limits stipulated in the article in proportion to the gravity of the act committed in accordance with Article 3/1 of the TCK.[21]

Pursuant to paragraph 8/2 of the Law No. 6331 (paragraph 9/2 of the Regulation on the Duties, Authorities, Responsibilities and Training of Occupational Safety Specialists titled “Duties of Occupational Safety Specialists”), the occupational safety specialist is obliged to notify the employer in writing of the measures to be taken regarding occupational health and safety. For example, let’s assume that a Class A occupational safety specialist, who starts working in a new workplace on a short-term basis, starts working in a workplace classified as very dangerous and that the workplace does not have a risk assessment or that 2 years have passed since the last analysis. If the occupational safety specialist fails to notify the employer or his/her representative in writing that the workplace does not have a risk assessment or that the period has expired and that a risk assessment should be carried out, thus causing negligent action to take the necessary precautions, and thus causing an occupational accident resulting in death, he/she may be sentenced for negligent homicide.

However, if the occupational safety specialist fails to fulfill his/her responsibilities, for example, to conduct risk analysis and to plan the occupational health and safety trainings of the employees, which is another duty, in accordance with the relevant legislation, to submit them to the employer for approval and to implement or control their implementation, his/her fault will increase. In this case, the judge will impose a penalty in proportion to the fault-related intensity of the perpetrator’s act, staying below the upper limit and moving away from the lower limit.[22]

However, if the perpetrator’s actions contrary to the regulations exceed an undesirable consequence that is foreseen but thought not to occur, the crime can now be characterized as manslaughter with probable intent.

In negligent crimes, the basic penalty cannot be increased due to the “purpose and motive pursued by the perpetrator” in subparagraph g of Article 61 of the TCK and this reason for increase cannot be used in the justification.[23]

Another issue to be considered in the evaluation of the basic penalty is Article 85/2 of the TCK. Pursuant to the provision, in the event that more than one person dies as a result of an occupational accident or one or more persons are injured together with the death of one person, the penalty cannot be moved away from the lower limit by increasing the penalty by justifying the weight of the damage incurred while determining the basic penalty in accordance with Article 61/1 of the TCK. Likewise, while determining the lower limit of the penalty due to the incentive, the legislator has dissolved the criterion of the weight of the damage caused within the norm regulated in Article 85/2 of the TCK.[24] The situation in paragraph 61/3 of the TCK “In cases where the matters specified in the first paragraph constitute the elements of the offense, they are not taken into consideration in determining the basic penalty.” is called the prohibition of double assessment. In the qualified forms of the crime, if the criterion used in determining the basic penalty constitutes the element of the crime, the basic penalty cannot be determined by considering this criterion separately.[25]

6. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

A. Negligent Homicide

Since the upper limit of the offense of manslaughter by negligence is 6 years and 15 years as per TCK 85/1-2, the statute of limitations is 15 years as per TCK 66/1-d due to the reference to TCK 66/14.

B. Statute of Limitations for Negligent Injury

Negligent wounding is one of the crimes subject to complaint and according to Article 73 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237, the complaint period is six months from the date of learning the act and the perpetrator. Since the six-month period is a forfeiture period, failure to use this right within six months eliminates the right to complain.[26] Again, the statute of limitations for the crime of negligent injury is 8 years pursuant to Article 66 of the TCK, and the right to complain must be used within this period.

If the act of injuring with conscious negligence has caused the qualified forms of negligent injury, the investigation and prosecution of the crime is not subject to complaint.

C. Suspension, Interruption and Extended Statute of Limitations

Pursuant to Article 67 of the TCK, in the event of a suspension of the statute of limitations, the statute of limitations will continue to run when the event that caused the suspension ceases to exist. In case of interruption, the statute of limitations will start to run again. However, the period that starts to run again cannot be more than half of the statute of limitations determined by law. For example, in a work accident that occurred on 01.01.2011 and resulted in injury, the statute of limitations will expire on 01.01.2019 if there is no reason for interruption. Taking the statement of the suspect pursuant to Article 67/2-a of the TCK is a reason for interruption. If the statement of the suspect occupational safety expert was taken by the prosecutor’s office on 01.01.2012 after the accident, the 8-year statute of limitations starts to run again as of 01.01.2012. In this case, if there is no other reason for interruption, the statute of limitations will expire on 01.01.2020. TCK 67/2- c considers the issuance of an indictment about the crime as a reason for interruption. On 01.01.2013, if an indictment was issued about the crime, the statute of limitations is again interrupted and the 8-year statute of limitations starts to run again. In this case, the statute of limitations will expire on 01.01.2021. TCK 67/2-d regulates that a conviction decision, even about some of the defendants, interrupts the statute of limitations. Let’s assume that as a result of the trial in which the defendant occupational safety specialist was acquitted, the owner of the workplace was convicted on 01.01.2015. In this case, the statute of limitations will expire on 01.01.2023 for both of them. Since the statute of limitations cannot be more than half of the statute of limitations stipulated in the law according to Article 67 of the TCK, the statute of limitations (8+4=12) cannot exceed 12 years. In other words, after including the interruptions after 01.01.2011, the date of the crime, even if the interruptions are more than half of the statute of limitations of the crime, half of them can be added and according to this calculation, the crime will be statute of limitations on 01.01.2023. New reasons for the statute of limitations will not interrupt the statute of limitations and when this date comes, the court will decide to dismiss the case due to the statute of limitations, regardless of the reasons for the interruption in the ongoing proceedings.[27]

