Scope of Application and Railway Operators’ Liability Pursuant to Bylaw Regarding Rail Passengers’ Rights
Gülfer MeriçThe Bylaw Regarding Rail Passengers’ Rights, published in the Official Gazette on March 8, 2019, gives the impression that only the rights of rail passengers are regulated. However, it in fact quite comprehensively regulates the obligations of both rail passengers and railway train operators in addition to the operators’ liability and rail passengers’ rights. This study contains discussions first of the scope of application of the Bylaw and its relation with the other legislation in force, especially the Rumeli Railways Operating Regulation, which is in force since the period of the Ottoman Empire, and the provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code regarding transportation law is discussed. In this context, the need to adopt a law that explicitly repeals Rumeli Railways Operating Regulation is emphasized. The obligations of the railway train operator and the liability arising from these obligations are also examined. Within the scope of a railway train operator’s responsibility, the conditions regarding the operator’s liability are addressed including liability arising from passenger death and injury, release from liability and principles of limitation of liability, and liability for damage or loss of baggage or goods. All these principles stipulated by the Bylaw are compared with national and international regulations on carriage of passengers and goods.
Demiryolu ile Seyahat Eden Yolcuların Haklarına Dair Yönetmelik’in Uygulama Alanı ve Yönetmelik Uyarınca Demiryolu Tren İşletmecisinin Sorumluluğu
Gülfer Meriç8 Mart 2019 tarihinde Resmi Gazete’de yayımlanan Demiryolu ile Seyahat Eden Yolcuların Haklarına Dair Yönetmelik, adı sebebiyle yalnızca demiryolu ile seyahat eden yolcuların haklarını düzenlediği izlenimi yaratmaktadır. Ancak yolcu haklarının yanı sıra yolcuların ve demiryolu tren işletmecisinin yükümlülükleri ile demiryolu tren işletmecisinin sorumluluğunu düzenleyen oldukça kapsamlı bir düzenlemedir. Bu çalışmada Yönetmelik’in hangi haller bakımından uygulama alanı bulacağı ve yürürlükte olan diğer mevzuatla, özellikle Osmanlı İmparatorluğu döneminden beri yürürlükte bulunan Rumeli Demiryolları İşletme Nizamnamesi ve Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun Taşıma Hukukuna ilişkin hükümleri ile ilişkisi ele alınmıştır. Yargıtay’ın 1872 tarihli Nizamname’yi uygulamadığı, yerine TTK hükümlerini uyguladığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu kapsamda Nizamname’yi açıkça yürürlükten kaldıran bir kanunun kabul edilmesi ihtiyacı vurgulanmıştır. Ardından demiryolu tren işletmecisinin yükümlülükleri ve bu çerçevede ortaya çıkan sorumluluğu incelenmiştir. Demiryolu tren işletmecisinin sorumluluğu kapsamında demiryolu tren işletmecisinin yolcunun ölümü ve yaralanmasından doğan sorumluluğuna ilişkin şartlar, bu sorumluluktan kurtulma halleri ve sorumluluğun sınırlandırılması esasları ile bagaj ve eşyanın hasara ya da zıyaa uğramasından sorumluluk ve bu sorumluluktan kurtulmaya ilişkin haller değerlendirilmiştir. Yönetmelik ile öngörülen tüm bu esaslar, yolcu ve eşya taşımaya ilişkin ulusal ve uluslararası düzenlemeler ile karşılaştırılmıştır. İsmi itibariyle yolcu taşımalarını düzenlemek üzere öngörülmüş olan bu Yönetmelik ile demiryolu ile eşya taşımasının düzenlenmesinin yanı sıra demiryolu işletmecisinin sorumluluğu, sorumluluğunun sınırı, ödeyeceği tazminat ve zorunlu sigorta gibi önemli hususların da düzenlendiği tespit edilmiştir. Tüm bu incelemeler ışığında demiryolu ile seyahat eden yolcuların haklarının ayrı bir yönetmelik ile demiryolu tren işletmecilerinin hakları, yükümlülükleri ve sorumluluklarının ise ayrı bir kanun ile düzenlenmesinin daha yerinde olacağı sonucuna varılmıştır.
Turkey’s Bylaw Regarding Rail Passengers’ Rights aims to regulate the rights and obligations of passengers traveling by rail before, during, and after accidents and incidents that affect them and the obligations and liability of railway train operators. First it is necessary to determine the scope of application of the Bylaw. Turkey is party to international conventions regarding railways, and if a case bears foreign elements, the relevant international convention applies exclusively. This Bylaw also applies in cases where there is no foreign element as well as where the applicable law is Turkish law.
Rumeli Railways Operating Regulation dated May 18, 1872, is already in force in Turkey; this regulation was adopted during the Ottoman Empire and is still in effect today because no legal provision has abolished it to date. However, the fourth book of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) regulates transport law, and TCC art. 852 stipulates that special provisions for rail carriage are reserved. Accordingly, these special regulations regarding railway transportation apply first. However, because the provisions of the Bylaw Regarding Rail Passengers’ Rights and the Rumeli Railways Operating Regulation are more specific than the provisions of the TCC, the Rumeli Regulation applies first, and if there is a legal gap, the TCC provisions under “Transportation Works” then apply.
According to the rail passenger transport contract, the most basic obligation of the railway train operator is to safely deliver passengers and baggage to their destinations; the Bylaw regulates the liability for the breach of this obligation. According to Article 19 of the Bylaw, the operator is liable for accidents that cause death or any bodily harm to passengers during boarding or getting off the train or while on the train. The operator is also held liable for loss of or damage to baggage and goods during transport, on the train, at the station, or outside the station while under its custody and supervision. A train operator can be relieved of liability in cases when damage occurs due to force majeure, the fault of the complainant, or the fault of a third party. Train operators must also deliver passengers to their destinations on time and are held liable for cancellations, delays and missing connections.
The Bylaw regulates other obligations of the railway train operator. Paragraph 5 of Article 19 states that the railway train operator is liable for the general health conditions of the train; this includes providing clean food, water, and toilets. Additionally, the operator must keep passengers informed of any changes in travel status as well as protecting all personal data regarding passengers, baggage, and the goods.
The principle of freedom of contract applies in our law; therefore, the parties to the contract of carriage are free to determine contractual matters. However, the passenger is the more protected party in a contract of carriage. For this reason, the last paragraph of Bylaw Article 5 stipulates that passengers’ rights cannot be restricted or abolished by the contract.
Another important point to consider in relation to the Bylaw is that the courts appoint experts to investigate the causes of accidents in compensation lawsuits, and most of the train accidents is caused by the “operational fault” of the rail carriers. However, the Bylaw does not acknowledge any concept of operational fault. The fact that legislators did not address such an important issue, currently the subject of such controversy in the judiciary, reveals the inadequacy of the provisions of the Bylaw.
As noted earlier, the Bylaw regulates important issues related to the liability of the railway train operator, limitation of liability, compensation to be paid and compulsory insurance. Such important matters should be regulated by laws, not by bylaws. The reason is that pursuant to Article 48 of the Turkish Constitution, everyone has the freedom to contract in any field they wish freedom to make contracts is one of the fundamental rights and freedoms stipulated by the Constitution. According to Article 13 of the Constitution, fundamental rights and freedoms can only be restricted by law. In one example conflict, the Bylaw mandates that rail operators carry insurance, but compulsory insurance limits the freedom of contract, therefore it shall only be provided by law. This means that the Bylaw violates the Constitution. Considering this and the reasons, it would have been more appropriate for these provisions to be regulated not under a bylaw but within the framework of a law regulating rail transport.
