This article was automatically translated from the original Turkish version.
The Kartalkaya Hotel Fire was a major fire disaster that occurred on 21 January 2025 at the Grand Kartal Hotel in the Kartalkaya region of Bolu, known for its ski tourism, resulting in the deaths of 78 people and injuries to 137 others. The incident has been recorded as one of the deadliest fires in Turkey’s history involving tourist accommodation facilities.
Following the fire, extensive judicial and administrative investigations were launched, leading to legal proceedings against numerous public officials, hotel managers, and technical staff. The subsequent trial, known as the Bolu Kartalkaya Grand Kartal Hotel Fire Case, was heard by the Bolu First Heavy Criminal Court and concluded on 31 October 2025 after three hearings.
The court imposed aggravated life imprisonment sentences on 11 defendants including hotel owner Halit Ergül. Among the defendants, Emir Aras, Elif Aras, Ceyda Hacıbekiroğlu, Zeki Yılmaz, Kadir Özdemir, Ahmet Demir, Sedat Gülener, Kenan Coşkun and İrfan Acar were sentenced to 34 aggravated life terms each for the 34 children who lost their lives in the fire, and an additional 44 life sentences each for the other 44 victims.
Firefighters responding to the blaze at Grand Kartal Hotel – Anadolu Agency
The fire began at approximately 03:16 in the early morning in the restaurant area of the hotel’s fourth floor, specifically in a space designated as the “showroom,” due to a thermostat malfunction in a grill plate device. The overheating caused the oil collected in the grease tray beneath the device to vaporize and ignite, triggering fire. By 03:24, flames had splashed onto a trash bin, where they rapidly intensified. At 03:26, the growing fire melted a nearby LPG hose, causing the released gas to ignite and the fire to expand drastically.
Flames spread to upper floors through the building’s voids and elevator shafts. The intensity of the fire was exacerbated by the extensive use of combustible interior finishes and flammable cladding on the exterior façade. Due to the failure of smoke exhaust systems on the upper floors, corridors and rooms filled with toxic gases.
The first emergency call was made to the 112 Emergency Call Center at 03:27. Approximately 234 guests and staff inside the hotel experienced severe panic as smoke spread rapidly. Many trapped individuals climbed out of windows to call for help, some attempted to escape by tying bedsheets together, while others jumped from windows. Firefighting and rescue teams were swiftly dispatched to the scene after the initial alert, and firefighting operations lasted approximately 10 hours.
Seventy-eight people lost their lives in the fire, and 51 were injured. The injured were transported to hospitals in Bolu. Some suffered from smoke inhalation and burns, while others were hospitalized due to falls and trauma. According to data from the Ministry of Health, 39 patients were discharged two day after the incident.
Response teams from Bolu, Düzce, Kocaeli, Sakarya, Karabük, Zonguldak, Bartın, and Ankara participated in the firefighting operation. A total of 85 vehicle units and 267 personnel from fire, health, AFAD, UMKE, gendarmerie command, and forest region directorates brought the fire under control after approximately 10 hours of continuous effort. Firefighters used ladder vehicles to reach upper floors, where trapped individuals were evacuated due to heavy smoke. Cooling operations continued after the fire was brought under control.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced a one-day national national mourning period across Türkiye in memory of those who died in the fire, and flags were lowered to half-mast. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) also expressed solidarity with Türkiye, declaring a one-day national mourning period and ordering flags to be lowered to half-mast in honor of the victims.
Following the fire, on 30 January 2025, the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye established a 22-member Parliamentary Investigation Commission. The commission’s purpose was to investigate all aspects of the fire, determine the responsibilities of relevant institution and institutions, and identify measures to prevent similar incidents. The commission’s mandate was set for a duration of 3 moon.
The expert report submitted to the Bolu Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office was prepared by academic specialists from Istanbul Technical University. The report contains multi-layered assessments of the fire’s origin, physical spread, intervention process, building techniques, system equipment, and administrative failures.
According to the expert report, the fire originated at approximately 03:16 in the showroom area of the restaurant on the fourth floor of the hotel, caused by a malfunctioning thermostat in a grill plate device. The device was left unattended, leading to excessive heating of the oil in the grease tray, which vaporized and ignited. By 03:24, flames had reached the trash bin, then spread to the LPG hose, and by 03:26, the fire had become uncontrollable. The melting of the LPG flexible hose released gas that ignited rapidly, producing a blast-like spread.
The architectural features of the building were found to have significantly contributed to the fire’s physical spread. Smoke traveled rapidly to upper floors through elevator and stairwell shafts acting as chimneys. The sealing of emergency exits during later renovations created conditions that allowed toxic gases to accumulate inside. The report also noted the absence of required pressurization systems in elevator shafts and the failure of ventilation ducts and smoke extraction systems. The extensive use of wooden interior décor materials and XPS cladding on the exterior façade accelerated the fire’s rapid propagation.
The report details serious deficiencies in the intervention process. It was determined that staff were not trained in fire response, and alarm and evacuation systems failed to activate. Reception staff delayed initiating evacuation, LPG valves were placed in inaccessible areas, and employees opening doors inadvertently facilitated the spread of smoke. The area known as the Beyaz Fox Bar was identified as a secondary fire source due to molten XPS material dripping from the roof.
The report also outlines administrative and institutional failures. It was found that the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the Ministry of Tourism conducted 13 inspections at the hotel between 2008 and 2024, but focused solely on operational quality and failed to adequately address can and goods safety requirements. The Bolu Municipality Fire Department’s 2024 fire compliance report was found to be irregular, with critical deficiencies omitted, and LPG systems and combustible construction materials excluded from evaluation. Evidence was also presented indicating that these reports had been altered at the request of the hotel’s management.
