Traffic fines are among the most common types of penalties encountered in daily life. Considering that we spend a significant portion of our day in traffic, complying with traffic rules is crucial not only for our own safety but also for public order. However, many mistakes can still be made by both drivers and pedestrians. Traffic fines are administrative sanctions imposed to maintain public order and ensure road safety. In practice, however, some of these fines may be claimed to be unlawful in terms of procedure or substance. To prevent individuals from being unfairly penalized, Turkish law provides a legal remedy to appeal against traffic fines. Anyone who believes that a traffic fine imposed on them is procedurally or substantively flawed may appeal the fine through the procedures prescribed by law.
Traffic fines are issued either during inspections carried out by traffic police officers or through the Electronic Supervision System (EDS), which detects traffic rule violations based on vehicle license plates. However, the imposition and outcome of such fines must comply with the law. During enforcement, authorized officers must act in accordance with the relevant legislation, including the Highway Traffic Law (Law No. 2918), which regulates traffic order and sanctions, the Misdemeanor Law (Law No. 5326), which sets out general provisions on administrative fines, and related regulations governing procedures for reports, notifications, receipts, and enforcement—particularly the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles Regarding the Issuance, Collection, and Enforcement of Traffic Administrative Fine Decision Reports.
Individuals who have been fined may appeal the penalty if it is found to be inconsistent with the relevant laws and regulations, or if the fine was imposed without sufficient legal basis or supporting evidence.
Time Limit for Appealing a Traffic Fine
In our legal system, a statute of limitation applies to appeals against traffic fines. The appeal period officially begins upon notification, and the notification is considered to have been made when:
- In person, during road inspections conducted by traffic police,
- By mail, if the violation is detected through the Electronic Supervision System (EDS) based on the vehicle’s license plate,
- Digitally, via the e-Government (e-Devlet) portal or the General Directorate of Security (EGM) online systems.
It is served to the individual. The date of notification is critically important as it marks the beginning of the appeal period. According to the law, the appeal period is limited to 15 days, and there are two possible scenarios regarding the start of this period. In this context:
- If the fine is issued in person to the individual by the relevant law enforcement officer, the APPEAL must be filed WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE FINE IS ISSUED.
- If the fine is issued based on the vehicle’s license plate, the APPEAL must be filed WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE FINE IS NOTIFIED TO THE INDIVIDUAL.
The individual must file an appeal either through the e-Government (e-Devlet) application or by submitting a petition to the competent Criminal Court of Peace. As noted, the 15-day appeal period is a strict statutory deadline.
Methods of Appealing a Traffic Fine
Individuals who have been issued a traffic fine can appeal the fine in two ways. They may file an appeal through the e-Government (e-Devlet) system or by submitting a written petition to the competent Criminal Court of Peace.
Conditions for Appealing a Traffic Fine
In our legal system, there is no restriction on the reasons for which an individual may appeal a traffic fine. However, in practice and in established judicial precedents, the most common grounds for appeal are:
- An error in the alcohol breathalyzer measurement,
- A fine being issued based on radar detection without a preceding radar warning sign,
- The penal action for the traffic violation not being supported by a photograph or any other evidence,
- A parking fine being issued in an area where there are very few or no parking spaces.
Competent and Authorized Court for Appealing a Traffic Fine
As mentioned, traffic fines are administrative in nature. By law, the competent court for appealing traffic fines is the Criminal Court of Peace (Sulh Ceza Hakimliği).
The authorized Criminal Court of Peace for such appeals is generally the court in the location where the violation occurred, meaning the appeal must be filed with the Criminal Court of Peace in the jurisdiction where the fine was issued. However, the designated court is not exclusive, and individuals may also submit their appeal to the on-duty Criminal Court of Peace near their place of residence.
Procedure for Appealing a Traffic Fine
The procedure to be followed when filing an appeal is as follows:
- Receipt of Notification: The fine is considered served once it reaches the recipient in writing. The date of notification marks the start of the appeal period.
- Collection of Evidence: Concrete evidence should be prepared, such as the traffic fine report, photographs of the location where the incident occurred, camera or MOBESE footage, witness statements, and any other documentation that supports the appellant’s claims.
- Preparation of the Petition: The petition should clearly include personal information, the date and number of the fine, the date of notification, reasons why the fine is considered unjust, the evidence to be submitted, and a clear request (e.g., cancellation of the fine).
- Submission of the Appeal: The appeal can be submitted to the competent Criminal Court of Peace either through a written petition or via official electronic application systems such as UYAP or e-Government (e-Devlet).
