291 / 516
bility due to fault of his assistants are accepted by the creditor, the
debtor can only exclude the liability due to slight negligence if the lia-
bilities are due to an action that is performed with a concession pro-
vided by the state or if the creditor is in the service of the debtor, pur-
suant to Article 100 of the Code of Obligations. Evaluation of article
115 and 116 of the TCO jointly shall require reaching of different con-
clusion that covers the exemptions in Articles 99 and 100 of the Code
of Obligations partially. Accordingly, if the liability is due to perfor-
mance of activities that require expertise or if it is due to fulfillment of
debt resulting from an employment agreement between the creditor
and the debtor, all existing non-liability agreements shall be strictly
null and void.
As stipulated under 99/2 of the Code of Obligations, if the liabili-
ty arises from execution of a profession that is realized subject to con-
cession granted by the government, the judge shall be entitled to ren-
der the previously signed non-liability agreements null and void with
regards to slight negligence related with said concession activity.
Pursuant to Article 100/3 of the Code of Obligations, if the subject of
non-liability agreement that waives the liability of the debtor arising
from the actions of others is specific to performance of a profession
that is subject to a concession granted by the government, the liability
may be waived only for slight negligence. It is apparent that the defin-
ition of the craft/business subject to concession shall cover the subject
situation in addition to activities provided by entrepreneurs under the
concession agreements signed with the administrative authorities.
The principle of losses resulting from activities performed under a
concession granted by the state not being made a subject of non-liabil-
ity agreements, as one of the restrictions in articles 99 and 100 of the
Code of Obligations in terms of freedom of contract has been subject-
ed to substantial changes with the TCO No. 6098. With said change,
the sanction which was subject to the discretion of the judge in Article
99 of the Code of Obligations has been removed and the freedom of
contract for non-liability in the event of slight negligence granted to the
debtor in Article 100 of the Code of Obligations has been abrogated in
terms of content.
LAW OF OBLIGATIONS
277