10.12.2025 19:00
The Constitutional Court issued a violation decision due to the rejection of the applicant's appeal by the local courts, who argued against the traffic fine by stating, "I was not driving the vehicle," and requested the examination of the "MOBESE record and the hearing of witnesses." The Supreme Court noted that "it has been understood that the presumption automatically rendered the applicant guilty in the specific case due to the fact that the objections were not even considered by the judiciary."
A person who was fined a total of 5,489 TL for violating traffic rules in Denizli is facing the temporary revocation of their driver's license for two years on the grounds of refusing to blow into a breathalyzer.
APPEALED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT AFTER REJECTION The individual, who claimed during the incident that "he was not driving the vehicle, that the driver who fled from the police was someone else, and that he was sitting in the back seat of the vehicle," appealed the fine by requesting "the examination of the MOBESE records and the hearing of witnesses." The applicant, who stated that their requests were not taken into account and sought the cancellation of the fines, had their appeal rejected by the Denizli 1st Criminal Court of Peace. The individual's appeal against the rejection was also dismissed by the Denizli 2nd Criminal Court of Peace, leading them to file an individual application to the Constitutional Court.
VIOLATION OF "EQUALITY OF ARMS" IN TRAFFIC FINE TRIAL The Constitutional Court ruled that the applicant's rights to a fair trial, specifically the "equality of arms and adversarial trial principles," were violated, and sent the decision back to the Denizli 1st Criminal Court of Peace for retrial. In the reasoned decision of the Supreme Court, it was criticized that the claims and evidence requests put forward by the applicant were not taken into account by the court. The reasoning emphasized that the court was expected to consider the applicant's claims and objections, respond to them with relevant and sufficient justification, and demonstrate that it provided adequate opportunity for these claims. It was stated, "In a trial regarding an accusation of a crime, to avoid violating the right to a fair trial, the presumption should not automatically declare the person guilty, and in this context, the presumption must be capable of being disproven, and it must be shown that the explanations and evidence presented by the applicant in an effort to disprove the presumption were carefully considered by the court."
"THE PRESUMPTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS CAN BE DISPROVEN" In the concrete case, it was noted that the court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the applicant had committed the administrative offenses based on the report prepared by the law enforcement officers, and that the appeal against this decision was also rejected. It was recorded: "In this concrete case, the action attributed to the applicant was substantiated solely based on the Incident Report prepared by law enforcement officers. The court emphasized that the applicant's objections were abstract in nature and that no sufficient and valid documents were presented contrary to this document."
The applicant claimed that they were not in the position of the driver under Law No. 2918 at the time of the incident, and requested that camera recordings be obtained and that other individuals in the vehicle be heard as witnesses to substantiate their objections. The presumption of the validity of the report prepared by public officials can be disproven, and the applicant argued that they were not driving the car at the time, thus not being in the position of the driver as defined by the relevant fines. It was assessed that the claims made by the applicant and their requests for the collection of evidence regarding this matter were of a nature that would cast doubt on the authenticity and credibility of the report and would require a clear response from the court. In this context, it was observed that the court did not take any steps to eliminate the doubts arising regarding the circumstances of the incident by hearing the signatories of the report, and if available, evaluating the camera recordings.
As a result, although the presumption of the validity of the report prepared by public officials can be disproven, it was understood that the manner of its application in the concrete case automatically rendered the applicant guilty due to the court's failure to even consider the claims and objections put forward by the applicant.
"THE COURT'S APPROACH GIVING PREFERENCE TO THE REPORT PREPARED BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS..." Although the applicant was given the opportunity to defend themselves, the court's approach of giving preference to the report prepared by public officials rendered the applicant's defense meaningless and placed them at a disadvantage against the public authority. In this situation, it was concluded that the failure to consider the applicant's objections based on the presumption of the validity of the reports prepared by public officials -given that the applicant's defenses were not examined at all- violated the principles of equality of arms and adversarial trial. For the reasons stated, it must be decided that the principles of equality of arms and adversarial trial, guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution, were violated.