Definition
The crime of Endangering Traffic Safety is regulated under Articles 179 and following in the Turkish Penal Code within the Third Section titled “Crimes Against Society” and the First Chapter titled “Crimes Creating General Danger.”
Article 179
(1) Any person who endangers the life, health, or property of others by altering, disabling, removing, giving false signals, placing objects on passage, arrival, departure, or landing routes, or interfering with the technical operation system of land, sea, air, or railway transportation signs established to ensure safe transit shall be sentenced to imprisonment from one to six years.
(2) Any person who operates land, sea, air, or railway transportation vehicles in a manner that poses a danger to human life, health, or property shall be sentenced to imprisonment from three months to two years.
(3) Any person who operates a vehicle despite being unable to drive safely due to the influence of alcohol, drugs, or any other reason shall be punished according to the provisions of the previous paragraph.
Is the Crime of Endangering Traffic Safety Subject to Complaint and Mediation?
The crime of Endangering Traffic Safety is not subject to a complaint; it can be investigated and prosecuted ex officio. Likewise, this crime is also NOT subject to mediation.
Can the Crime of Endangering Traffic Safety Be Committed Negligently?
According to Article 180 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK):
“A person who negligently endangers the life, health, or property of others in maritime, air, or railway transportation shall be sentenced to imprisonment from three months to three years.”
The Simple Form of the Offense
Article 179 of the Turkish Penal Code regulates the simple form of the offense. The offense defined in the first paragraph occurs when a person endangers the life, health, or property of others by altering, rendering unusable, removing, giving incorrect signals, placing objects on passage, arrival, departure, or landing routes, or interfering with the technical operation system of any signs established to ensure the safe flow of land, sea, air, or railway transportation.
In the second paragraph, a separate offense is defined as the operation and management of land, sea, air, or railway transportation vehicles in a manner that may endanger people’s lives, health, or property. For this offense to be committed, the vehicle must be operated in a dangerous manner. Mere violations of traffic regulations do not constitute this offense. Instead, the vehicle must be used in a way that both violates traffic regulations and poses a danger to life, health, or property. This offense may also be committed if a vehicle is put into traffic without the necessary maintenance and repairs prescribed for traffic safety. However, for liability to arise, the use of an improperly maintained or unrepaired vehicle must also create a danger to life, health, or property. In this respect, the offense in question constitutes a concrete danger offense.
The third paragraph of the article stipulates punishment for individuals who operate a vehicle despite being unable to do so safely due to the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other reasons. In this regard, for example, individuals who continue to drive despite being exhausted and sleep-deprived due to prolonged driving may also be considered to have committed this offense.
Circumstances Requiring a More Severe Penalty
The Turkish Penal Code does not regulate any circumstances that require a more severe penalty for this offense.
Circumstances Requiring a Lesser Penalty
The Turkish Penal Code does not regulate any circumstances that require a lesser penalty for this offense.
Effective Remorse
Effective remorse, according to the provisions of the law, refers to a reduction in the penalty or the removal of the penalty based on a personal reason for certain offenses. Therefore, it cannot be applied to every crime. Effective remorse is not applicable to the crime of endangering traffic safety.
Attempt
As a general rule, attempt is not possible for the crime of endangering traffic safety; however, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, the existence of an attempt may be discussed. For example, if the perpetrator fails to comply with traffic signs but is caught by the police, the existence of an attempt may be debated.
The Enforcement Regime Applicable to the Crime of Endangering Traffic Safety
According to Articles 179 and 180 of the Turkish Penal Code, the punishment for committing the crime of endangering traffic safety is imprisonment. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the imposed sentence may be converted into a judicial fine.
In order for a decision to postpone the announcement of the judgment to be made:
a) The defendant must not have been previously convicted of an intentional crime,
b) The court must reach the conclusion that the defendant will not commit another crime, taking into account the defendant’s personal characteristics and behavior during the trial,
c) The damage caused to the victim or the public by the commission of the crime must be fully rectified through restitution, restoration to the previous state, or compensation,
d) The defendant must agree to the postponement of the announcement of the judgment.
In order for a deferred announcement of the judgment (HAGB) decision to be made, the imposed sentence must be a prison sentence of 2 years or less. The institution of HAGB can be applied for the crime of endangering traffic safety. However, with the Constitutional Court’s decision dated 01/08/2023, the regulation regarding HAGB has been annulled, and this regulation will be applied as of 01/08/2024. Until the effective date, HAGB provisions can be applied if the conditions are met, but from the effective date (01/08/2024) onwards, HAGB will no longer be applicable.
A person sentenced to imprisonment for two years or less for a crime may have their sentence postponed (TCK Art. 51). The upper limit of this period is three years for individuals who were under eighteen or over sixty-five years of age at the time of committing the act.
