Date set for first hearing in nightclub fire case

Beşiktaş Gayrettepe was the site of a fire on April 2 that broke out during renovations at a nightclub operating on the minus 1 and minus 2 floors of a 16-story building, resulting in the deaths of 29 people, including 2 foreign nationals.

The indictment prepared regarding the fire requested that the 9 defendants be sentenced to prison terms ranging from 2 years and 8 months to 22.5 years each for the crime of 'causing the death of more than one person through conscious negligence'.

FIRST HEARING ON JULY 17

The date for the defendants to appear in court regarding the fire has been set. The trial of the 9 defendants will begin on July 17 at 09:30 at the Marmara Prison complex in Silivri.

In the indictment prepared by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, 29 people were listed as 'victims', 27 as 'complainants', and 9 as 'suspects'.

OWNERS OF THE BUSINESS IDENTIFIED

The indictment, which states that complainant-suspect Ercan Erkan, complainant Usamettin Yıldırım, who was affected by the smoke, and Gülden Taşpınar were injured, notes that as a result of the work carried out by the Prosecutor's Office and the expert committee at the scene, the owners of the business where the incident occurred were identified as suspects Şahzade Şekergümüş, Fatma Dörtgül, and Mehmet Memduh Ceylan, the responsible manager as suspect İsmet Şen, and the individuals performing the metal work for the renovation as suspects Çağatay Altunel and Kahraman Erdem.

The indictment states that suspects Dursun Çelik and Sibel Çelik were the owners of the company that installed the elevator and hydraulic-supported stage in the business, and that suspect İbrahim Bildirici was determined to be responsible for the renovation and repair work of the business.

ELECTRIC WELDING MACHINE FOUND

The indictment, which also includes the fire report regarding the incident, notes that an examination conducted after the fire was extinguished revealed heavy destruction and deformation due to burning approximately 15 meters from the entrance of the business's goods acceptance section. A detailed examination of this area observed the presence of electric hand tools such as an electric welding machine and an electric metal cutting motor, which were plugged in and used for renovation purposes, as well as various industrial-type oxygen cylinders.

The prepared indictment states that the fire started when sparks from the electric welding machine ignited easily flammable materials such as sound insulation, isolation, and flooring during welding work, and that it spread rapidly. It was reported that employees tried to extinguish the fire with portable fire extinguishers (dry chemical powder), but as the fire grew and spread rapidly, dense smoke formed in the business and the electricity was cut off.

FIRE CABINETS WERE NOT WORKING

The indictment states that there were no emergency lights or directional signs within the workplace, and that the existing sprinkler extinguishing system and fire cabinets were not working. It was noted that after the fire was extinguished, individuals found lying motionless at various points inside the business during rescue operations were removed from where they were and handed over to medical teams.

The indictment, which also includes the expert committee's report, notes that the 'health surveillance' article in the Occupational Health and Safety Law, the 'Occupational Health and Safety Training' article in the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles of Occupational Health and Safety Training for Employees, and the 'Training durations', 'Emergency plans, firefighting and first aid' articles of the same regulation were not complied with. It was also recorded that the provisions of the 'Rules regarding work equipment' article of the Regulation on Health and Safety Conditions in the Use of Work Equipment and the 'Employer's obligation' article of the Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment Regulation were not followed.

NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS WERE NOT TAKEN

The prepared indictment also notes that the necessary precautions were not taken at the nightclub, the necessary care was not shown during the renovation processes, the suspects were at fault, and that by acting in violation of the duty of care, the suspects voluntarily caused a foreseeable but unintended result.