In the expert report, the faults were classified into four categories. First-degree primary faults include the hotel owner and managers, degree, engineer, the fire safety company, and the LPG system responsible parties; second-degree primary faults include the companies that installed and inspected the elevator system, the technical team responsible for the project design and implementation, and the certification company FQC Global AŞ. First-degree secondary faults are the kitchen and reception staff on duty at the time of the fire, while second-degree secondary faults consist of auxiliary technical personnel and lower-level employees involved in the inspection process. The report emphasizes that the incident was “predictable, preventable, and its consequences could have been mitigated,” and that the chain of negligence directly contributed to the fire’s escalation and increased loss of life.
Following the fire, a total of 31 individuals were taken into custody, of whom 28 were arrested. Some of the names among those arrested include:
Occupational safety expert Kübra Demir was released under judicial supervision; architect Selman Çelen, engineer İsmail Haluk İnceler, and expert Ece Kayacan were released after questioning by the public prosecutor. Justice Minister Yılmaz Tunç announced that additional arrest warrants had been issued for six new suspects identified in the expert report, bringing the total number of detainees to 28. Minister Tunç publicly confirmed that the investigation was being conducted thoroughly and comprehensively.
Following the fire, Halit Ergül’s membership in the Bolu Trade and Industry Chamber of Commerce and Industry (TSO) was revoked. According to the TOBB Law, members who fail to attend a majority of meetings lose their organizational positions. Accordingly, the process of removal from membership was carried out.
After the fire, the Grand Kartal Hotel was sealed off and surrounded by a security perimeter under gendarmerie supervision. It was reported that the building’s structural systems had suffered serious damage and that the hotel was classified as “severely damaged.”
The criminal trial concerning the fire that occurred at the Grand Kartal Hotel on 21 January 2025 was initiated on 7 July 2025 at the Bolu First Heavy Criminal Court. Due to insufficient capacity in the courtrooms of the Bolu Courthouse, the hearings are being held in a temporary hall established in the sports hall of Bolu Social Sciences High School. This hall has been equipped with a Sound and Image Information System (SEGBİS), UYAP connectivity, acoustic arrangements, UPS infrastructure, and camera systems. The floor has been covered with carpet, electrical and lighting systems have been renewed, and a generator connection has been installed.
Extensive security measures have been implemented inside and around the hall by law enforcement forces; streets and alleys surrounding the venue have been closed to vehicle traffic. Attendees are admitted only after undergoing a two-stage security check. It has been reported that all hearings are being recorded via the Sound and Image Information System.
According to the indictment prepared by the Bolu Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, the case file includes a total of 32 defendants. Of these, 19 are in custody and 13 are not. The defendants include the owners and managers of the Grand Kartal Hotel, its technical staff; Bolu Municipality administrators and fire department personnel; Bolu Provincial Special Administration officials; employees of FQC Global AŞ, the company that issued the fire safety certification; and LPG installation maintenance personnel.
The identities of the defendants were confirmed during the first hearing on 7 July 2025.
Kartalkaya the 700-seat hearing hall established for the hotel fire case, 28 June 2025 - (Anadolu Agency)
The 98-page indictment prepared and accepted by the court charges Halit Ergül, Emine Murtezaoğlu Ergül, Ceyda Hacıbekiroğlu, and Elif Aras, the owners of the Grand Kartal Hotel; company managers Emir Aras, Zeki Yılmaz, Ahmet Demir, Kadir Özdemir, Cemal Özer, and Mehmet Salun; Bolu Municipal Deputy Mayor Sedat Gülener; Fire Department Deputy Director Kenan Coşkun; and firefighter İrfan Acar with 78 counts each of “manslaughter by possible intent” and “intentional injury by possible intent,” seeking a total prison sentence of 1,998 years for each charge.
For the other 19 defendants—including the hotel’s technical staff, kitchen personnel, LPG system responsible parties, Provincial Special Administration officials, and FQC Global AŞ managers—the prosecution seeks prison sentences of up to 22 years and 6 months per individual for the charge of “causing the death and injury of multiple persons through conscious negligence.”
The indictment provides a detailed account of the fire’s origin and spread. According to the report:
During the first hearing on 7 July 2025, the identities of the defendants were confirmed. The 98-page indictment prepared by the Bolu Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office was read aloud by the court panel. The allegations, the circumstances of the incident, and the technical causes of the fire were recorded in the hearing minutes.
On the first hearing day, before any defenses were presented, the claims of the plaintiffs were heard. The plaintiffs demanded the maximum possible penalties for the defendants. Some plaintiff attorneys claimed they had not received documents included in the case file, but the court panel clarified that all documents were accessible through the UYAP system.
During the second hearing, Deputy General Secretary of the Provincial Special Administration Bünyamin Bal, General Secretary Sırrı Köstereli, and Licensing and Inspection Director Yeliz Erdoğan presented their defenses. Bünyamin Bal stated that his office had no authority to conduct fire inspections and that the Provincial Special Administration’s mandate did not include any provisions related to fire safety.
Sırrı Köstereli asserted that because the Grand Kartal Hotel held a tourism operating license, responsibility for inspections fell under the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Köstereli argued that the “as required” letter sent by the Ministry to the Provincial Special Administration was not legally binding. Yeliz Erdoğan stated that the license issued in 2007 was granted before her tenure, that no structural changes had occurred requiring a new license, and that a fire safety report was missing when the restaurant license was applied for, resulting in its denial.
Accounting Manager Kadir Özdemir explained that decision-making authority regarding technical matters rested with Emir Aras and Halit Ergül, and that his role was limited to accounting procedures. Accounting staff member Cemal Özer stated that he had reported deficiencies identified during a prior fire inspection to the hotel’s general manager, but that these deficiencies were never corrected.
Occupational safety expert Ece Kayacan stated that she held no position at the Grand Kartal Hotel and worked exclusively at the Gazelle Hotel. Kübra Demir also claimed she had conducted only a brief risk analysis at the Grand Kartal Hotel and had not participated in any fire training or drills.
LPG maintenance officer Doğan Aydın stated that he performed maintenance on the hotel’s LPG system between 2014 and 2021 and found no non-compliance during that period. Muharrem Şen claimed he assumed responsibility for maintenance starting in 2022 and performed only routine inspections.
