Decision in the Mavi Apartment case: The business owner was acquitted, criminal complaint was filed against 3 people

Two people lost their lives as a result of the collapse of only the ground and first floors of the Mavi Apartment, located in the Kurtuluş District of Hatay's Kırıkhan district, during the February 6 earthquakes. A lawsuit was filed by Kırıkhan Chief Public Prosecutor's Office against Serdal Akatan, the owner of the workplace on the ground floor of the building, for "causing multiple deaths through conscious negligence".

EXPERT REPORT ENTERED THE FILE AFTER 1 YEAR

It was decided to obtain an expert report at the third hearing held on October 7, 2025 at the Kırıkhan 2nd High Criminal Court.

The expert report prepared by 7 academics from Erzurum University was uploaded to the system only 5 days before the 6th hearing on November 10, a year after the decision.

PRINCIPAL, SECONDARY DEFECTIVE AND PERFECT EVALUATIONS

In the report reached by the ANKA News Agency correspondent, it was stated that the owner of the business, Serdal Akatan, "although there is no concrete evidence that the load-bearing columns were cut or removed, the change in the partition wall in question was not a determining factor in the collapse of the building; however, he was 'secondarily at fault' because he carried out the renovations between the two shops without obtaining a renovation license and municipal permit and without carrying out the necessary operations under the supervision of the technical responsible."

In the expert report, it was evaluated that the contractor Aslan Bora Şener and the technical responsible Mehmet Yunus were "primarily at fault", and that the municipality's building control unit fulfilled its duties and responsibilities in the license and building use permit processes, and therefore "there was no fault".

DEFENDANT'S LAWYER: EXPERT REPORT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED

At the hearing, the defendant Serdal Akatan repeated his previous defenses, and his lawyer reminded that they submitted their written defense against the expert report and said:

"During the technical examination and determinations, it has been determined that the demolition of the wall between the two workplaces does not affect the load-bearing system. Establishing the causal link between the movement and the result is at the discretion of the court. There are statements of Erdal Akatan that the change of the partition wall was made without the knowledge of the client. Considering this issue, we believe that the expert report stating that the client is 'secondary defective' should not be taken into account. Therefore, we request the acquittal of the client."

IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE PUNISHED WITH CONSCIOUS NEGLIGENCE

In its opinion on the merits, the prosecution stated that in the report at the investigation stage, the person or persons responsible for removing the wall were found to be "primarily at fault", and in the report at the prosecution stage, the business owner, Serdal Akatan, was found to be "secondarily at fault". The opinion included the following statements:

"From the scope of the entire file, it is understood that the defendant acted with 'conscious negligence' in removing the wall between the two shops on the ground floor by not acting in accordance with his duty of objective care in a way that he did not want to happen, but in a way that would prevent the result he predicted from occurring, and that he was at fault in the deaths of the victims due to the earthquake that occurred, so it is considered and requested on behalf of the public that the defendant be punished for the crime of 'causing the death of more than one person through conscious negligence'."

"THE WALL CHANGE WAS DONE BY THE CLIENT'S BROTHER"

Defendant Serdal Akatan said, "I am just the shop owner, I had no other involvement in the events. I did not destroy the wall. I do not accept the accusations, I demand my acquittal."

Akatan's lawyer stated that they did not agree with the opinion and requested acquittal, arguing that "the change in the wall between the two workplaces was not done by his client, but by his brother Erdal Akatan, and that his client has no actual or causal connection with the collapse of the building."

Metehan İkizoğlu, who lost his father in the earthquake, also asked for the defendant to be punished in line with the opinion.

THE DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED, CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THREE PEOPLE

In line with the evidence collected at the end of the trial, the court decided to acquit the defendant on the grounds that "it was not proven that he committed the crime charged."

The delegation also ruled to file a criminal complaint with the Kırıkhan Chief Public Prosecutor's Office to take necessary action against contractor Aslan Bora Şener and technical officer Mehmet Yunus, who were stated to be at fault in the expert report, and Erdal Akatan, who was mentioned in the witness statements.