The Constitutional Court (AYM) annulled the provision in Article 26/f.5 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918, which stipulated that “if the driver is not the owner of the vehicle and unauthorized use of flashing lights or audible warning devices (flashing lights) in the vehicle, the owner shall also be subject to the same amount of administrative fine.”
In summary, the annulment request made by the Tokat 2nd Magistrates’ Court through an appeal stated that; The contested rule stipulates that if a driver installs and/or uses flashing lights and/or audible warning devices on a vehicle not permitted by law, and is not also the vehicle owner, a penalty notice of the same amount will be issued to the vehicle’s registration plate without any assessment of whether the vehicle owner is at fault for the offence. It is argued that this situation will lead to sanctions being applied to the vehicle owner for an act they did not commit, and that this aspect of the rule is incompatible with the principles of the individuality of penalties and the rule of law, thus violating Articles 2 and 38 of the Constitution.
In its assessment, the Constitutional Court emphasized the principle of the individuality of criminal responsibility, stating that a person can only be held responsible for their own culpable act, that for a person to be penalized, the unlawful act must be specified in the law and it must be proven that the person committed the act, and that the provision in question does not clearly indicate which act constitutes a crime. The Constitutional Court’s decision to annul the provision imposing a fine on the owner of a vehicle using unauthorized flashing lights is as follows:
Constitutional Court, Merits No: 2025/122, Decision No: 2025/185;
“…8. The rule of law, as stated in Article 2 of the Constitution, is a state whose actions and procedures are in accordance with the law, respectful of human rights, protecting and strengthening these rights and freedoms, establishing and developing a fair legal order in all areas, ensuring legal security, avoiding situations and attitudes contrary to the Constitution, considering itself bound by the rules of law, and being open to judicial review.
9. The principles of certainty and predictability of the rule of law necessitate that the law clearly and arbitrarily regulates which behavior is prohibited and subject to sanctions in the regulation of legal rules, and serves the principle of legal security. Punishing someone for a result that could not be objectively foreseen or prevented in the circumstances of the event to which the rule will be applied, or for an act for which no fault can be attributed, would be contrary to the principles of certainty and predictability; it could open the door to arbitrariness and eliminate legal security.
10. The first paragraph of Article 38 of the Constitution states that “No one shall be punished for an act which was not considered a crime by the law in force at the time it was committed; The principle of legality of crime is guaranteed by stating that “no one can be given a heavier punishment than that prescribed by law for the crime committed at the time of the crime”; and in the third paragraph, the principle of legality of punishment is guaranteed by stating that “Penalties and security measures replacing penalties can only be imposed by law”.
11. In accordance with the principle of legality in crime and punishment, which is included in the aforementioned article of the Constitution, it is necessary to show in the law, in a clear, understandable and clearly defined manner, which acts are prohibited and the penalties to be given for these prohibited acts, leaving no room for doubt. This principle, which is based on the idea that individuals should have the opportunity to regulate their behavior by knowing in advance the acts prohibited by the penal norm, aims to guarantee fundamental rights and freedoms (Constitutional Court, E.2020/16, K.2020/33, 25/6/2020, § 15).
12. In the seventh paragraph of Article 38 of the Constitution, it is stated that criminal responsibility is personal, and everyone will be held responsible for their own actions, and will not be held responsible for the criminal actions of others. It has been accepted that they cannot be punished.
13. The principle of the individuality of criminal responsibility, a constitutional principle, is based on the principle of fault. In this regard, the explanatory memorandum of the seventh paragraph of the relevant article of the Constitution states that “…the paragraph stipulates that criminal responsibility is ‘personal’; that is, persons other than the perpetrator cannot be punished for a crime. This principle itself is established in criminal law and is a fundamental rule included in the principle of ‘criminal responsibility based on fault’, which cannot be abandoned.” It is stated (Constitutional Court, E.2016/191, K.2017/131, 26/07/2017, § 38). The principle of the individuality of criminal responsibility guarantees that a person can only be held responsible for their own culpable act and cannot be held responsible for the act of another. 14. The Constitutional Court previously examined a similar regulation to the rule in question and, with its decision dated 12/7/2017 and numbered E.2017/122, K.2017/122, annulled the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 31 of Law No. 2918, which stipulates that if the driver is not also the owner of the vehicle, a penalty notice for the same amount will also be issued to the registration plate, with respect to the phrase “…drivers who do not use a taximeter in their vehicles according to subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph…” in the first sentence of the same paragraph.
15. In the aforementioned decision, it was stated that the sentence in question stipulates that if the driver of a taxi does not use a taximeter and is not also the owner of the vehicle, a penalty notice of the same amount will also be issued to the registration plate; that according to the sentence, the administration applies the sanction without evaluating whether the vehicle owner is at fault or whether they gave an instruction to the driver not to use the taximeter; that this situation may lead to the imposition of a sanction on the vehicle owner for an act they did not commit; and that the sentence constitutes a violation of the principle of the individuality of penalties in Article 38 of the Constitution (Constitutional Court, E.2017/122, K.2017/122, 12/7/2017, § 13).
16. On the other hand, the decision noted that, according to the Constitution, in order for a person to be punished, the unlawful act must be specified in the law and it must be proven that the person committed this act. However, the sentence did not clearly indicate which action of the vehicle owner was considered a crime, nor did it specify how the causal link between vehicle ownership and the crime was established. It was concluded that the sentence, lacking these elements, was incompatible with Articles 2 and 38 of the Constitution (Constitutional Court, E.2017/122, K.2017/122, 12/7/2017, §§ 14, 15).
17. The contested rule also stipulates that if the driver is not also the vehicle owner, a penalty notice of the same amount shall be issued to the registration plate in cases of absence of mandatory traffic separation signs and other signs on vehicles, the presence, installation, and use of these signs contrary to the legislation, or violation of the regulations to be issued in this regard. 18. Therefore, it is understood that the rule in question is similar in nature to the rule that was the subject of the aforementioned decision of the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, there is no reason to deviate from the Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the rule in question. 19. For the reasons explained, the rule in question is contrary to Articles 2 and 38 of the Constitution. It should be annulled.”[1]
The Constitutional Court’s decision came into effect with its publication in the Official Gazette on December 23, 2025. Therefore, it is no longer legally possible to impose fines on owners of vehicles using unauthorized flashing lights.
[1] Constitutional Court, Merits No: 2025/122, Decision No: 2025/185.