On 9 July 2025, the first defense was presented by Mehmet Salun, deputy accounting manager of the Grand Kartal Hotel. Salun stated that he was present in the hotel during the fire and awoke at 03:33, after which he was hospitalized due to carbon monoxide exposure. He emphasized that his duties were strictly limited to accounting and warehouse procedures and had no involvement in hotel or staff management. He could not recall whether fire training or drills had been conducted and stated that fire inspections were outside his area of responsibility.
On the same day, Grand Kartal Hotel Manager Zeki Yılmaz stated that he had worked at the hotel since 1999 and that although he held the title of “manager,” he had in fact worked as a receptionist. He claimed he had no authority to make decisions regarding hotel operations, expenditures, or correction of technical deficiencies—all such decisions were made by hotel owner Halit Ergül and General Manager Emir Aras. He stated that during the fire he was on the ninth floor, did not hear the alarm, did not know whether the fire alarm panel was functioning, and confirmed that reception staff had not received fire safety training.
Ceyda Hacıbekiroğlu, daughter of hotel owner Halit Ergül and a member of the company’s board of directors, stated that she was staying on the sixth floor with her children and assistant, and escaped by opening a window after noticing smoke. She claimed she joined the board solely due to her father’s recommendation and as a formality, and had no actual involvement in hotel management. She stated she had no knowledge of fire safety, evacuation plans, or alarm systems and only visited the hotel during holiday periods.
Halit Ergül’s other daughter and board member, Elif Aras, argued that she had no involvement in the hotel’s operations, only stayed at the hotel during holiday periods, and that decision-making authority rested solely with her father, Halit Ergül. She stated that she was in her room during the fire, did not hear the fire alarm, did not see any fire buttons, and became aware of the incident only after her husband informed her.
Defendant Emine Murtezaoğlu Ergül, as the wife of hotel owner Halit Ergül, stated that she only visited the hotel during holiday periods and was not involved in its management. She reported that on the night of the incident she noticed smoke in her room, evacuated her children and grandchildren through the window, and learned about the hotel’s fire safety reports only after the fire.
On July 9, 2025, kitchen staff of the Grand Kartal Hotel presented their defense. Chef Enver Öztürk testified that he was staying in the staff storage room on the fourth floor and woke up around 03:35 due to noises. He stated that he exited through the staff emergency exit during the fire and later joined rescue efforts via the stairs. He claimed to have no knowledge of the operating hours or usage status of the electric grill and said he had never received fire safety training and was unaware of the existence of a fire alarm system.
Kitchen staff member Faysal Yaver stated that he had started work as a breakfast assistant one month before the fire and was among the first to notice it. He testified that during morning preparations he saw the fire, went down to the second floor, and exited through the garage door. He denied having turned on the grill, confirmed that he had activated the fixed bain-marie, stated that he did not enter the showroom area where the fire originated, and requested that camera footage regarding the activation of the device be reviewed. He also stated that he had not received fire safety training and that no drills had been conducted.
Öztürk and Yaver both stated that fire extinguishers were present in the kitchen but that there was no plan or organization specifying who should do what during a fire. They claimed there was no sprinkler system and that they had never seen the fire alarm system activated.
During the hearings on July 9, 2025, the court granted additional defense rights to certain defendants in light of the possibility of modifying the charges against them. The court extended to some of the defendants, initially charged with “manslaughter with possible intent” and “manslaughter with possible intent to injure,” the right to also defend themselves against the charge of “causing multiple deaths and injuries through conscious negligence.”
Under this scope:
The court panel explained these additional defense rights concerning the change in charge classification in accordance with criminal procedure regulations. The defendants’ lawyers were also given the opportunity to speak regarding the additional defense process. At the conclusion of the hearings, the court announced that after the completion of the defendants’ defenses, statements from the plaintiffs and evidence requests would be collected. It was also announced that the next hearing would continue in the morning with the defendants’ testimonies.
On July 11, 2025, the cross-examination of Halit Ergül, owner of the Grand Kartal Hotel, was conducted. In his testimony before the court, he stated that he was not practically responsible for the hotel’s management and that daily operations were carried out by the general manager, Emir Aras. Regarding the period before the fire, he claimed he believed the fire safety systems were operational and that he had received no feedback regarding technical deficiencies.
The presiding judge asked the defendant whether the alarm and sprinkler systems in the hotel were functioning; Halit Ergül affirmed that these systems existed and should have been operational, but stated he had no information on whether they had been tested. When asked whether regular fire drills were conducted at the hotel, he could not provide a clear answer. He testified that he had assigned necessary duties to the hotel manager, technical manager, and other staff but had not monitored their implementation.
During cross-examination, questions were also raised regarding the hotel’s operational system. The court panel asked whether there had been any transfer of staff between Gazelle Resort Hotel and the Grand Kartal Hotel. Halit Ergül stated that both hotels belonged to the same family company but operated as separate organizations. He confirmed that maintenance and inspection of the fire safety systems were carried out by external firms.
On July 11 and 12, 2025, relatives of those who lost their lives in the fire testified as plaintiffs. Their statements focused on the origin of the fire, the hotel’s safety measures, evacuation procedures, and operational responsibilities.
Plaintiff Yüksel Gültekin stated that he lost eight close relatives in the fire. Gültekin said that because the fire alarm did not activate, smoke was detected too late, some rooms lacked fire buttons, and emergency exit directions were inadequate. He testified that escape routes were blocked and that those trapped inside were exposed to thick smoke until help arrived.
Plaintiff Hacer Karabıyık stated that her daughter died in the incident and that rescue teams arrived too late to reach the rooms. She argued that the alarm was not heard during the fire and that the hotel was unprepared for emergencies. The plaintiffs’ lawyers raised concerns about the hotel’s inadequate electrical infrastructure and called for an investigation into whether the insurance policies provided sufficient coverage.
Some guests reported that the hotel’s alarm system did not activate during the fire, that the sirens did not sound, and that the reception failed to provide guidance. Guests also stated that no fire safety training was provided at the hotel, that fire extinguishing equipment was not used effectively, and that there was no responsible staff member available to direct people during the incident.