Court Decision on the Outcome of a Traffic Fine Appeal
As a result of the individual’s appeal to the Criminal Court of Peace, the case is generally reviewed based on the file, and a decision is rendered. If requested by the court or deemed necessary, an expert examination or witness testimony may also be conducted. After reviewing the necessary investigations and evidence, the court may either accept the appeal and cancel the contested fine, or reject the appeal if no legal irregularity is found regarding the fine.
If the traffic fine includes an administrative monetary penalty and the fine has already been paid during the appeal process, the court will order a refund to the individual in cases where the appeal is accepted and the fine is canceled.
Sample Supreme Court (Yargıtay) Decisions on Traffic Fine Appeals
5th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2024/5427, Decision No. 2024/9718
Text of the Judicial Precedent
COURT OF THE DECISION UNDER REVIEW: Criminal Court of Peace
CASE NUMBER: 2023/8971 Main, 2023/8971 Decision
I. DECISIONS REGARDING THE DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION
A. Decision of the 43rd Civil Court of Ankara, dated 17.05.2023, Case No. 2023/187 Main, 2023/172 Decision
The nature of the request concerns the “Traffic Accident Report with Material Damage” dated 01.05.2023, prepared by the Ankara Regional Traffic Inspection Branch Directorate regarding a traffic accident involving the applicant. The report specifies the degree of fault and is of an objectionary nature. According to Articles 81 and 114 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918, objections to the reports of offenses and fines prepared by authorized units due to traffic accidents must be submitted to the Duty Criminal Court of Peace in the location where the accident occurred within 15 days from the date of notification. Furthermore, in the event of a criminal or civil lawsuit (compensation), it is also possible to determine fault during the trial phase. Based on these reasons, a decision of lack of jurisdiction was rendered.
B. Decision of the 4th Criminal Court of Peace of Ankara, dated 07.09.2023, Case No. 2023/8971 Miscellaneous, 2023/8971 Decision
The relevant articles of Law No. 2918 state that the report is to be prepared by the traffic police, and there is no provision allowing the report to be appealed before the Criminal Court of Peace or any other court. An objection to the Traffic Accident Report can only be made during the hearing of a criminal or civil case in which the report is presented as evidence, on the grounds that the report does not reflect the truth. There is no provision allowing an objection to be made solely against the report without a filed case. Therefore, the application was dismissed on the grounds that an objection to the accident report is not a matter that can be examined by the Court.
II. REASONS
A. Dispute
The dispute concerns the objection to a traffic accident report with material damage and the request to amend the report issued against the applicant.
B. Relevant Law
1. Article 83 of Law No. 2918 and Articles 154 and 165 of the Highway Traffic Regulation, which entered into force upon publication in the Official Gazette dated 18.07.1997,
2. Articles 2, 4, 106, and 400 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100.
C. Evaluation
In the present case, it is understood that the request concerns the cancellation of the traffic accident report with material damage, dated 01.05.2023, accident serial number 97003, prepared by the Ankara Regional Traffic Inspection Branch Directorate – Traffic Regulation and Inspection Bureau. Since the request is of the nature of a determination lawsuit, the dispute should be heard and resolved by the 43rd Civil Court of Ankara.
III. DECISION
For the reasons stated above;
Pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 and the third paragraph of Article 36 of Law No. 5235, it was unanimously decided on 09.12.2024 to DESIGNATE the 43rd Civil Court of Ankara as the COMPETENT COURT.
7th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2021/25339, Decision No. 2021/15840
Text of the Judicial Precedent
Regarding … who is charged with violating the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918, administrative fines were imposed as follows by the … Traffic Inspection Bureau: 199.00 Turkish Lira by the traffic administrative fine decision dated 10/06/2016 and numbered …; 199.00 Turkish Lira by the traffic administrative fine decision dated 10/06/2016 and numbered …; 412.00 Turkish Lira by the traffic administrative fine decision dated 30/04/2016 and numbered …; 199.00 Turkish Lira by the traffic administrative fine decision dated 30/04/2016 and numbered …; 199.00 Turkish Lira by the traffic administrative fine decision dated 30/04/2016 and numbered …; 199.00 Turkish Lira by the traffic administrative fine decision dated 22/04/2016 and numbered …; 412.00 Turkish Lira by the traffic administrative fine decision dated 22/04/2016 and numbered …; 412.00 Turkish Lira by the traffic administrative fine decision dated 22/04/2016 and numbered …; 412.00 Turkish Lira by the traffic administrative fine decision dated 28/03/2016 and numbered …; 199.00 Turkish Lira by the traffic administrative fine decision dated 28/03/2016 and numbered …; 412.00 Turkish Lira by the traffic administrative fine decision dated 28/03/2016 and numbered …; 412.00 Turkish Lira by the traffic administrative fine decision dated 21/03/2016 and numbered …; and 412.00 Turkish Lira by the traffic administrative fine decision dated 12/03/2016 and numbered ….
