Valuables stolen from a hotel room in Türkiye: when the hotel is liable under TBK Articles 576 to 578 and what you must do.

1. The Three Articles: 576, 577 and 578

The provisions sit under a heading on the liability of those who run places of accommodation (konaklama yeri işletenlerin sorumluluğu). The three articles under that heading each do a different job.

1. Article 576, conditions and scope. The operator is liable for the loss, damage or theft of the belongings guests bring, can be released on three grounds, and, unless fault is attributed to the operator or its employees, the liability cannot exceed three times the daily accommodation price for each guest (sections 2 to 4).
2. Article 577, valuables. A separate rule for valuables, considerable sums of money and securities, depending on whether they were left with the operator for safekeeping (section 5).
3. Article 578, removal of liability. The guest’s duty to notify the operator as soon as they learn of the loss, and the rule that a notice disclaiming liability does not release the operator (section 6).

The persons involved. The Code speaks of the persons who run the place (işletenler, in this guide “the operator”) and of the person staying there (konaklayan, “the guest”). The first paragraph of Article 576 names hotels, motels, guesthouses (pansiyon) and holiday villages (tatil köyü) and adds “places like” these, so the list is not closed. Whether a particular place falls within it is a question for the court on the facts.

Neighbouring rules. Article 579 TBK, which follows, deals separately with those who run garages, car parks and similar places, and Article 580 gives operators a right of retention (section 9). The Code’s general rules on torts and on breach of contract remain in the background (section 7).

2. The Starting Point: The Operator Answers for the Guest’s Belongings

The text. The first sentence of Article 576/1 says that those who run places such as hotels, motels, guesthouses and holiday villages are liable for the loss (yok olması), damage (zarara uğraması) or theft (çalınması) of the belongings (eşya) brought by their guests. The sentence does not make this liability depend on fault by the operator. Fault comes back into the picture in the second paragraph, which concerns the cap (section 4), and in Article 577 for valuables (section 5).

What the guest shows. A claim under Article 576 is built on a few facts: that you were staying at the place, that you brought the item, and that it was lost, damaged or stolen there. Article 50/1 TBK, one of the Code’s rules on torts, places on the injured person the burden of proving the damage and the fault of the person who caused it; the first sentence of Article 576/1, as noted above, does not make the operator’s liability depend on fault. Where the amount cannot be fully proved, Article 50/2 lets the judge determine it equitably, taking into account the ordinary course of events and the measures the injured person took. Receipts, bank statements, photographs of the item and the booking confirmation are the kind of record that supports these facts.

Belongings, not only luggage. The article speaks of the belongings the guests bring and does not limit them to suitcases. Clothes, a laptop, a phone or a camera left in the room are belongings in the ordinary sense of the word; whether a particular item is a valuable that falls under Article 577 instead is a separate question (section 5).

3. How the Operator Can Escape Liability

Three grounds of release. The second sentence of Article 576/1 says that the operators are released from this liability if they prove that the damage arose from:

1. Fault attributable to the guest or to a person visiting the guest, accompanying the guest or in the guest’s service;
2. Force majeure (mücbir sebep); or
3. The nature of the item (eşyanın niteliği).

Who has to prove it. The text puts the proof of these grounds on the operator: they are released “by proving” (ispat etmekle) that the damage arose from one of them. A hotel that says the door was left open, or that a visitor of the guest took the item, therefore has to prove that. Whether the facts amount to fault of the guest, to force majeure or to the nature of the item is for the court.

Your own conduct. Because the guest’s fault is one of the grounds, it helps to be able to show how you secured the room and your belongings: that you locked the door, that you used the safe, and when you left and came back. Write this down while it is fresh.

4. The Cap of Three Times the Daily Accommodation Price

The text of Article 576/2. The liability cannot exceed, for each guest, three times the daily accommodation price (günlük konaklama ücretinin üç katını aşamaz), unless fault is attributed to the operators or their employees (işletenlere veya çalışanlarına bir kusur yüklenmedikçe).

How the cap works. The cap is a multiple written into the statute, not a fixed sum; it depends on the daily accommodation price of the stay. It applies to each guest. And it falls away where fault is attributed to the operator or to its employees: in that case the second paragraph sets no ceiling. Evidence that points to fault on the hotel’s side, for example a door lock that did not work, a key card that was handed to someone else, or a room left open by staff, is therefore the evidence that bears on the amount.

Keep the booking documents. Since the cap is calculated from the daily accommodation price, keep the booking confirmation, the invoice and any record of the price you paid per night.