Guests alleged that the hotel owners and managers failed to fulfill their responsibilities regarding fire safety, claiming that no fire drills had been conducted, technical deficiencies had not been addressed, and staff were unaware of fire safety procedures. Additionally, requests were made that certain security camera recordings from the hotel be submitted in full to the court, as some of these recordings were missing.
On 12 July 2025, personnel present at the Grand Kartal Hotel during the fire and several external witnesses were heard. Their testimonies included observations on the course of the incident, the manner in which staff responded, and the functioning of the hotel’s safety systems.
One witness, a kitchen staff member, stated that he was working in the lower floors of the hotel when the fire broke out and quickly encountered thick smoke. He reported that the fire alarm did not sound, evacuation instructions were inadequate, and staff were unprepared to respond to the fire. He also stated that very few people knew the location of fire extinguishers and that no training had been provided.
A witness stationed at the hotel reception reported that the fire alarm system had not functioned, that he attempted to call rooms on different floors by phone but received no responses from many lines. He confirmed that no fire drills had ever been conducted and that some staff did not know the location of fire alarm buttons. He stated that hotel management failed to organize a coordinated evacuation during the fire.
One of the hotel’s technical staff members who testified explained that periodic maintenance had not been performed on the electrical installation, that electric grills in the kitchen had not been inspected for years, and that previous faults had been detected in the circuit breaker panel in the area where the fire started but no repairs had been carried out.
Another witness stated that he had been temporarily assigned to work at the Grand Kartal Hotel from the Gazelle Hotel but had never received a clear job description or any occupational health and safety training. He said that during the fire he took initiative to evacuate some individuals himself and added that he had no knowledge of the hotel’s floor plans or emergency exit points. Witness statements have been entered into the court record as evidence of the chaotic conditions and inadequate response following the fire.
On 12 and 13 July 2025, the plaintiffs’ lawyers and the guests submitted new evidence requests to the court. These included records related to the fire alarm system, footage from security cameras, and documentation concerning technical expert reports.
The plaintiffs’ representatives argued that the existing expert reports on the hotel’s fire alarm system contained incomplete analyses and requested that a technical analysis report confirming the failure of the siren system during the fire be resubmitted to the court. They specifically requested that footage of the corridor areas be examined and that all camera recordings related to the fire’s spread and evacuation efforts be fully included in the case file.
One of the plaintiffs’ lawyers requested that formal inquiries be sent to relevant manufacturers to obtain documentation regarding the production and maintenance history of the electrical devices used at the point of origin. It was also noted that the full texts of inspection reports concerning the LPG system had not been submitted and that some inspection dates were missing from the file; therefore, requests were made to obtain archival records from the relevant companies.
The court panel evaluated most of these requests and decided to issue formal requests to the relevant law enforcement units for the complete versions of the video recordings and to expand the scope of the technical expert reports. At the same time, some of the guests’ applications for intervention were accepted, granting these individuals the right to speak and present evidence during the trial proceedings.
During the hearing on 13 July 2025, motions to lift judicial supervision measures imposed on certain defendants who were not in custody were brought before the court. The defendants’ lawyers argued that their clients had permanent residences, posed no risk of evidence tampering, and had consistently participated in the judicial process, and therefore requested that the judicial supervision conditions be lifted.
The court panel decided to maintain the travel ban and signature obligation imposed on Halit Ergül’s daughters, Ceyda Hacıbekiroğlu and Elif Aras, and his wife, Emine Murtezaoğlu Ergül. The court assessed that these individuals were present in the hotel during the fire, held positions within the company’s management, and had been mentioned in several witness statements, thereby concluding that the risk of evidence obstruction remained during the investigation and prosecution process.
In addition, similar judicial control orders have been issued for certain defendants among the officials of FQC Global AŞ, who are alleged to bear technical responsibility for the hotel’s fire safety. The court, considering the current evidence and witness statements, found it inappropriate to lift the judicial control measures. These decisions have been recorded in the trial minutes and formally notified in writing to the defendants’ attorneys.
On 17 July 2025, the Bolu 1st Heavy Criminal Court issued its interim decision. The court ruled to detain firefighter defendant İrfan Acar, who was under judicial control and house arrest, and to release the detained kitchen staff defendant Faysal Yaver under judicial control with a travel ban. The court upheld the detention status of all other detained defendants. Meanwhile, requests for the detention of certain non-detained defendants were rejected.
The house arrest orders against Ibrahim Polat and İsmail Karagöz of Mudurnu Energy Industry and Trade AŞ, Ali Ağaoğlu, manager of FQC Global Certification AŞ, and receptionist Yiğithan Burak Çetin have been extended. The requests for the detention of Doğan Aydın, the LPG system maintenance officer, and Kübra Demir, the occupational safety expert, were not accepted.
The court rejected requests by some plaintiff attorneys to hear the Minister of Culture and Tourism and certain senior officials as witnesses, on the grounds that their testimony would not add anything new to the substance of the case. For the same reason, requests to hear officials from the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and the Provincial Special Administration as witnesses were also rejected. The court decided to evaluate official correspondence with these institutions during the hearings.
The court also examined the request to obtain the Grand Kartal Hotel’s board of directors’ decision register, occupational health and safety register, and inspection logs. Additionally, the court ordered investigations into whether AFAD and fire units intervened in the hotel’s electrical system during the fire, the examination of hard drives containing security camera footage to determine whether any tampering occurred, and the technical analysis of discrepancies in camera timestamps.
The court accepted the requests to examine the mobile phone HTS records of detained defendants Halit Ergül and Emine Murtezaoğlu Ergül, Elif Aras, and Ceyda Hacıbekiroğlu, and to include Ceyda Hacıbekiroğlu’s employment documents in the case file. Furthermore, the court decided to consider the request that, if investigative permission is granted by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, any resulting cases be merged with the current file.
