A director or manager of a Turkish company can be personally liable for loss caused by a culpable breach of management duties. The company’s limited liability does not prevent that claim. A claimant must identify the duty breached, fault, loss and the connection between the conduct and the loss; holding office alone does not establish all of these elements.
This article addresses civil compensation claims against directors and managers, including foreign and non-resident appointees. Liability for company tax and social security debts follows separate provisions. Company types, capital and registration are explained in setting up a company in Turkey.
1. When Is a Director Personally Liable?
Article 553 of the Turkish Commercial Code establishes fault-based liability for breach of duties arising from the law or the articles of association. Article 644(1)(a) extends this provision and Articles 554–561 to limited companies as well. 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.553 — Liability of founders, board members, managers and liquidators
“Kurucular, yönetim kurulu üyeleri, yöneticiler ve tasfiye memurları, kanundan ve esas sözleşmeden doğan yükümlülüklerini kusurlarıyla ihlal ettikleri takdirde, hem şirkete hem pay sahiplerine hem de şirket alacaklılarına karşı verdikleri zarardan sorumludurlar.”
(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.553)
Unofficial translation: “Founders, members of the board of directors, managers and liquidators are liable for the damage they cause both to the company and to the shareholders and to the company’s creditors if they culpably breach their obligations arising from the law and from the articles of association.”
Three elements have to come together: a breach of a duty arising from the law or the articles, fault in that breach, and resulting damage. The requirement of fault is what separates Article 553 from strict liability.
2. Can a Manager Be Liable Without Owning Shares?
Liability depends on the powers exercised, rather than the person’s job title. A person who is not a shareholder, and who works under a service contract, can still be sued under Article 553 if powers to run the company’s business were given to them. This distinction matters where a consultant or country manager has authority to sign and make management decisions:
“ortak sıfatı bulunmayıp, şirketle arasında hizmet akdi çerçevesinde görev yapmakla birlikte şirketin iş ve işlemlerini yönetmek üzere kendisine çeşitli yetkiler verilen kişilerin görevlerini ifa ettikleri sırada şirkete, şirketin ortakları veya şirket alacaklılarına karşı zararlandırıcı eylemlerinden kaynaklanan davaların TTK’nın 553. maddesi uyarınca açılmış sorumluluk davası olması”
(Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2021/5943, K. 2022/2413, T. 25.03.2022 — uyuşmazlığın giderilmesi)
Unofficial translation: “that actions arising from the harmful acts of persons who do not have the capacity of shareholder and who, while serving under a service contract with the company, have been given various powers in order to manage the company’s business and transactions, committed against the company, the company’s shareholders or the company’s creditors in the course of performing their duties, are liability actions brought under Article 553 of the Turkish Commercial Code”
3. Who Must Prove the Director’s Fault?
The claimant bears the burden of proving fault. The original text of the Code contained a presumption of fault against directors. That presumption was removed in 2012, and the Court of Cassation states the consequence plainly:
“6335 sayılı Kanunun 28. maddesi ile 6102 sayılı TTK’nın 553. maddesinin birinci fıkrasında yapılan değişikliğe kadar kusurun varlığı karine olarak kabul edilmiş, ancak yapılan değişiklikle bu fıkradaki “kusurlarının bulunmadığını ispatlamadıkça” ibaresi kaldırılmıştır. Bu durumda artık kusurun varlığını ispat yükü zarara uğradığını iddia eden pay sahibine, şirkete veyahut şirket alacaklısına düşmektedir.”
(Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2025/4222, K. 2026/1251, T. 04.03.2026 — asıl davada bozma, birleşen davada onama)
Unofficial translation: “Until the amendment made to the first paragraph of Article 553 of Law No. 6102 by Article 28 of Law No. 6335, the existence of fault was accepted as a presumption; however, with the amendment made, the phrase ‘unless they prove that they are not at fault’ in that paragraph was removed. In this case, the burden of proving the existence of fault now falls on the shareholder, the company or the company’s creditor claiming to have suffered damage.”
4. Does Living Abroad Remove Responsibility?
Article 553 also limits liability for breaches and irregularities outside the person’s control:
“Hiç kimse kontrolü dışında kalan, kanuna veya esas sözleşmeye aykırılıklar veya yolsuzluklar sebebiyle sorumlu tutulamaz; bu sorumlu olmama durumu gözetim ve özen yükümü gerekçe gösterilerek geçersiz kılınamaz.”
(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.553)
Unofficial translation: “No one may be held liable for breaches of the law or of the articles of association, or for irregularities, that remain outside their control; this absence of liability may not be set aside by invoking the duty of supervision and care.”
The statutory test concerns matters outside the person’s control. Residence abroad is not itself that test. The relevant records are the person’s assigned powers, the decisions they took, the information available to them and the conduct alleged to have caused the loss.