7. CONCILIATION

The crime of negligent injury is within the scope of conciliation, including its qualified forms. The parties are invited to conciliation at both the investigation and prosecution stages. If the conciliation is successful at the investigation stage, it is decided to dismiss the case in case of conciliation at the court stage where the prosecutor’s office decides not to prosecute.

8. COMPETENT AND AUTHORIZED COURT

For both conscious negligence and negligent homicide, the criminal court of first instance where the work accident occurred is authorized. If more than one person is killed or one person is killed and more than one person is injured, the competent court is the heavy criminal court where the work accident occurred. If there is no heavy criminal court where the work accident occurred, the nearest heavy criminal court in the jurisdiction is authorized to hear the case.

In both intentional negligent injury and negligent injury crimes, the competent court is the criminal court of first instance where the work accident occurred.

9. CONCLUSION

It is obvious that occupational safety specialists are not sufficiently protected by the legislation against employers and joint health and safety units, and this situation causes both loss of life and property. It is also known by the supervisors that occupational safety specialists constantly encounter resistance in the employer/employee equation in their workplaces and therefore cannot ensure the implementation of the safety measures regulated in the legislation. In the event of a work accident, occupational safety specialists can only protect themselves from being convicted of negligent homicide and negligent injury if they know the occupational safety legislation and the definition of negligent crime. There is no doubt that the occupational safety specialist will be tried as a defendant or at least be a party to the investigation as a suspect in the criminal cases to be opened due to the work accident caused by the employer and workers who act irresponsibly despite all the warnings of the occupational safety specialist. It is essential for occupational safety specialists to take measures to facilitate and protect themselves in this sense before the problem arises. We believe that it is useful to state that the fulfillment of an occupational safety expert’s duty in accordance with the duty of care and diligence and the proof of fulfillment of the duty of care and diligence are two different things.

Author;
Atty. Lider TANRIKULU / Antalya Bar Association
Translated by;
Hasan ASGAROV

 

KAYNAKÇA

[1] ”Gerçekten de dikkat ve özen yükümlülüğüne ilişkin kuralların birçoğu mevzuattan kaynaklanmaktadır. Örneğin trafik düzeni açısından, 13.10.1983 t. Ve 2918 sy. Karayolları Trafik Kanunu’nda, iş güvenliği açısından, 04.12.1973 ve 7/7583 sy. Bakanlar Kurulu ile kabul edilen “İşçi Sağlığı ve İşçi Güvenliği Tüzüğünden…..”  Arkut-Gökçen-Yenidünya, Ankara, 2019, TCK Şerhi, 1. Cilt, Syf:450

[2]5237 Sayılı TCK’da, 765 Sayılı TCK’da yer verilen, “tedbirsizlik”, “dikkatsizlik”, “meslek ve sanatta acemilik”, “nizamat, evamir ve talimata riayetsizlik”, “kayıtsızlık veya tedbirsizlik”, “hataen ve kayıtsızlıkla”, “müsamaha ve dikkatsizlik” şeklindeki taksir kalıplarına ilgili suç tiplerinde yer verilmemiş, ancak gerek öğretide, gerekse uygulamada, bu taksir kalıplarına yer verilmemiş olmasının, bir eksiklik veya farklılık oluşturmayacağı kabul edilmektedir. (Y.12. Ceza Dairesi 03.10.2018 tarih, 2018/4228 E., 2018/9174 K.)