In order for a deferral decision to be made, the person must:
- The person must not have been sentenced to more than three months of imprisonment for an intentional crime previously.
- It must be established in court that, due to the remorse shown during the trial process after committing the crime, there is a belief that the person will not commit another crime.
The suspension provisions may be applied depending on the sentence to be imposed.
Relevant Court of Cassation Decisions
“1.It was determined that the defendant was 1.26‰ alcohol-positive during a traffic control conducted by the Gendarmerie traffic team while he was parked inside his vehicle on the date of the incident at approximately 01:56. After evaluating the entire case file, it was concluded that the defendant committed the crime of endangering traffic safety, as determined by our court. Therefore, in accordance with Article 179/2 of the Turkish Penal Code, referencing Article 179/3, the defendant was sentenced.
2.In his defense, the defendant … summarized that after consuming alcohol at a restaurant with a friend, he drove his vehicle, and after advancing 500-600 meters from the secondary road to the main road, he realized that he was no longer in a condition to drive safely, so he stopped his vehicle and pulled over to rest. He requested that the ruling be applied in his favor.
3.The defendant’s current criminal record extract was obtained from the National Judiciary Informatics System (UYAP) and added to the case file, revealing that the defendant has a criminal record for intentional crimes.”
IV. REASONING
1.It was understood that the defendant was driving the vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 1.26 ‰, and in light of the defendant’s statement that they had traveled 400-500 meters on the main road, it was determined that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol above the legal limit specified in Article 48/6 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918. According to scientific data, the defendant had lost the ability to drive safely. Given that the legal elements of the alleged offense were met, no legal violation was found in this regard in the judgment.
2.It was determined that the procedures during the trial process were carried out in accordance with the procedure and the law. The claims and defenses raised during the stages were shown and discussed in the reasoned judgment along with all the collected evidence. It was concluded that the defendant committed the act, and the moral conviction was based on concrete data that were in harmony with the documents and information in the file. It was also determined that the correct legal qualification for the act was made. Therefore, the other appeal reasons raised by the defendant’s lawyer, which were not deemed valid, were also rejected.
V. DECISION
For the reasons explained in the justification section, the appeal grounds raised by the defendant’s lawyer and other matters considered in the decision of the Salihli 3rd Criminal Court of First Instance, dated 09.03.2023, 2022/736 E., 2023/233 Decision Number, have not shown any legal violations. Therefore, the defendant’s lawyer’s appeal grounds are rejected, and the judgment is upheld by unanimous vote in accordance with the Notice of Judgment. (Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, 2023/4597 E., 2023/2948 K., 14.09.2023)
“1.On the day of the incident, it was understood that the defendant committed the crime of endangering traffic safety by losing control of the vehicle while driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 1.43 promil, which caused a one-vehicle traffic accident. It has been determined that the relevant procedures were carried out accordingly.
2. In his defense, the defendant stated, “I understand the charge against me. I have previously given a statement, and I repeat the same statement. I have no objections to the Court of Cassation’s ruling. I do not accept the facts that are against me. I drove under the influence of alcohol, and I regret it. First, I request my acquittal, and if the court holds a different view, I request the application of laws that are favorable to me. If a conviction is made against me, I accept that the judgment be deferred. I repeat my previous statements.”
3.The defendant’s criminal record and the breathalyzer test results are available in the case file.
4.The court has decided to comply with the Court of Cassation’s ruling, as indicated in paragraph (2) under the “Legal Process” section, and the necessary actions have been carried out.
IV. REASONING
As a result of the review, it has been observed that there is no inaccuracy in the facts or findings in the local court’s decision.
Regarding the Defendant’s Counsel’s Appeals:
- Regarding the Appeal Grounds Concerning the Violation of Procedure and Law by Departing from the Lower Limit in the Sentencing:
In accordance with Article 61 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, which specifies criteria such as the manner of committing the crime and the severity of the damage caused, and in line with the principle of proportionality mentioned in Article 3 of the same Code, taking into account the alcohol meter report and the accident report in the case file regarding the defendant’s involvement in a single-vehicle traffic accident while having a blood alcohol content of 1.43 per mille, the basic sentence determined for the defendant was found to be in compliance with the facts and the case file, and the sentence was set by departing from the lower limit. Therefore, there is no legal violation in this regard in the judgment.
2.Regarding the Other Grounds for Appeal:
It has been determined that the procedures during the trial process were conducted in accordance with the law and procedure. The claims and defenses raised at the various stages were shown and discussed in the reasoned decision, along with all the gathered evidence. It was concluded that the act was committed by the defendant, and the judgment was based on definite facts that were consistent with the documents and information in the case file. The classification of the crime and the penalties were correctly determined. Therefore, the other appeal grounds raised by the defendant’s counsel, which were found to be unfounded, were also rejected.