Families of those who lost loved ones in the Kartalkaya fire wait outside the courtroom, 27 October 2025 – (Anadolu Agency)
The third hearing in the Grand Kartal Hotel fire case began on 27 October 2025 at the Bolu Social Sciences High School Sports Hall. In the case heard by the Bolu 1st Heavy Criminal Court, 32 defendants were tried: 20 were detained and 12 were not detained. The defendants include the hotel owner Halit Ergül, company executives, municipal and fire department officials, and technical personnel.
The hearing was attended by defendants, plaintiffs, lawyers, families of those who lost their lives in the fire, and media representatives. Law enforcement agencies implemented extensive security measures inside and around the venue, and streets and alleys surrounding the hearing location were closed to traffic.
The hearings were recorded via the Audio and Video Information System (SEGBİS). It was decided that during the third hearing, the parties would present their defenses regarding the substance of the case. The hearing was conducted to move into the “substantive defenses” phase following the statements made in the previous two sessions and the public prosecutor’s opinion.
Before the third hearing in the Grand Kartal Hotel fire case, the public prosecutor submitted a 21-page opinion on the substance of the case. The opinion was read during the second hearing on 22 September 2025.
In the opinion prepared by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the following detained defendants—hotel owner Halit Ergül, company general manager Emir Aras, general manager of Gazelle Hotel Ahmet Demir, and hotel accounting manager Kadir Özdemir—were charged with 78 counts of “manslaughter by probable intent,” each carrying a sentence of 1950 years, as well as 178 years and 582 months imprisonment each for the charges of “intentional injury by probable intent” and “qualified damage to property by probable intent.”
For Deputy Mayor Sedat Gülener and Acting Fire Chief Kenan Coşkun, the same charges were proposed with sentences of 1950 years and 176 years 570 months each. For firefighter İrfan Acar, the requested sentence was 1950 years and 172 years 546 months imprisonment.
The opinion also requested that company board members Emine Murtezaoğlu Ergül, Ceyda Hacıbekiroğlu, and Elif Aras, along with hotel manager Zeki Yılmaz and accounting staff Cemal Özer and Mehmet Salun, be sentenced to up to 22 years and 6 months imprisonment for the charge of “causing the death and injury of multiple persons through conscious negligence.”
In addition, technical staff Tahsin Pekcan, Hüseyin Özer and Bayram Ütkü, kitchen staff Faysal Yaver and Reşat Bölük, occupational safety experts Kübra Demir and Ece Kayacan, receptionist Yiğithan Burak Çetin, officials from Mudurnu Energy Industry and Trade Inc. İbrahim Polat and İsmail Karagöz, FQC Global Certification Inc. official Ali Ağaoğlu and employee Aleyna Beşinci, and LPG installation maintenance personnel Doğan Aydın and Muharrem Şen have also been charged with the same offense and face prison sentences of up to 22 years and six months each.
For İl Özel İdaresi General Secretary Sırrı Köstereli, Deputy General Secretary Bünyamin Bal, Licensing and Inspection Director Yeliz Erdoğan, and former director Mehmet Özel, prison sentences ranging from two to fifteen years each have been requested on charges of causing the death and injury of multiple persons through negligence. The non-detained defendant Enver Öztürk has had his acquittal requested.
Following the reading of the prosecution’s opinion, the court decided to detain accountant Mehmet Salun and to maintain the current status of the other detained defendants. Judicial supervision conditions, including a prohibition on leaving their residences, have been imposed on some defendants, and those who declared their intention to compensate for the damage have been granted a period of 15 days.
The third hearing of the case commenced on 27 October 2025. It was held in a specially designated hall within the sports arena of Bolu Social Sciences High School, convened by the Bolu First Heavy Criminal Court. The hearing was attended by detained and non-detained defendants, individuals injured in the fire, families of those who lost their lives, and legal representatives of all parties. As the detained defendants were brought into the hall, some plaintiffs expressed reactions. Extensive security measures were implemented inside and around the venue, and streets surrounding the premises were closed to vehicle traffic.
The hearing, recorded via the Audio and Visual Information System (SEGBİS), was expected to feature statements from all parties regarding the core issues of the case.
Before the hearing, Abdurrahman Gençbay, President of the 9th Chamber of the Council of State and father of Yiğit Gençbay, who lost his life in the fire, addressed journalists with the following statement: “After a long and arduous investigation process, we have now entered another lengthy judicial phase. Throughout this time, we have witnessed a fair and impartial trial conducted in full view of the public. We have now reached the decision stage. Today, plaintiffs, their lawyers, defendants and defense attorneys will deliver their final remarks on the prosecution’s opinion, after which justice will be rendered.”
Gençbay continued his statement with these words: “We believe that after this decision is rendered, mothers will not have to seek justice in the afterlife—we will see justice realized in this world. This is our hope after the intense judicial process. We are fully confident that the impartial and fair trial conducted throughout the proceedings will continue into this final decision stage and that a verdict will be issued that meets the expectations of the entire public.”
Gençbay also referred to a Council of State ruling concerning public officials, stating: “Our prosecution’s objection to the Ministry of Tourism’s decision not to grant investigative authorization was reviewed by the Council of State. Our First Chamber granted investigative authorization for all public officials except the deputy minister and forwarded the file to the Bolu Public Prosecutor’s Office.”
On the same day, plaintiff Figen Ergin stated: “We will not let this go. We hope those responsible will face punishment. We place our trust in justice.” Nalan Küçükler, sister of Nergis Yıldız, who lost her life in the fire, said: “In the end, those who have passed cannot return. We hope for a very positive outcome. The judge’s decisions are of great importance. We pray that, on behalf of all of us and the 78 lives lost, a just and favorable outcome will be reached.”
Bolu Bar Association President Sinan Barut noted that during the previous hearing, the prosecution presented its opinion on the merits of the case, and that today’s session would feature responses from all parties to that opinion. Barut added: “There is also a request to consolidate the case with the officials who were granted investigative authorization. Whether or not consolidation occurs, and whether a decision will be issued, rests with the judge’s discretion.”