[3] Dosya kapsamına göre, katılanın işçi olarak çalıştığı inşatta kalıp sökümü sırasında, üst kattan düşen kalasın katılanın bulunduğu kalası kırması üzerine, katılanın üçüncü kattan düşerek duyularından veya organlarından birinin işlevinin yitirilmesine neden olacak şekilde yaralanması ile neticelenen olayda,Sanığın mahkemede yapmış olduğu savunmada şantiye sorumlusunun S.L. olduğunu ileri sürdüğü, temyiz dilekçesinin ekinde 31.10.2011 tarihinde kendi yetkisinin “proje müdürü” olarak değiştiğini beyan ettiği anlaşılmakla, her ne kadar S.L. mahkemece tanık sıfatıyla dinlenilmiş ise de, dosya muhteviyatından sorumlu şantiye şefinin kim olduğunun kesin olarak tespit edilemediği görülmüş olup, şirket adına görevlendirilen sorumlu şantiye şefinin kim olduğu ve iş güvenliği uzmanı görevlendirip görevlendirmediğinin tespit edilmesi, şantiye şefi sanık değil ise tespit edilen kişi hakkında dava açılması sağlanıp incelemeye konu dava dosyası ile birleştirilmesi, sorumluların kusur durumunun tespiti amacıyla, kişilerin şirket içerisindeki konum ve görevlerine ilişkin şirket içi organizasyon şemaları da dosya arasına eklendikten sonra dosyanın iş güvenliği uzmanlarından oluşturulacak yeni bir bilirkişi heyetine tevdii edilerek rapor alınması ile sanığın hukuki durumunun takdir ve tayini gerektiği gözetilmeden, eksik inceleme ile yazılı şekilde hüküm kurulması; Kanuna aykırı olup, sanığın temyiz itirazları bu itibarla yerinde görüldüğünden, 5320 sayılı kanunun 8/1. maddesi gereğince halen uygulanmakta olan 1412 sayılı CMUK’un 321. maddesi uyarınca hükmün isteme aykırı olarak BOZULMASINA, 24/06/2020 tarihinde oybirliğiyle karar verildi. Yargıtay  12. Ceza Dairesi  2019/6485 E., 2020/3924 K. Dosya kapsamına göre, olay günü sanığa ait şirketin yaptığı inşaatta demirci ustası olarak çalışan müştekinin parmağını demir bükme makinesine kaptırması neticesinde 2. derece kemik kırığı ile yaralanması şeklinde meydana gelen olayda, sanığın sahibi olduğu şirketin inşaat sahasında şirketi adına sorumlu şantiye şefi veya iş güvenliği uzmanı görevlendirip görevlendirmediği, görevlendirilmiş kişiler varsa haklarında dava açılması sağlanıp incelemeye konu dava dosyası ile birleştirilip, sorumluların kusur durumunun tespiti amacıyla, kişilerin şirketler içerisindeki konum ve görevlerine ilişkin şirket içi organizasyon şemaları da dosya arasına eklendikten sonra dosyanın iş güvenliği uzmanlarından oluşturulacak yeni bir bilirkişi heyetine tevdii edilerek rapor alınarak, sanığın hukuki durumunun takdir ve tayini gerektiği gözetilmeden, eksik inceleme ile yazılı şekilde hüküm kurulması, 12. Ceza Dairesi 2019/5860 E.,2020/2942 K.

[4]DEMİRCİ Bahar, Ankara,2011, Türk Ceza Hukukunda Taksirden Doğan Sorumluluk, Yüksek Lisans Tezi,  Syf: 96  “Bu açıklamalar ışığında, bizim de kabul ettiğimiz düşünceye göre taksirin unsurları; fiilin taksirle işlenebilen bir suç olması, davranışın istenilmiş sonucun ise istenilmemiş olması, önceden belirlenmiş davranış kurallarının ihlal edilmiş olması, davranış kurallarının ihlal edilmesi suretiyle gerçekleştirilen davranışın sonucunun öngörülebilir olması, gerçekleştirilen davranış ile meydana gelen sonuç arasında nedensellik bağının mevcut bulunması olmak üzere beş tanedir.”

[5]“Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulunun 18.11.2014 gün ve 179-499; 18.02.2014 gün ve 10- 80; 25.03.2008 gün ve 43-62; 01.02.2005 gün ve 213-3; 23.03.2004 gün ve 12-68; 09.10.2001 gün ve 181-204 ile 21.10.1997 gün ve 99-202 sayılı kararlarında açıkça vurgulandığı ve öğreti ile uygulamada da kabul edildiği üzere taksirin unsurları;

1- Suçun taksirle işlenebilen bir suç olması,

2- Hareketin iradiliği,

3- Neticenin iradi olmaması,

4- Hareketle netice arasında nedensellik bağının bulunması,

5- Sonucun öngörülebilir olmasına rağmen öngörülmemiş olması,”

Şeklinde kabul edilmektedir. Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu 31.03.2015 tarih ve 2013/12-654 E., 201575 K.

[6] (2) Taksirle yaralama fiili, mağdurun;

a) Duyularından veya organlarından birinin işlevinin sürekli zayıflamasına,

b) Vücudunda kemik kırılmasına,

c) Konuşmasında sürekli zorluğa,

d) Yüzünde sabit ize,

e) Yaşamını tehlikeye sokan bir duruma,

f) Gebe bir kadının çocuğunun vaktinden önce doğmasına,

neden olmuşsa, birinci fıkraya göre belirlenen ceza, yarısı oranında artırılır.