5. Valuables, Considerable Sums of Money and Securities (Article 577)

Not left with the operator. Article 577/1 says that if valuables (kıymetli eşya), considerable sums of money (oldukça önemli miktarda para) or securities (kıymetli evrak) have not been left with the operator for safekeeping, the operator is liable only in the case of its own fault or the fault of its employees. For these items, the text therefore requires fault on the hotel’s side, which the first sentence of Article 576/1 does not mention.

Taken into safekeeping, or refused. Article 577/2 says that if the operator took these items for safekeeping, or refused to take them, it is liable for the full value of the item (eşyanın tam değerinden). Article 577/2 speaks of the full value and does not refer to the cap in Article 576/2. This is why asking reception to keep valuables, and keeping a record of the answer, matters: either the hotel takes them, or it refuses, and in both cases the second paragraph speaks of the full value.

Things a guest keeps on them. Article 577/3 adds that, for items and money and similar things which the guest needs to keep with them, the liability rule for the guest’s other belongings applies. Everyday cash, a phone or a watch that you need to carry may therefore fall under the general rule of Article 576 rather than under the first paragraph of Article 577. Where the line runs for a particular item is for the court.

What about the safe in the room? The statute speaks of items left with the operator for safekeeping (işletene saklanması için bırakılmamışsa). It does not mention a safe installed in the room and operated by the guest, and it does not define valuables or say what sum of money counts as considerable. Whether locking an item in the room safe counts as leaving it with the operator is therefore a question the text does not answer; the court decides it on the facts. If a room safe was forced or opened, photograph it as you found it and ask the hotel to record it.

6. Tell the Operator as Soon as You Learn of the Loss (Article 578)

The notice rule. Article 578/1 says that if the guest does not notify the operator as soon as they learn of their loss (zararını öğrenir öğrenmez), they lose the right to claim (istem hakkını kaybeder). The statute fixes no number of hours or days; its words are “as soon as they learn”. The consequence it attaches is the loss of the right to claim, which is a different thing from limitation.

How to notify. The article does not prescribe a form. A notice that can be proved later is the safe course: tell the reception desk and ask for a written record, send an e-mail or a message to the hotel at once with a short description of what is missing, and keep a copy with its date and time. If the hotel prepares an incident report, ask for a copy, read it before signing, and note anything you disagree with.

Notices at reception or in the room. Article 578/2 says that the operator cannot escape liability even if it announces by any means that it does not accept such liability, or that it makes its liability subject to a condition not set out in the Code. A sign saying that the hotel is not responsible for items left in rooms does not, under this paragraph, release the operator from the liability the Code imposes.

7. Fault, Staff and the General Rules of the Code

Choosing between legal grounds. Articles 576 to 578 are not the only route. Under Article 60 TBK, if a person’s liability can be based on more than one ground, the judge decides on the ground that offers the injured person the best possibility of redress, unless the injured person has asked otherwise or the law provides otherwise.

Tort and the employer. Under Article 49/1, a person who causes damage to another by a faulty and unlawful act must make it good. Under Article 66/1, an employer (adam çalıştıran) must make good the damage that an employee causes to others while carrying out the work entrusted to them. Article 66/2 releases the employer if it proves that it showed the care needed to prevent the damage in selecting, instructing and supervising the employee, and Article 66/3 provides that an employer running an enterprise is liable for damage caused by the enterprise’s activities unless it proves that the enterprise’s working organisation was suitable to prevent the damage.

The contract of stay. Under Article 112, if an obligation is not performed at all or not properly, the debtor must make good the creditor’s resulting damage unless it proves that no fault at all can be attributed to it. Under Article 116/1, a debtor that lawfully leaves the performance of an obligation to auxiliaries, such as its employees, is liable for the damage they cause to the other party while carrying out the work. Article 116/2 allows that liability to be excluded wholly or partly by prior agreement, subject to the exception in Article 116/3, but Article 578/2 separately provides that a notice does not release the hotel operator from the liability of Articles 576 and 577.

Why the choice matters. Article 576/1 does not make the operator’s liability depend on fault, while under Article 50/1 the person claiming in tort bears the burden of proving the damage and the fault of the person who caused it. Which ground offers the best redress on your facts is the question Article 60 leaves to the judge.

8. Reporting the Theft to the Police or the Prosecutor

The offence. Article 141/1 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 (TCK) defines theft as taking a movable item belonging to another from the place where it is, without the consent of its possessor, in order to obtain a benefit for oneself or for another. Article 142, headed qualified theft (nitelikli hırsızlık), lists aggravated forms. Whether a particular act falls under Article 141 or under one of the forms in Article 142 is for the prosecutor and the criminal court.