During the first session of the hearing, the parties presented their statements on the merits of the case. The prosecutor confirmed that they were reiterating the opinion submitted during the first session. Plaintiffs’ lawyers demanded that the defendants be convicted under the charge of “possible intent.”
The second day of the third hearing took place on 28 October 2025 and continued at the Bolu Social Sciences High School Sports Hall.
Before the hearing, Zeynep Kotan, who lost her son Ömür Kotan in the fire, addressed journalists. She stated that they had objected to the prosecution’s opinion, saying: “While the indictment requested ‘possible intent’ for 13 individuals, the prosecution’s opinion reduced this number to seven and reclassified the charges against Hotel Deputy Chairperson Emine Murtezaoğlu Ergül, Elif Aras and Ceyda Hacıbekiroğlu from ‘possible intent’ to ‘conscious negligence.’” Kotan emphasized the ongoing impact of the incident, saying: “We are still living the night of 21 January. We are still walking the corridors of that hotel.”
Uğurtan Doğan, who lost his son Mert Doğan, his daughter-in-law, and his two grandchildren in the fire, emphasized that they were seeking justice, not revenge, and stated that the charge of “conscious negligence” had deeply wounded them.
Doğan said: “We demand that all defendants be judged and convicted under the charge of ‘possible intent.’ This will leave a deep wound in our hearts, but most importantly, it will serve as a precedent in Türkiye, acting as a powerful deterrent against such irresponsibility.” Sıdıka Ersin Doğan, a family member who lost loved ones in the fire, said: “It deeply hurts us when people we believe are guilty defend themselves and claim innocence.” Doğan also remarked: “A mother who exits with her child’s coat buttoned up could at least shout ‘There is a fire.’”
Ahmet Altın, stating that he lost his daughter-in-law Kübra and his 11-year-old granddaughter Alya in the fire, said: “Our children died once. We die every morning, noon, evening, night, and through the long nights.” Hilmi Altın stated: “Everyone who turned a blind eye to the opening and continued operation of this hotel is complicit.” Gülüzar Sarıtaş fainted during the hearing and was attended to by medical personnel.
In the later part of the hearing, the defendants’ statements were heard. The detained defendant Halit Ergül repeated his previous defense; Emine Murtezaoğlu Ergül, Ceyda Hacıbekiroğlu, and Elif Aras stated they had no authority and were present at the hotel only for vacation purposes, and requested acquittal and release. Firefighter İrfan Acar said: “If the real culprits are being tried, then I have done my job well.” Deputy Mayor Sedat Gülener stated: “While we are being tried for possible intent, the failure to close the facility by those responsible is a misdirection of the target.”
Deputy Fire Chief Kenan Coşkun defended himself by saying: “I did not speak to anyone regarding the cancellation incident. There is no evidence on this matter.” The defendants’ lawyers requested the release and acquittal of their clients, and asked that any favorable points be applied if the panel ruled otherwise. During the hearing, victims and their lawyers occasionally reacted to the defendants and their defenders. The session was adjourned by the court panel’s decision until the morning of 30 October 2025.
The third day of the hearing began on 30 October 2025 and continued until 31 October 2025. In addition to the detained and non-detained defendants, injured survivors, families of those who lost their lives, defendant relatives, and legal representatives participated in the hearing. During the first two days of the hearing, 20 victims and 18 defendants gave statements. On the third day, the proceedings continued with the defendants’ defenses against the prosecution’s main arguments.
The detained defendant Zeki Yılmaz decided not to deliver an oral defense to avoid further distressing the victims and submitted his written statement to the court. Emir Aras said he first learned of the fire compliance certificate on 16 December 2024, adding: “I never said fire inspections should not be conducted.” Aras stated he informed hotel owner Halit Ergül of the deficiencies in the fire inspection, and that Ergül replied: “If you can withdraw it, do so,” and added: “I was never given any instruction to withdraw.”
He also stated: “If I had foreseen this danger, I would never have stayed in the hotel with my wife and child. I did not do anything knowingly or intentionally.”
The detained board member Ceyda Hacıbekiroğlu claimed she left the hotel with the help of a customer she did not know, argued she had no authority or responsibility regarding its operations, and requested her release and acquittal. Elif Aras declared she had no authority within the company and was present at the hotel solely for vacation purposes. Emine Murtezaoğlu Ergül said: “Unfounded reports about me have appeared in the media. Neither I nor my daughters had any official duties. I lack the technical knowledge to identify any deficiencies. I request acquittal and release.”
Halit Ergül repeated his previous defense and left the decision on his release to the court’s discretion. The detained firefighter İrfan Acar said: “I conducted the inspection within the scope of my directorate’s authority. I inspected every area, identified the deficiencies, and granted 15 days for them to be rectified.”
Acar added: “It cannot be expected that I report a report that was never prepared. I performed my duty properly. If the real culprits are being tried, then I have done my job well.” The detained defendant Sedat Gülener stated: “The inspection was not canceled; the fire compliance report was simply abandoned.” Kenan Coşkun explained: “I did not speak to anyone regarding the cancellation incident. In nine months, my statement has contained no contradiction. The cancellation procedure in the petition is in accordance with the law.”
During the hearing, victim family member Uğurtan Doğan, in a statement to the press, claimed that his relatives were killed because board member Ceyda Hacıbekiroğlu conducted a marketing event at a school. Doğan said: “Ceyda Hacıbekiroğlu had previously organized similar events. In October, that is, four months before this massacre, another promotional event was held at the school involving some students and parents.”
Rıfat Doğan, who lost his wife Ceren Yaman Doğan and 16-year-old daughter Lalin Doğan, said: “When Elif Aras and Emir Aras left the hotel, my wife and daughter were asleep in their room. They were not awakened in any way. Unfortunately, these people are evil from beginning to end.” The defendants’ lawyers requested additional time for supplementary defenses and reiterated their clients’ requests for release.