(3) Taksirle yaralama fiili, mağdurun;

a) İyileşmesi olanağı bulunmayan bir hastalığa veya bitkisel hayata girmesine,

b) Duyularından veya organlarından birinin işlevinin yitirilmesine,

c) Konuşma ya da çocuk yapma yeteneklerinin kaybolmasına,

d) Yüzünün sürekli değişikliğine,

e) Gebe bir kadının çocuğunun düşmesine,

neden olmuşsa, birinci fıkraya göre belirlenen ceza, bir kat artırılır.

(4) Fiilin birden fazla kişinin yaralanmasına neden olması halinde, altı aydan üç yıla kadar hapis cezasına hükmolunur.

(5) Bilinçli taksir hali hariç olmak üzere, bu maddenin kapsamına giren suçların soruşturulması ve kovuşturulması şikayete bağlıdır.

[7] “2-Sanıkların yüksekliği fazla, düşme tehlikesi bulunan olay yerinde çalışanlarına emniyet kemeri ve paraşüt tipi emniyet kemeri temin etmedikleri, çalışanlarının kullanımını kontrol etmedikleri, düşmeyi önleyici platform veya bariyer yapmadıkları, çalışanlarına iş güvenliği eğitimi vermedikleri dikkate alındığında sanıkların meydana gelen olay açısından asli kusurlu oldukları ancak bilinçli taksirle hareket etmedikleri anlaşıldığından sanıklar hakkında, TCK’nın 22/3. maddesi hükümlerinin uygulanması suretiyle fazla cezaya hükmolunması;” (12. Ceza Dairesi 10/12/2019 T. 2018/3215 E. , 2019/11663 K.)

[8] “sanık …’nin müdafisi tarafından dosyaya sunulan ıslak imzalı belgelere göre, sanığın gerekli risk analizi ve değerlendirmesini yaptığı, hazırladığı risk analizi belgesinde çok açık bir biçimde 20.sırada hareketli tavan vinciyle yük transferi konusunda operatöre gerekli eğitimi aldırmak, 39.sırada boya yapım sahasında, eşekler üzerindeki malzemelerin el ile hareket ettirilmesi tehlikesinde ciddi yaralanma ve can kaybı olabileceği, vinç yardımıyla çalışılması gerektiği, 40.sırada yine boya yapım sahasında, payandası olmayan eşek kullanımında ise yine ciddi yaralanma ve can kaybı olabileceği, eşeklerin malzemeleri taşıyabilecek seviyede olması, devrilmeye karşı tedbirlerin alınması gerektiğinin yazılı olduğu, olayın meydana gelmesinde kusuru bulunmayan sanık …’nin atılı suçtan beraatine karar verilmesi gerekirken, delillerin hatalı değerlendirilmesi sonucu yazılı şekilde mahkumiyetine karar verilmesi” (12. Ceza Dairesi 02/10/2018, 2017/392 E. , 2018/9085 K.)

[9] “Olayımızda ise öngörülmekle birlikte gerçekleşmeyeceği düşünülen ve istenmeyen bir neticeden bahsedilmeyeceği, defalarca yapılan tespitler ve uyarılara rağmen hatalı, eksik ve tehlikeli çalışma yöntemini sürdüren sanıkların kusurluluk düzeyinin taksir düzeyini aştığı anlaşılmaktadır. Bu şekildeki çalışma ile grizu patlaması olabileceğini öngörmelerine rağmen, patlamayı gerçek anlamda engelleyici nitelikte bir çalışma yapmadıkları, aksine mevcut tehlikeli durumu gizlemek suretiyle, “olursa olsun” düşüncesi ile hatalı ve hileli faaliyetlerine devam ettikleri; bu nedenle gerçekleşen bu neticeden olası kast hükümleri uyarınca sorumlu tutulmaları gerektiği ve olası kastla adam öldürme suçunun unsurlarının oluştuğu gözetilmeden, sanıkların taksirle öldürme suçundan mahkumiyetlerine karar verilmesi,……….. BOZULMASINA, aynı Kanunun 326/son maddesi uyarınca ceza miktarı yönünden sanıkların kazanılmış hakkının saklı tutulmasına, 24.01.2019 tarihinde oybirliğiyle karar verildi.(12. Ceza Dairesi 2017/11896 E. , 2019/1208 K. 24.01.2019 T.)

