02.11.2026 16:00
In İzmir, a 5,662 TL pedestrian crossing fine issued to 58-year-old taxi driver Erhan Şen, who has 40 years of experience, based on a report by an honorary traffic inspector, was annulled by the İzmir 8th Criminal Court of Peace. The court stated that no documents or photographs other than the report were submitted and that no definitive and convincing evidence of the violation could be obtained. His lawyer daughter Emine Şen Ümit, who filed the lawsuit, said the decision set a precedent.
In IZMIR, taxi driver Erhan Şen (58) had a fine of 5,662 TL imposed based on a report by an honorary inspector for a pedestrian crossing violation; the fine was canceled in the lawsuit filed, on the grounds that there was no concrete evidence. Şen's daughter and lawyer Emine Şen Ümit said, 'There is a pedestrian crossing violation in the file. However, regarding the pedestrian crossing violation, there is no concrete evidence such as the location and time of the incident, the pedestrian's position, and also a photograph, video recording, or MOBESE footage showing that the violation occurred. The file contains only the honorary inspector's abstract statements.'
Buca Zübeyde Hanım Taxi Stand President, married father of three daughters Erhan Şen, noticed last August when he checked his e-Government account that a traffic fine had been imposed on his taxi with license plate 35 T 5525. When 40-year taxi driver Erhan Şen examined the penalty article, he saw that he had been fined 5,662 TL in accordance with the honorary inspector's report on the grounds that he violated Article 74/A of the Highway Traffic Law (KTK), which regulates that 'when approaching intersections that do not have an officer or traffic light but are marked with signs or plates, drivers must slow down and, by stopping, give the right of way to pedestrians passing or about to pass there,' by passing through a pedestrian crossing on Özmen Avenue in Uğur Mumcu Neighborhood.
COURT: NO DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE
Erhan Şen, stating that he did not commit a rule violation, filed a lawsuit through his lawyer daughter Emine Şen Ümit at İzmir 8th Criminal Court of Peace for the cancellation of the fine. The case concluded on October 19. The court judge ruled for the cancellation of the fine on the grounds that, apart from the traffic rule violation detection report, no evidence other than the report serving as the basis for the administrative sanction decision by the honorary traffic inspector was submitted, there was no document or photograph, it was not specified how and in what manner the rule violation was committed, no precise and convincing evidence free from all doubt that the offense was committed could be reached, and therefore the administrative sanction decisions issued against the objector were understood to be unlawful.
HE HAD PAID THE FINE, BUT IT WAS OVERTURNED BY THE JUDICIARY
Taxi driver Erhan Şen said, 'When I examined the penalty article, a fine had been imposed on the grounds that I did not give priority to pedestrians at the pedestrian crossing. However, I have completed 40 years in the profession. I have never failed to give pedestrians the right of way at a pedestrian crossing. I would not do so either. I told the matter to my lawyer daughter. My lawyer daughter said, 'Dad, let's object immediately.' But meanwhile I had also paid the fine. What really moved me was that my lawyer is my daughter, whom I raised and educated with the money I earned from the taxi profession for 40 years. Today she stands up for her father. Of course, I am very happy. I have my own daughters and my wife. Would I make such a mistake? We won the case. I think it will set a precedent. I also heard that the honorary inspector imposed fines on many colleagues in the same area for this issue. An unjustly imposed fine came back from law, from the judiciary.'
LAWYER DAUGHTER: A PRECEDENT DECISION
Lawyer Emine Şen Ümit said, 'When my father came to me with this fine, I examined the file. There is a pedestrian crossing violation in the file. However, in the pedestrian crossing violation, there is no concrete evidence such as the location and time of the incident, the pedestrian's position, and also a photograph, video recording, or MOBESE footage showing that the violation occurred. The file contains only the honorary inspector's abstract statements. As a result of our objections, the court canceled the fine because there was no concrete evidence free from doubt. This is also a precedent decision. I think it is a good decision that relies on citizens' freedom to seek rights and also touches on the obligation of honorary inspectors to show concrete evidence when exercising their powers. Citizens should not think, 'I have to pay this,' when a fine is imposed. They should definitely seek their rights to the end,' she said.