The fourth day of the hearing took place on 31 October 2025. The defendants were granted the right to supplementary defense based on charges of “intentional homicide against a child or a person unable to defend themselves due to physical or mental condition, or a woman,” as well as “negligent homicide” and “aggravated injury resulting in death.”
The detained defendant Emine Murtezaoğlu Ergül stated in her supplementary defense: “I am deeply sorry, I am repeating my previous defense. That night, fate took its course. I have nothing further to add.” The detained defendant Halit Ergül also reiterated his previous defense, saying: “I made no structural changes to this rented hotel that would increase the fire risk. I cannot possibly know all the employees, and in fact, I met some of them here for the first time.”
Ergül claimed that “the hotel’s LPG installation had not been inspected, which is why the fire spread.” She further stated: “The institution responsible for monitoring safety of life and property is the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. I was not informed of the deficiencies despite their existence. After the fire, many hotels were closed. It is impossible for me to have seen the deficiencies that they failed to observe during their inspections. I wish they had closed me down too, so this incident would not have occurred. I wish I had foreseen it and closed the hotel myself.”
Ergül said: “I would never have mixed my family with the business. My husband, daughters, and grandchildren came to the hotel for holidays and festivals. I learned of the deficiencies only from the indictment. I never imagined this could become a large-scale incident. I could not have foreseen this event; had I been able to, I would not have allowed guests, my family, or staff to remain there. I felt safe because nothing like this had happened in 25 years. I am deeply sorry; may God spare anyone from such a fate.” It was reported that some victims expressed reactions during the defendants’ defenses.
The lawyers of the detained defendants Emine Murtezaoğlu Ergül, Halit Ergül, and Bolu Deputy Mayor Sedat Gülener declared that they did not accept the charges and demanded the release and acquittal of their clients. The public prosecutor requested the rejection of the defendants’ and their lawyers’ request to expand the indictment.
Lawyer Yüksel Gültekin, who lost eight close relatives in the fire, requested that a video in which defendant Emine Murtezaoğlu Ergül made statements regarding her professional life be shown in court. The court panel decided to reject the request, noting that the video was already in the case file. After rejecting the request to expand the indictment, the panel adjourned the hearing until 14:00 to announce its decision.
During the adjournment, lawyer Yüksel Gültekin stated: “This case concerns accountability for 78 lives and must serve as an example to Türkiye, and we expect a fair verdict.” In the same statement, Gültekin said: “A fair verdict cannot be reached through haste or a mindset of prioritizing property over lives,” and added: “If, regarding Emine (Murtezaoğlu Ergül) and her daughters and this staff, anything other than possible intent is concluded, and if justice is not served, the end of the world will come.”
Gültekin also commented on the investigations into personnel of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism: “On Monday, I will file a petition with the Bolu Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office on this matter and renew my demands.” He emphasized that “the ruling will not be a simple one” and stated that “we expect a just outcome in a case closely followed by public opinion.”
On 31 October 2025, the court panel sentenced hotel owner Halit Ergül, general manager Emir Aras, board members of the company Emine Murtezaoğlu Ergül, Elif Aras, and Ceyda Hacıbekiroğlu, hotel manager Zeki Yılmaz, Gazelle Hotel General Manager Ahmet Demir, hotel accounting manager Kadir Özdemir, Bolu Deputy Mayor Sedat Gülener, Acting Fire Chief Kenan Coşkun, and firefighter İrfan Acar to 34 life sentences each for the crime of “murder with possible intent” against 34 children.
Additionally, 11 defendants received 24 years and 11 months each for the crime of “murder with possible intent” in relation to the 44 adult victims who lost their lives in the fire, and 3 years and 12 months each for the crime of “qualifying damage to property with possible intent involving multiple persons.” The court also imposed prison sentences on the 11 defendants for the following offenses: “aggravated injury with possible intent resulting in death,” “aggravated injury with possible intent against a person unable to defend themselves physically or mentally,” “injury with possible intent,” “injury with possible intent against a person unable to defend themselves physically or mentally,” “simple injury with possible intent,” “simple injury with possible intent against a woman,” “simple injury with possible intent against a person unable to defend themselves physically or mentally,” and “simple injury with possible intent against a woman (girl child) unable to defend herself physically or mentally.”
From these offenses, Halit Ergül, Emir Aras, Emine Murtezaoğlu Ergül, Elif Aras, Ceyda Hacıbekiroğlu, Zeki Yılmaz, and Ahmet Demir were each sentenced to a total of 41 years, 721 months, and 600 days; Kadir Özdemir, Sedat Gülener, and Kenan Coşkun to 41 years, 708 months, and 590 days each; and İrfan Acar to 41 years, 679 months, and 560 days.
The panel sentenced accounting staff member Cemal Özer and Mehmet Salun to 22 years and 3 months each for “causing the death and injury of multiple persons through conscious negligence”; engineers Doğan Aydın and Muharrem Şen, responsible for LPG installation maintenance, and occupational safety expert Kübra Demir to 21 years, 4 months, and 15 days each; kitchen staff Reşat Bölük, technical staff chief Tahsin Pekcan, technical staff Hüseyin Özer, certification company representative Ali Ağaoğlu and employee Aleyna Beşinci, Mudurnu Energy Industry and Trade Joint Stock Company officials İbrahim Polat and İsmail Karagöz, General Secretary of the Bolu Provincial Special Administration Sırrı Köstereli, Deputy General Secretary Bünyamin Bal, former Bolu Provincial Special Administration Licensing and Inspection Director Mehmet Özel, and Licensing and Inspection Director Yeliz Erdoğan to 21 years each; and technical staff member Bayram Ütkü to 18 years.
The panel sentenced reception officer Yiğithan Burak Çetin to 12 years for “causing the death and injury of multiple persons through negligence,” and acquitted kitchen staff Faysal Yaver and Enver Öztürk and occupational safety expert Ece Kayacan.
The panel, which does not apply “discretionary reduction” in prison sentences, decided to maintain the detention of the accused, the arrest of İbrahim Polat and İsmail Karagöz, the judicial control measure prohibiting Doğan Aydın from leaving his residence, and the continuation of other judicial control conditions applied to certain defendants.