[10] “….daha sonra kamyonun kasasındaki kömürleri depoya boşaltmak için işyerinde hamal olarak çalışan ölen ve iki arkadaşının depo bölümüne park edilmiş kamyonun yanına giderek kasasının arka kapağını açmaya başladıkları, işçilerden … ve …’in kapağın yan kısımlarındaki kanca pimlerini çıkarttıkları ve …’nın da kapağın ortasına gelerek eliyle kapağın yavaş bir şekilde açılması için hazırlık yaptığı sırada, kasa içinde bulunan ve istif yerinden kayan kömür torbalarının uyguladığı basınçla kontrolsüz ve ani biçimde açılan kapağın, işçilerden …’nın burun ve sol diz kısmına çarpması neticesi mağdurun sol fibulatibia kemik kırığının hayat fonksiyonlarını 3. derecede etkileyecek şekilde yaralandığı, kaldırıldığı hastanede 28.04.2011 tarihinde yapılan ameliyat ve alçı uygulamasından sonra 05.05.2011 tarihinde salah bularak önerilerle ve kontrol edilmek üzere taburcu edildiği, evinde istirahat halinde ve sıkıntısız şekilde iyileşme süreci devam ederken taburcu olduktan 18 gün sonra bacağındaki ağrı ve nefes almakta zorlanması şeklinde gelişen şikayetleri ile ani biçimde fenalaşması sonucu ölümü ile sonuçlanan olayla ilgili Adli Tıp Kurumu Denizli Adli Tıp Şube Müdürlüğünce düzenlenen 19.04.2012 tarihli raporda ölüm nedeninin kesin olarak tespitine imkan bulunmadığı, bununla birlikte ölüm belgesinde yazılı bulunan ölüm nedeni (emboli ve tromboz) doğru olarak kabul edildiği takdirde; bu tablonun ekstremite kırıklarını müteakip immobilizasyona bağlı olarak meydana gelmesinin tıbben mümkün olduğunun kabulü gerektiğinin ifade edildiği;………bu raporlar arasındaki çelişkilerin giderilip olay ile ölüm arasında illiyet bağının, bulunup bulunmadığı ve ölüm nedeninin duraksamaya yer vermeyecek şekilde tespiti bakımından bir de Adli Tıp Kurumu Genel Kurulundan rapor alınarak sonucuna göre sanıkların hukuki durumunun takdir ve tayini gerekirken, eksik incelemeyle yazılı şekilde sanıkların mahkumiyetlerine karar verilmesi, (Y.12. Ceza Dairesi 08.03.2016 tarih 2015/4088 E. ,2016/3539 K.)

[11]“Olayın vuku bulduğu yer, etrafı iki metre beton duvarla çevrili ve üzerinde üç sıra tel örgü bulunan, dışarıdan başkalarının girmesine yasak olan havaalanı sahası olup, ölenin tırmandığı duvar üzerindeki tel örgülerin arasından geçmek suretiyle olay yerine izinsiz ve görevlilerin bilgisi haricinde girdiğinin anlaşılması karşısında, sanıkların eylemi ile olay arasında uygun illiyet bağının bulunmadığı, kendi kusurlu hareketi ile ölümün meydana geldiği gözetilmeden yazılı gerekçelerle sanıkların mahkumiyetine karar verilmesi,…..bozulmasına… karar verilmiştir.” T.C. YARGITAY 9. CEZA DAİRESİ E. 2006/4946 K. 2006/6759 T. 30.11.2006

[12] ARTUK-GÖKCEN-YENİDÜNYA, TCK Şerhi, Genel Hükümler, 1. Cilt Ankara, 2009, Syf .444

[13] “Sanık … hakkında yapılan yargılamaya toplanıp karar yerinde gösterilen delillere, mahkemenin kovuşturma sonuçlarına uygun olarak oluşan kanaat ve takdirine, incelenen dosya kapsamına göre, sanık … müdafinin katılan işçinin olaydan 9 gün önce işe başladığı ve işe başlamasının işveren tarafından sanığa bildirilmemesi nedeni ile iş güvenliği eğitiminin verilemediği, kısmi zamanlı çalışan sanığın aylık toplantı ve risk analizlerini bildirdiği, her makinenin günlük çalışma takibinin yapılmasının mümkün olmaması nedeni ile sanığın kusurunun bulunmadığına; katılan vekilinin ise vardiya amiri sanık …’e makinedeki sorun bildirilmesine rağmen ilgilenmemesi, kontrol ve gözetimde bulunmaması nedeni ile kusurlu olduğuna, diğer sanık …’ya verilen cezanın ise az olduğuna ilişkin temyiz itirazlarının reddiyle; sanık … hakkındaki beraat hükmü ile sanık …hakkındaki mahkumiyet hükmünün isteme uygun olarak ONANMASINA, 08.06.2020 tarihinde oybirliğiyle karar verildi.

