I Did Not Drive the Car; I Cannot Be Left Without an Answer
Official titleDecision of the Constitutional Court dated 8/4/2026, Application No. 2022/104137
The Constitutional Court has considered the failure of the court to respond in its reasoned decision to the applicant’s principal defense in a traffic accident lawsuit that he was not the perpetrator of the offense as a violation of the right to a reasoned decision.
Details of the Regulation
The application concerns the failure of the court decisions to sufficiently discuss the applicant Aydın Toksöz’s defense in a lawsuit for negligent injury filed against him following a traffic accident in Hatay, namely that he himself had not driven the vehicle. The applicant alleged that the vehicle involved in the accident had been handed over to a foreign national who was a customer of the company; however, the court rendered a conviction without presenting concrete evidence refuting this defense, merely relying on general statements.
In its examination, the Constitutional Court found that the failure of the judicial authorities to address a material allegation capable of changing the outcome of the case was contrary to the right to a reasoned decision, which forms part of the right to a fair trial. The local court’s failure to explain on the basis of which concrete data it had determined that the applicant was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident was characterized as a deficiency that eliminated the reviewability of the proceedings.
Consequently, the Constitutional Court decided that a copy of the decision be sent to Hatay 4. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi for a retrial in order to remedy the consequences of the violation. It also ruled unanimously that the applicant be paid the litigation costs consisting of the court fees and attorney fees paid by the applicant.
Questions You Might Have
- Why did the Constitutional Court annul the decision even though the court had found the applicant to be the offender?
- The Constitutional Court did not find the finding of guilt unlawful; rather, it found it unlawful that the court had failed to explain why it did not accept the applicant’s defense that “I was not driving the car,” thus providing insufficient reasoning.
- Did the applicant obtain a direct acquittal after this decision?
- No, the case was merely sent back to the local court. The court must now issue a new and detailed reasoned decision that gives serious consideration to the applicant’s allegations.
Key Terms
- Gerekçeli Karar Hakkı
- The obligation of courts to base their decisions on a logical foundation by giving reasonable responses to the parties’ allegations and defenses.
- Taksirle Yaralama
- Unintentionally harming another person’s bodily integrity by acting contrary to the duty of care and diligence.
- Yeniden Yargılama
- The process by which a case that has become final is reheard by the relevant court in order to remedy an identified violation.
Where we posted this
Follow Turkish legal developments
REGAS analyzed all 26 items in the Official Gazette of 29 September 2026; we published only 3 of them here.
REGAS summarizes every change in the Turkish Official Gazette in plain language and notifies you.
The REGAS app is currently Turkish-only. If you would like English in the app, the best way to make it happen is to support the developer: get the app and just say so.
REGAS Commentary
This decision records that it is not sufficient for the judicial authorities merely to render a decision; when doing so, they must necessarily respond to the parties’ fundamental allegations that may “change the possibility of winning or losing the case.” For citizens, this means that their vital defenses before the court cannot be “brushed aside” and that every type of judgment must rest on a sound logical basis.