5. Who Can Claim Compensation, and Who Receives It?
Where the loss belongs to the company, Article 555 permits the company and each shareholder to seek compensation. A shareholder bringing that claim must request payment to the company, rather than payment to themselves.
“(1) Şirketin uğradığı zararın tazminini, şirket ve her bir pay sahibi isteyebilir. Pay sahipleri tazminatın ancak şirkete ödenmesini isteyebilirler.”
(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.555)
Unofficial translation: “The company and each shareholder may claim compensation for the loss suffered by the company. Shareholders may only request that compensation be paid to the company.”
A creditor’s claim for loss suffered by the company requires a separate assessment. Article 556 addresses the company’s bankruptcy: shareholder and creditor claims are first advanced by the bankruptcy administration. If the administration does not bring the action, each shareholder or creditor may do so under that provision. This should not be confused with a person claiming compensation for damage suffered directly by them under Article 553.
“(1) Zarara uğrayan şirketin iflası hâlinde, tazminatın şirkete ödenmesini isteme hakkını şirket alacaklıları da haizdir. Ancak, pay sahiplerinin ve şirket alacaklılarının istemleri önce iflas idaresince ileri sürülür.”
(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.556)
Unofficial translation: “If the company that has suffered loss becomes bankrupt, company creditors also have the right to request that compensation be paid to the company. However, the claims of shareholders and company creditors are first advanced by the bankruptcy administration.”
6. Are All Directors Liable for the Same Amount?
Article 557 requires an individual assessment even where several people are responsible for the same loss. Each is jointly liable to the extent that the loss can be attributed to them personally, considering their fault and the circumstances. The claimant may sue several responsible persons together for the entire loss and ask the court to determine each defendant’s liability.
“(1) Birden çok kişinin aynı zararı tazminle yükümlü olmaları hâlinde, bunlardan her biri, kusuruna ve durumun gereklerine göre, zarar şahsen kendisine yükletilebildiği ölçüde, bu zarardan diğerleriyle birlikte müteselsilen sorumlu olur.”
(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.557)
Unofficial translation: “Where several persons are obliged to compensate the same loss, each is jointly and severally liable with the others to the extent that the loss can be attributed to that person personally, according to their fault and the circumstances.”
7. When the Capital Is Lost: What the Board Must Do
Article 376 imposes duties when losses reach specified proportions of capital and legal reserves. Its balance-sheet tests are distinct from merely having a poor trading year. A civil compensation claim still requires the conditions in Article 553 to be established.
6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.376 — Loss of capital and insolvency
“(1) Son yıllık bilançodan, sermaye ile kanuni yedek akçeler toplamının yarısının zarar sebebiyle karşılıksız kaldığı anlaşılırsa, yönetim kurulu, genel kurulu hemen toplantıya çağırır ve bu genel kurula uygun gördüğü iyileştirici önlemleri sunar.”
“(2) Son yıllık bilançoya göre, sermaye ile kanuni yedek akçeler toplamının üçte ikisinin zarar sebebiyle karşılıksız kaldığı anlaşıldığı takdirde, derhâl toplantıya çağrılan genel kurul, sermayenin üçte biri ile yetinme veya sermayenin tamamlanmasına karar vermediği takdirde şirket kendiliğinden sona erer.”
(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.376)
Unofficial translation: “(1) If it is understood from the last annual balance sheet that half of the total of the capital and the legal reserves has been left uncovered because of loss, the board of directors immediately calls the general assembly to a meeting and submits to that general assembly the remedial measures it considers appropriate. (2) If it is understood from the last annual balance sheet that two thirds of the total of the capital and the legal reserves has been left uncovered because of loss, the company terminates of its own accord unless the general assembly, called immediately to a meeting, resolves either to be content with one third of the capital or to complete the capital.”
Under the second paragraph, failure to adopt either of the specified decisions results in termination by operation of law. The board’s duty to call the meeting and the general assembly’s decision must therefore be considered separately.
The third paragraph deals with a different condition, insolvency in the balance-sheet sense, and requires the board to draw up an interim balance sheet on both a going-concern and a likely-sale basis, and to notify the commercial court and request bankruptcy if assets do not cover creditors’ claims. The provision also specifies an exception involving creditors’ written subordination covering the deficit, verified by court-appointed experts.
The General Assembly of Civil Chambers places that condition within bankruptcy law:
“2004 sayılı Kanun, sermaye şirketleri ile kooperatifler bakımından borca batıklık hâlini de ek bir iflâs sebebi olarak göstermiştir (2004 sayılı Kanun md.179/I). Borca batıklık 6102 sayılı Kanun’un 376 ncı maddesinden yola çıkılarak aktiflerin muhtemel satış fiyatları üzerinden değerlendirilmesi hâlinde elde edilecek tutarın, şirket alacaklılarının alacaklarını karşılamaya yetmediğinin anlaşılması olarak tanımlanabilir.”
(Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, E. 2023/160, K. 2024/190, T. 17.04.2024 — direnme kararının bozulmasına, oy çokluğu)
Unofficial translation: “Law No. 2004 has also shown the state of insolvency as an additional ground of bankruptcy for capital companies and cooperatives (Law No. 2004, Article 179/I). Insolvency may be defined, starting from Article 376 of Law No. 6102, as the understanding that the amount to be obtained when the assets are valued at their likely sale prices is insufficient to cover the claims of the company’s creditors.”
8. What Is the Limitation Period for a Director Liability Claim?
Article 560 provides two years from the claimant’s knowledge of both the loss and the responsible person, and in any event five years from the act causing the loss. If the act is an offence subject to a longer criminal limitation period, that longer period also applies to the compensation action. The dates of the act and of discovery must therefore be identified separately.
“(1) Sorumlu olanlara karşı tazminat istemek hakkı, davacının zararı ve sorumluyu öğrendiği tarihten itibaren iki ve her hâlde zararı doğuran fiilin meydana geldiği günden itibaren beş yıl geçmekle zamanaşımına uğrar. Şu kadar ki, bu fiil cezayı gerektirip, Türk Ceza Kanununa göre daha uzun dava zamanaşımına tabi bulunuyorsa, tazminat davasına da bu zamanaşımı uygulanır.”
(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.560)
Unofficial translation: “The right to claim compensation against those responsible becomes time-barred two years after the claimant learns of the loss and the responsible person and, in any event, five years after the act causing the loss. However, if the act constitutes an offence subject to a longer limitation period under the Turkish Penal Code, that limitation period also applies to the compensation action.”
9. Which Court Hears the Claim, and Is Mediation Required?
Article 561 permits an action against those responsible before the commercial court of first instance where the company has its headquarters. The 11th Civil Chamber’s decision of 25 March 2022, quoted above, also identifies the commercial court as the competent court for the management-liability dispute it examined.
“(1) Sorumlular aleyhinde şirketin merkezinin bulunduğu yer asliye ticaret mahkemesinde dava açılabilir.”
(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.561)
Unofficial translation: “An action against those responsible may be brought before the commercial court of first instance where the company has its headquarters.”
A commercial compensation claim seeking a sum of money is subject to pre-action mediation under Article 5/A. That requirement concerns the compensation action; it should not be transferred automatically to every dispute involving a company.
“(1) Bu Kanunun 4 üncü maddesinde ve diğer kanunlarda belirtilen ticari davalardan, konusu bir miktar para olan alacak, tazminat, itirazın iptali, menfi tespit ve istirdat davalarında, dava açılmadan önce arabulucuya başvurulmuş olması dava şartıdır.”
(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.5/A)
Unofficial translation: “In commercial cases specified in Article 4 of this Code and in other laws, applying to a mediator before bringing proceedings is a prerequisite for claims for a sum of money involving receivables, compensation, cancellation of an objection, a negative declaration or restitution.”
The claim file should connect each alleged breach to the relevant appointment or delegation, company decision, correspondence and financial record. Documents establishing the loss and discovery dates serve different purposes: proving the claim and assessing limitation. A dispute about leaving the company is addressed separately in shareholder disputes and just-cause dissolution.
- Identify the breach and lossConnect the management duty, fault and alleged loss to the defendant’s conduct.6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.553
- Identify the claimant and recipientFor company loss, distinguish a company claim from a shareholder claim requesting payment to the company.6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.555
- Check limitation datesEstablish the act date and when the claimant learned of the loss and responsible person.6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.560
- Apply for mediationFor a commercial money compensation claim, complete the required pre-action mediation step.6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.5/A
- Frame the court claimArticle 561 permits proceedings in the commercial court at the company headquarters.6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.561
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a foreign director be personally liable in Turkey?
Article 553 bases civil liability on a culpable breach of duties and resulting loss. The relevant questions are the director’s duties, conduct and control, rather than residence abroad alone.
Can a manager who owns no shares be sued?
Yes. The 11th Civil Chamber’s decision of 25 March 2022 applies Article 553 to a non-shareholder manager given authority to manage the company’s affairs.
Who receives compensation for the company’s loss?
Under Article 555, a shareholder seeking compensation for the company’s loss must request payment to the company, not to themselves.
What is the limitation period?
Article 560 provides two years from learning of both the loss and the responsible person, and five years from the act. A longer criminal limitation period applies where the act is an offence subject to that longer period.
Is mediation required before suing for compensation?
For a commercial compensation claim seeking a sum of money, Article 5/A requires an application to mediation before proceedings.
Are company tax debts covered by the same rule?
No. Public-debt liability is governed by separate provisions and must be assessed according to the debt and the person’s capacity.