[14]ARTUK-GÖKCEN-YENİDÜNYA, TCK Şerhi, Genel Hükümler, 1. Cilt Ankara, 2009 Syf 447

[15]DEMİRCİ Bahar, Ankara,2011, Türk Ceza Hukukunda Taksirden Doğan Sorumluluk, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Syf: 110

[16] Çiftçioğlu, Cengiz Topel, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, Ankara, 2013/3 Sayı  “Burada, sonucun öngörülebilir ve önlenebilir olup olmadığından değişik “model-ajan” kriterine başvurulacaktır. Bu kriterde modern iş bölümü, uzmanlaşma, bilgi standard farklılıkları yanında eğitim derecesi, yaş, fiziki eksiklik gibi ölçütlerin değerlendirildiği gruplar esas alınarak sorumluluk tespit edilecektir.[41] Öte yandan taksirin varlığını belirlemeye yönelik kınanabilirlik yargısı izafidir. Çünkü istenmeyen sonuç belli durumda olan bir fail için öngörülebilir ve önlenebilir iken başka bir fail yönünden bu nitelikte olmayabilir. Model-ajan ölçütünde bir mesleki faaliyet içinde birden çok model-ajan belirlenmesi mümkündür.”

[17] “Toplumsal yaşamda belli faaliyetlerde bulunan kimselerin başkalarına zarar vermemek için bir takım önlemler alması ve bazı davranış kurallarına uyma zorunlulukları bulunmaktadır. Bu kurallar toplum olarak yaşama zorunluluğundan doğabileceği gibi Devletin müdahalesiyle de ortaya çıkabilmektedir. Taksirli suç bu kuralların ihlal edilmesi sonucu belirir, fail tedbirli ve öngörülü davranmamış olduğu için cezalandırılır. Bu bakımdan sorumluluğun nedeni, öngörebilme imkân ve ödevinin varlığına rağmen sonuca iradi bir hareketle neden olmaktan kaynaklanmaktadır.” (Y.12. Ceza Dairesi 03.10.2018 tarih, 2018/4228 E., 2018/9174 K.)

[18]İşverene iş sağlığı ve güvenliği ile ilgili konularda rehberlik ve danışmanlık yapmak üzere görevlendirilen işyeri hekimi ve iş güvenliği uzmanı, görev aldığı işyerinde göreviyle ilgili mevzuat ve teknik gelişmeleri göz önünde bulundurarak iş sağlığı ve güvenliği ile ilgili eksiklik ve aksaklıkları, tedbir ve tavsiyeleri belirler ve işverene yazılı olarak bildirir. Eksiklik ve aksaklıkların düzeltilmesinden, tedbir ve tavsiyelerin yerine getirilmesinden işveren sorumludur. Bildirilen eksiklik ve aksaklıkların acil durdurmayı gerektirmesi veya yangın, patlama, göçme, kimyasal sızıntı ve benzeri acil ve hayati tehlike arz etmesi, meslek hastalığına sebep olabilecek ortamların bulunmasına rağmen işveren tarafından gerekli tedbirlerin alınmaması hâlinde, bu durum işyeri hekimi veya iş güvenliği uzmanınca, Bakanlığın yetkili birimine, varsa yetkili sendika temsilcisine, yoksa çalışan temsilcisine bildirilir. Bildirim yapmadığı tespit edilen işyeri hekimi ve iş güvenliği uzmanının belgesi üç ay, tekrarında ise altı ay süreyle askıya alınır. Bu bildirimden dolayı işvereni tarafından işyeri hekimi veya iş güvenliği uzmanının iş sözleşmesine son verilemez ve bu kişiler hiçbir şekilde hak kaybına uğratılamaz. Aksi takdirde işveren hakkında bir yıllık sözleşme ücreti tutarından az olmamak üzere tazminata hükmedilir. İşyeri hekimi veya iş güvenliği uzmanının iş kanunları ve diğer kanunlara göre sahip olduğu hakları saklıdır. Açılan davada, kötü niyetle gerçek dışı bildirimde bulunduğu mahkeme kararıyla tespit edilen kişinin belgesi altı ay süreyle askıya alınır.

[19]29.12.2012 tarih ve 28512 Resmî Gazete’de yayınlanan İş Sağlığı ve Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği 13/2 madde “İşyerlerinde iş sağlığı ve güvenliği hizmeti sunmak üzere OSGB’lerce görevlendirilen işyeri hekimi ve iş güvenliği uzmanı tarafından saklanması gereken onaylı defter suretleri, (Ek ibare:RG-18/12/2014-29209) yıllık çalışma planı ve yıllık değerlendirme raporu suretleri ile çalışanlara verilen iş sağlığı ve güvenliği eğitimlerine dair kayıtlar OSGB arşivinde tutulur ve istenmesi halinde denetime yetkili memurlara gösterilir. Kendilerinden talep edilmese dahi, sözleşme süresi sonunda bütün kayıt ve dosyalar OSGB’lerce işverene teslim edilir.”