V. DECISION
For the reasons explained in the grounds section, the appeal grounds raised by the defendant’s attorney and other considerations in the decision of the Akhisar 1st Criminal Court of First Instance, dated 10.11.2022, with file number 2022/590 and decision number 2022/1003, were examined, and no legal violation was found. Therefore, the defendant’s attorney’s appeal grounds are rejected, and the judgment is unanimously UPHELD in accordance with the notification (Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, 2023/3447 E., 2023/2277 K., 21.06.2023).
“1. The case involves the defendant, who, while driving under the influence of alcohol, was being pursued by the victim, a police officer working for the Bursa Provincial Directorate of Security, attempting to stop the defendant. Despite warnings and announcements, the defendant did not stop, and the victim, with the help of some other drivers at the scene, managed to stop the defendant. After the defendant exited the vehicle, the victim, who showed his police identity, was run over by the defendant, causing injuries that could be treated with simple medical intervention. The defendant claimed in his statement at the police station that the victim insulted and threatened him. This is in relation to the alleged commission of the offenses.
2. The incident report dated 27.07.2015 is available, and the alcohol report indicates that the defendant had a blood alcohol concentration of 1.56 promille.
3. According to the victim’s medical report, the injuries were of a nature that could be treated with simple medical intervention.
4. The testimonies of the drivers who were present at the scene were similar and consistent.
5. It was decided that there was no further investigation regarding the charges of threat and insult against the victim.
IV. REASONING
A. Regarding the decisions made for the defendant concerning the crimes of Defamation and Resisting a Public Official
1. In the decisions made regarding the defendant, it is determined that the police officer who made the necessary legal warnings on the date of the incident, asking the defendant to stop, was not obeyed by the defendant. After being stopped, the defendant attempted to escape by driving his vehicle over the victim, causing injury. This act constitutes the crime of resisting a public official. In the investigation phase, the defendant claimed that the victim insulted and threatened him, leading to the initiation of an investigation against the victim for defamation and threats. As a result of the investigation, a decision of “No Further Prosecution” was issued for the victim. Therefore, the defendant, by falsely accusing the victim of a criminal act, caused an investigation and prosecution to be initiated, despite knowing that the victim did not commit the offense. No legal violation is found in the determination of the crime’s establishment and the classification of the offense.
2. It is concluded that the procedural steps during the trial were carried out in accordance with the law and regulations. The allegations and defenses raised during the proceedings were presented and discussed in the reasoned judgment, along with all the collected evidence. It was determined that the actions were carried out by the defendant, and the reasoning was based on concrete facts, consistent with the documents and information in the case file. The appropriate qualifications of the offenses and penalties were correctly determined. Therefore, the other appeal reasons raised by the defendant’s counsel, which were not deemed valid, are rejected.
B. Regarding the decision made for the defendant concerning the crime of Endangering Traffic Safety:
The date of the crime was before the amendment made to Article 251/11 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK) by Article 22 of Law No. 7331 on 08.07.2021;
With the Constitutional Court’s decision published in the Official Gazette No. 31911 on 02.08.2022, dated 21.04.2022, and numbered 2020/87, 2022/44, it was ruled that the phrase “…the prosecution stage has begun, and the case has been concluded…” in the provisional Article 5(d) added to the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 by Article 31 of Law No. 7188 on 17.10.2019 was unconstitutional and should be annulled. Considering that the crime in question is subject to the expedited trial procedure, it was necessary for the local court to transfer the file to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office for the application of the expedited trial procedure regulated in Article 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271. This necessitated the reversal of the decision.
V. DECISION
A. Regarding the judgments for the crimes of Defamation and Resisting Public Officials in Order to Prevent Them from Performing Their Duties:
For the reasons explained in section A of the reasoning part, the decision of the Bursa 19th Criminal Court of First Instance dated 10.05.2016, with case number 2015/797 and decision number 2016/426, has been upheld unanimously, as no legal irregularities were found in the appeal grounds raised by the defendant’s counsel and the other factors considered, and the defendant’s appeal grounds were rejected in accordance with the notification.
B. Regarding the judgment for the crime of Endangering Traffic Safety:
For the reasons explained in section B of the reasoning part, the appeal request of the defendant’s counsel regarding the decision of the Bursa 19th Criminal Court of First Instance dated 10.05.2016, with case number 2015/797 and decision number 2016/426, has been accepted, and the judgment, which was not examined in other aspects, has been overturned unanimously, contrary to the provisions of the 1412 Code of Criminal Procedure, in accordance with Article 321 of the Code. (Court of Cassation, 8th Criminal Chamber, 2021/1821 E., 2023/2094 K., 10.04.2023)
Views: 1