The 406-page reasoned decision dated 8 December 2025 prepared by the Bolu 1st Heavy Criminal Court includes testimonies from the prosecution, defendants, complainants, and witnesses; expert reports; incident and fire department reports; camera footage; and other documentation. The decision states that although the hotel managers were among the first to learn of the fire on the day of the incident, they failed to inform those remaining in the hotel or take any action to evacuate them, and instead left the hotel without alerting anyone to the fire.
The decision emphasizes that deficiencies in the hotel’s fire suppression systems, faulty staircases and elevators, and inadequate gas ventilation systems, when combined with staff who had received no fire safety training, resulted in the critical initial minutes of the fire being wasted, thereby exacerbating the scale of the disaster. The decision includes the following statements: “It has been established that the defendants have been engaged in tourism and hotel operations for years and have described themselves as having been trained from the core, that they are educated in tourism, have been continuously involved in company management, and all hold influential positions in management. As indicated in certain witness and complainant testimonies accepted by our court, management’s directive to ‘do not inform guests, awaken staff, and extinguish the fire’ is corroborated by HTS and camera recordings, which show that hotel staff were aware of the fire from its earliest moments and that staff stationed on various floors of the hotel managed to escape. This indicates that the directive was not used to utilize the ‘golden time’ during the fire to rescue the guests staying in the hotel.”
The Public Prosecution Office of the Court of Cassation, the Bolu Public Prosecution Office, and several complainants have petitioned the Council of State to deny investigative authorization against Nadir Alpaslan, Deputy Minister of Culture and Tourism; Neşe Çıldık, Director General of Investments and Operations; Şennur Aldemir Doğan, former Director General; and other bureaucrats and personnel from the ministry and directorate, including Levent Kırcan, Elçin Şimşek Öncü, Bülent Çınar Çavuş, Ramazan Alkan, Melda Araz, Şule Aktürk Alkan, Barış Başayvaz, Ezgi Dener, and Abdülkadir Eren.
On 26 September 2025, the First Chamber of the Council of State ruled that the alleged acts of Neşe Çıldık, Şennur Aldemir Doğan, Bülent Çınar Çavuş, Elçin Şimşek Öncü, Levent Kırcan, Ramazan Alkan, Melda Araz, Şule Aktürk Alkan, and Barış Başayvaz warranted investigation and granted investigative authorization for these individuals. The Chamber, however, declined to grant investigative authorization regarding Nadir Alpaslan, Ezgi Dener, and Abdülkadir Eren.
The Bolu Public Prosecution Office, within the scope of its investigation into the fire for the crime of “causing death and injury through negligence,” summoned officials from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism to testify. Via the Audio and Visual Information System (SEGBİS), Neşe Çıldık, Şennur Aldemir Doğan, Levent Kırcan, Elçin Şimşek Öncü, Bülent Çınar Çavuş, Ramazan Alkan, Melda Araz, Şule Aktürk Alkan, and Barış Başayvaz provided testimony on 28 November and 1–2 December 2025. Following their testimonies, judicial control orders prohibiting these nine defendants from leaving the country were issued by the peace criminal courts to which they were referred.
The Bolu Public Prosecution Office has requested the annulment of the prison sentences imposed on ten defendants and the acquittals granted to two defendants in the fire-related case. The prosecution has demanded that Emine Murtezaoğlu Ergül, Ceyda Hacıbekiroğlu, and Elif Aras, who were sentenced for “intentional homicide and injury,” as well as Zeki Yılmaz, and the acquitted defendants Faysal Yaver and Ece Kayacan, be convicted of “causing the death and injury of multiple persons through conscious negligence.”
The prosecution has also requested that the defendants Ali Ağaoğlu, Aleyna Beşinci, Sırrı Köstereli, Bünyamin Bal, Mehmet Özel, and Yeliz Erdoğan, who were sentenced for “causing the death and injury of multiple persons through conscious negligence,” be re-sentenced for “causing the death and injury of multiple persons through negligence.”
No Discussion Added Yet
Start discussion for "Kartalkaya Hotel Fire (2025)" article
Origin and Spread of the Fire
Deaths and Injuries
Firefighting and Suppression Efforts
National Days of Mourning
TBMM Parliamentary Investigation Commission
Expert Report
Investigation and Arrests
Corporate and Administrative Consequences
Bolu TSO Membership
Legal Status of the Hotel and Safety Measures
Commencement of Legal Proceedings
Initiation of Trial and Court Arrangements
Defendants in the Case
Scope of the Indictment and Charges
Hearings and Defendant Defenses
Identity Verification and Reading of the Indictment (7 July 2025)
Defenses of Provincial Special Administration and Municipal Authorities (8 July 2025)
Defenses of Hotel Managers, Technical Staff, and Occupational Safety Experts (8 July 2025)
Defenses of LPG System Personnel (8 July 2025)
Defenses of Hotel Manager and Deputy Accounting Manager (9 July 2025)
Statements of the Company Board Members (Ergül Family) (9 July 2025)
Defense Statements of Kitchen Staff Regarding the Fire (July 9, 2025)
Additional Defense Rights Granted by the Court Regarding Charges
Cross-Examination of Hotel Owner Halit Ergül
Statements from Plaintiffs
Testimony of Witnesses
New Evidence and Requests Submitted to the Court
Rejection of Appeals Against Judicial Supervision Orders
Interim Decision in the Grand Kartal Hotel Fire Case (17 July 2025)
Rejected Witness Requests and New Evidence Examination Decisions
Third Hearing in the Grand Kartal Hotel Fire Case (27–31 October 2025)
Previous Stages of the Case and the Opinion Process
First Day of the Third Hearing (27 October 2025)
Second Day (28 October 2025) – Defendant Statements and Plaintiff Testimonies
Third Day (30 October 2025) – Testimonies and Continuation of Defendant Statements
Fourth Day (31 October 2025) – Supplementary Defenses and Interim Rulings
Verdict Stage