[20] “..ayrıca sanık müdafii tarafından sunulan 27.02.2012 tarihli iş sağlığı ve güvenliği gözetim raporunda “dokuma bölümündeki dokuma makinelerinin çalışma esnasında kapaklarının açık olduğu, kapalı çalışılması gerektiği, ayrıca kompresörün açıkta yani kapaksız çalışan döner kayış – kasnak kısmının uzuv sıkışması / kaptırma ihtimaline karşı kapakla kapatılması gerektiğinin belirtilmiş olması, yine 28.03.2012 tarihinde iş güvenliği uzmanı tarafından yapılan denetimde “dokuma bölümündeki tik tak makinesinin açıkta çalışan kayış – kasnak kısmına koruyucu kapak yapılması gerektiği’nin vurgulanmış olmasına rağmen, sanık hakkında bilinçli taksir hükümleri uygulanmayarak, eksik cezaya hükmolunması, aleyhe temyiz olmadığından bozma sebebi yapılmamıştır.” (Y.12. Ceza Dairesi 04.04.2019 tarih 2017/8899 E.,2019/4562 K.)

[21]“Olay tarihinde, …. şantiyesinde faaliyet gösteren ……..Endüstri Anonim Şirketinde, iş güvenliği uzmanı olarak sanık …’nun çalıştığı, iki logarın birbirine bağlanması için yapılan kazı çalışması esnasında kazı çukurunun içine çalışma için giren işçinin üzerine toprak kayması neticesinde toprak altında havasız kalarak mekanik asfiksi sonucu öldüğü olayda; taksirli suçlar açısından temel cezanın belirlenmesinde TCK’nın 61/1. ve 22/4. maddelerinde yer alan ölçütlerden olan failin kusuru, meydana gelen zararın ağırlığı, suçun işleniş biçimi ile suçun işlendiği yer ve zaman nazara alınmak suretiyle TCK’nın 3/1. maddesi uyarınca işlenen fiilin ağırlığıyla orantılı olacak şekilde maddede öngörülen alt ve üst sınırlar arasında hakkaniyete uygun bir cezaya hükmolunması gerekirken, sanık …’nun asli kusurlu oluşunun mahkemece de kabul edilişi somut olayda alt sınırdan uzaklaşılarak hak ve nesafete uygun bir ceza tayini yerine asgari hadden ceza tayin edilmesi aleyhe temyiz olmadığından bozma nedeni yapılmamıştır.” (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi 11.01.2017 tarih 2015/14958 E., 2017/203 K.)

[22] TENERİ, Gökhan Dr. Temel Cezanın Belirlenmesi, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 2016, Sayı 3 Syf:152 “Taksirin derecelendirilmesinde dikkate alınması gereken husus failin göstermesi gereken objektif özen yükümlülüğünün ağırlığıdır. Failin göstermeyi ihmal ettiği özen yükümlülüğünün ağırlığı, temel cezanın belirlenmesinde ölçü norm olarak dikkate alınabilecektir. Özellikle netice sebebiyle ağırlaşmış suçlar bakımından varlığı aranan ağır taksir kavramı özel hukukta kullanılmaktadır.”

[23] Taksirle yaralama suçundan sanıkların mahkûmiyetine ilişkin hüküm, sanık …müdafii ve sanık …tarafından temyiz edilmekle, dosya incelenerek gereği düşünüldü:

Sanıklardan …’in…k Otelinde sorumlu müdür, sanık …’un ise iş güvenliği uzmanı olarak çalıştığı, olay tarihinde otele ait teleferikten indikten sonra kayak alanına doğru yürümekte olan katılanların otelin çatısından düşen karların altında kalması sonucu basit tıbbi müdahale ile giderilebilecek şekilde yaralandığı, soruşturma aşamasında yapılan keşif ve bilirkişi incelemesi ile olayın meydana geldiği otelde kış şartlarında yoğun kar yağışı sonucunda oluşabilecek tehlike ve risklere karşı gerekli iş güvenliği önlemlerini almak ve denetlemekle yükümlü olan sanık …’in asli kusurlu olduğu, sanık …’un ise meydana gelen kaza ile ilgili herhangi bir tehlike ve risk öngörüsünde bulunmaması, teleferiğe binmek isteyen ve teleferikten inen müşterilerin güvenliğini sağlayacak yönlendirmelerin ve giriş çıkışların yeterli olmaması, müşterilerin hata yapmalarını veya dikkatsiz davranmalarını engelleyecek bir bilgilendirme ve yönlendirme yapılmaması nedeniyle tali kusurlu olduğunun tespit edildiği olayda; Yapılan yargılamaya, toplanıp karar yerinde gösterilen delillere, mahkemenin kovuşturma sonuçlarına uygun olarak oluşan kanaat ve takdirine, incelenen dosya kapsamına göre, sanık müdafinin ve sanık …’ın sair temyiz itirazlarının reddine, ancak; Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulunun 07/07/2009 tarih 2009/9-62-191 sayılı kararında da vurgulandığı üzere, taksirli suçlar açısından temel cezanın belirlenmesinde TCK’nın 61/1. maddesinin (g) bendinde yer alan “failin güttüğü amaç ve saik” gerekçesine dayanılamayacağının gözetilmemesi, isabetsiz olup, sanık müdafinin temyiz itirazları bu itibarla yerinde görüldüğünden, hükmün bu sebeplerden dolayı 5320 sayılı Kanunun 8. maddesi uyarınca halen uygulanmakta olan 1412 sayılı CMUK’un 321. maddesi gereğince isteme aykırı olarak BOZULMASINA, bu hususların yeniden yargılama yapılmaksızın aynı Kanunun 322. maddesi uyarınca düzeltilmesi mümkün bulunduğundan, hüküm fıkrasının 1. bendinde yer alan “failin güttüğü amaç ve saik” ibaresinin çıkarılması suretiyle sair yönleri usul ve kanuna uygun bulunan hükümlerin DÜZELTİLEREK ONANMASINA, 13.02.2019 tarihinde oybirliğiyle karar verildi. (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi 2019/4786 E.,2020/1524 K.)