Following the application against these fines, the objection against the traffic administrative fine dated 30/04/2016 and numbered … was rejected, the objection against the traffic administrative fine dated 30/04/2016 and numbered … was accepted, while the applications regarding the other administrative fines were rejected on the grounds of time limits by the … Criminal Court of Peace in its decision dated 12/12/2019 and numbered 2017/6757 Miscellaneous.
Subsequently, the objection to this decision was rejected on the grounds of time by the … Criminal Court of Peace in its decision dated 28/02/2020 and numbered 2020/176 Miscellaneous. The objection to that decision was also rejected by the … Criminal Court of Peace in its decision dated 08/05/2020 and numbered 2020/1574 Miscellaneous.
The case file containing the request for annulment in the interest of the law, issued by the Ministry of Justice on 29/06/2021, against this decision, was submitted to the chamber by the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation with the notification dated 07/09/2021 and numbered KYB.2021/89964, and was read.
In the said notification;
Although the decision of the … Criminal Court of Peace dated 12/12/2019 and numbered 2017/6757 Miscellaneous was finalized by being served to the address “…” of the offender …,
Considering that Article 10/2 of the Notification Law No. 7201 provides that, “If it is understood that the last known address is not suitable for notification or if notification cannot be made, the residence address in the address registration system of the addressee shall be accepted as the last known address and notification shall be made there,” and that a two-stage method is adopted for notifications to natural persons, it is required that first the last known address (if no known address exists, or if the last known address and the address in the address registration system are the same, the address in the system without specifying it as the MERNIS address) be used as the basis for ordinary notification in accordance with Article 21/1 of the same Law, and if the notification issued is returned unserved, the address in the address registration system shall be accepted as the last known address pursuant to Article 21/2 of the same Law, and the competent authority must complete the notification procedure with a note stating that “Since the address where the notification was issued is the addressee’s address in the address registration system, in the event of impossibility of notification, the notification shall be made to this address pursuant to Article 21/2 of the Notification Law” in accordance with Articles 23/1-8 of the Notification Law No. 7201 and Article 16/2 of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Notification Law.
In the present case, the address “…” stated by the offender in their objection petition dated 14/11/2016 constitutes the last known address. Notification under Article 21/2 of Law No. 7201 made to the offender’s “…” address without first notifying this last known address was therefore improper. Considering that the objection petition submitted by the offender on 28/02/2020 was filed within the period upon becoming aware of the decision, the acceptance of the objection against the decision of the … Criminal Court of Peace dated 28/02/2020 and numbered 2020/176 Miscellaneous requires that a substantive decision be made regarding those administrative sanctions for which the application had been previously rejected on the grounds of time in the decision dated 12/12/2019 and numbered 2017/6757 Miscellaneous. The rejection of the objection in writing was therefore incorrect, and pursuant to Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271, the decision was referred for annulment in the interest of the law.
Since the matters contained in the notification based on the request for annulment in the interest of the law by the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation were found to be appropriate, it was unanimously decided on 25/11/2021 to ANNUL the decision of the … Criminal Court of Peace dated 08/05/2020 and numbered 2020/1574 Miscellaneous pursuant to Article 309/4-a of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271, and to carry out the subsequent procedures at the local court.
Lawyer. Gökhan AKGÜL & Lawyer. Mümine Nur AYDOĞMUŞ
Antalya Lawyer – Antalya Traffic Fine Appeal
The process of appealing traffic fines is an important matter that requires legal knowledge and experience. For incorrectly issued radar, parking, or speeding fines, an application can be submitted to the Criminal Court of Peace within the legal period to request their cancellation. At this point, the support of an Antalya lawyer is crucial to ensure the process is conducted correctly and to prevent any loss of rights. In traffic fine appeal cases, an experienced lawyer provides professional assistance in preparing the necessary petitions, collecting evidence, and monitoring the process, helping to prevent citizens from being unfairly penalized.