Where to report. Under Article 158/1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (CMK), a report or complaint about an offence may be made to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office or to the law enforcement authorities. Under Article 158/5, it may be made in writing or orally, to be recorded in minutes. Ask for a copy of the record of your statement and keep it with the hotel’s record.

The two tracks are separate. The criminal investigation is about the person who took the item. The claim against the hotel operator rests on Articles 576 to 578 and on the general rules of the Code of Obligations, and the notice to the operator under Article 578/1 is a separate step from the report to the police. Do both. For an injury suffered in a hotel or on an excursion, see our guide to hotel, resort and excursion accident claims.

9. Time Limits, the Operator’s Right of Retention and the Practical Steps

Limitation. Articles 576 to 578 do not set a limitation period of their own. Article 146 TBK provides that, unless the law provides otherwise, every claim is subject to a ten-year limitation period. For a claim in tort, Article 72/1 provides that a claim for compensation becomes time-barred (zamanaşımına uğrar) two years from the date on which the injured person learned of the damage and of the person liable to pay compensation, and in any event ten years from the date of the act; if the compensation arises from an act that requires a penalty for which the criminal laws provide a longer limitation period, that longer period applies. Which period governs a particular claim is for the court. Diary the earliest date that could apply, and remember that the notice rule of Article 578/1 calls for notice as soon as you learn of the loss, well before any limitation period could expire.

The operator’s right of retention. Article 580/1 gives the operators a right of retention (hapis hakkı) over the items left with them or placed in the accommodation, garage, car park or similar place, to secure their claims for their charges or for the costs of safekeeping, and Article 580/2 applies the provisions on the landlord’s right of retention by analogy. A dispute over the bill can therefore affect your luggage; settle or record any disputed charge in writing.

A car in the hotel car park. Article 579 deals with those who run garages, car parks and similar places and covers, among other things, motor vehicles and their accessories left with them or accepted by their employees. Unless fault is attributed to the operator or its employees, that liability cannot exceed ten times the daily charge for safekeeping for each item kept, and the operator cannot escape liability by announcing that it does not accept it. Whether a hotel car park falls under Article 579 is for the court on the facts.

The rules side by side. The table sets out what Articles 576 and 577 say for each kind of item.

Practical steps after a theft from a hotel room

1. Notify the hotel as soon as you notice the loss, at reception and in writing by e-mail or message, because under TBK Article 578/1 a guest who does not notify the operator as soon as they learn of the loss loses the right to claim.
2. Photograph the room as you found it: the open bag, the safe, the door and the lock, with the original files and their dates.
3. List what is missing and gather proof of each item: receipts, bank or card statements, photographs of you with the item, warranty papers.
4. Report the theft to the police or the prosecutor under CMK Article 158 and keep a copy of the record of your statement.
5. Ask for the hotel’s incident record and read it before signing anything.
6. Keep the booking confirmation and the invoice, because the cap in TBK Article 576/2 is calculated from the daily accommodation price.
7. Note anything that points to fault on the hotel’s side: a faulty lock, a key card problem, staff entering the room, because fault of the operator or its employees removes the cap in Article 576/2 and is the condition for liability under Article 577/1.
8. For the rest of the stay, ask reception to take valuables into safekeeping and keep a record of the answer, because Article 577/2 speaks of the full value where the operator took the items or refused to take them.

A theft from a hotel room raises one practical question: does the hotel answer for it. Article 576 TBK makes the operator liable for the loss, damage or theft of the belongings guests bring, releases it if it proves one of three grounds, and caps the liability at three times the daily accommodation price for each guest unless fault is attributed to the operator or its employees. Article 577 makes the operator liable for valuables, considerable sums of money and securities not left with it for safekeeping only in the case of its own or its employees’ fault, and for their full value where it took them or refused to take them. Article 578 requires the guest to notify the operator as soon as they learn of the loss, on pain of losing the right to claim, and denies any effect to a notice disclaiming liability. Notifying the hotel in writing, reporting the theft, documenting the items and diarying the earliest time limit are the practical steps that follow from these rules.

Scope. This page describes the Turkish rules as in force in October 2026: Articles 49, 50, 60, 66, 72, 112, 116, 146 and 576 to 580 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Articles 141 and 142 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 and Article 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271. It does not cover insurance cover, consumer law, package travel, criminal penalties or injuries. Each case turns on its own facts and evidence.

Our page on personal injury compensation in Türkiye covers claims that arise on holiday more widely; to discuss your own case, you can send the hotel’s record, your list of missing items and the police record on WhatsApp or to hello@restitora.com.