[24]TENERİ, Gökhan Dr. Temel Cezanın Belirlenmesi, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 2016, Sayı 3 Syf:150 “Meydana gelen zarar ve tehlikenin ağırlığı temel cezanın belirlenmesinde dikkate alınması gereken diğer bir ölçüdür. Belirtilen ölçü açısından da “mükerrer değerlendirme yasağı” geçerlidir”

[25] TENERİ, Gökhan Dr. Temel Cezanın Belirlenmesi, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 2016, Sayı 3 Syf:148 “Birinci fıkrada belirtilen hususların suçun unsurunu oluşturduğu hallerde, bunlar temel cezanın belirlenmesinde ayrıca göz önünde bulundurulmaz.” Bu hükme göre, sanık hakkında temel cezanın belirlenmesinde hükmün aynı zamanda unsur olması halinde bu husus ikinci kez dikkate alınmayacaktır. Kanun gerekçesinde “mükerrer değerlendirme yasağı” olarak düzenlenen hükmün suçun nitelikli halleri açısından da dikkate alınması gerekir.”

[26] “25.07.2012 tarihinde gece vardiyasında, sanıklardan …’ın ustabaşı olarak, …’ün bakım onarım şefi, …’in fabrika müdürü, …’in üretim şefi iş güvenliği uzmanı olarak görev yaptıkları mobilya fabrikasında, arıza bakım sorumlusu olarak çalışan katılanın, kenar işleme ve bantlama makinasında arıza olduğunun bildirilmesi üzerine arızayı gidermek üzere makinedeki tutkal zincirini çeviren zinciri dişliye takmak istediği sırada, makinanın içinden sızan sıcak tutkalın sağ eline akması, bu tutkalı temizlemek için sol eliyle müdahale ettiği sırada sol eline de bulaşıp yanması sonucunda katılanın hayati tehlike geçirecek şekilde yaralanması ile sonuçlanan olayda, taksirle yaralama suçunun şikayete tabi olduğu ve şikayetin, TCK’nın 73/1. maddesinde belirtilen 6 aylık süre içerisinde yapılması gerektiği halde katılanın şikayet hakkını 02.04.2013 tarihli vekaletname ile tayin ettiği vekili aracılığıyla 22.04.2013 tarihinde ve süresinde kullanılmadığı nedeniyle sanık hakkında verilen düşme kararında bir isabetsizlik bulunmadığı anlaşılmakla; ……mahkumiyetine karar verilmesi gerektiğine ilişkin temyiz itirazlarının reddiyle, hükmün isteme uygun olarak ONANMASINA, 18.01.2016 tarihinde oybirliğiyle karar verildi.” (12. Ceza Dairesi 2015/3188 E , 2016/500 K. 18.01.2016 T.)

[27] Somut olayda zararlandırıcı sigorta hadisesinin aynı zamanda olay tarihinde yürürlükte bulunan 5237 Sayılı TCK’nın 89. Maddesinde belirtilen “Taksirle Yaralama” suçunu oluşturduğu ve aynı Kanunun 66/1-e ve 67/4. maddelerinde belirtilen uzamış ceza zamanaşımı süresinin uygulanması gerektiği, bu uzamış zamanaşımı süresinin ise kesilmelerle birlikte 8+4=12 yıl olduğu, buna göre ıslah tarihi itibariyle zamanaşımı süresinin henüz dolmadığı açıktır. Hal böyle olunca işin esasına girmek gerekirken maddi tazminatın ıslahla arttırılan kısmının zamanaşımı nedeniyle reddine karar verilmesi hatalı olmuştur.(T.C. YARGITAY 21. HUKUK DAİRESİE. 2019/869K. 2019/5707T. 1.10.2019)

 

© 2020 Av. Lider TANRIKULU

logo-footer