Driving under the influence of alcohol is a legal violation that seriously threatens traffic safety and can lead to severe consequences for both the driver and other road users. The Turkish legal system, primarily through the Highway Traffic Law (“HTL”) and the Turkish Penal Code (“TPC”), along with relevant legislation, prescribes deterrent administrative and criminal sanctions against this dangerous behavior. This report aims to comprehensively examine the legal framework, detection processes, applied administrative and criminal sanctions, effects on traffic accidents, relationship with insurance payments, and appeal processes for penalties concerning drunk driving in Türkiye.

1. Legal Definitions and Promille Limits Regarding Drunk Driving

Promille is a unit used to measure the amount of alcohol in a person's blood. Half a gram of alcohol per liter of blood corresponds to an alcohol level of 0.50 promille. The time elapsed after alcohol consumption is also among the factors affecting promille measurement. As the promille level increases, the driver's attention, perception, coordination, and reflexes are negatively affected, significantly increasing the risk of accidents. For example, while distraction begins in a person with 0.50 promille alcohol, impaired perception and self-control issues may be observed at 0.80 promille. At higher promille levels, critical intoxication symptoms such as difficulty standing and walking, speech impediments, severely slowed reflexes, and even confusion and loss of consciousness may appear.

1.1. Legal Limits by Vehicle Type

In Türkiye, legal promille limits for drunk driving vary depending on the type of vehicle. This differentiation indicates that the legislator adopts a differentiated approach based on risk profiles in traffic. This situation reveals that instead of simply imposing a general alcohol ban, a more targeted risk management strategy is pursued by considering factors such as professional responsibility and driving experience.

• Private Cars: For drivers of private cars, the legal alcohol limit is 0.50 promille. Exceeding this limit entails administrative sanctions.
• Commercial and Other Vehicles: For drivers of vehicles other than private cars, i.e., those used for commercial purposes (such as trucks, buses, taxis) or other special uses, the alcohol limit is much lower, at 0.20 promille. Due to commercial drivers transporting passengers or cargo, the consequences of a potential accident can be more severe. Therefore, a higher degree of attention and responsibility is expected from drivers in this category, which is ensured by a lower alcohol tolerance. This lower limit reflects the high responsibility and public safety risk carried by commercial vehicle drivers.

1.2. Special Regulations for Novice Drivers

For drivers with a novice license, the alcohol limit is much stricter, unlike the 0.50 promille set for private vehicles. This is associated with their being more vulnerable to the effects of alcohol and having a higher risk of accidents due to their newly acquired license and insufficient experience. Stricter limits for this group aim to enhance public safety and minimize potential harm.

• Alcohol Detection Below 0.20 Promille: For novice drivers, even if alcohol is detected below 0.20 promille, an administrative fine and 20 penalty points are applied. If, as a result of this violation, the penalty points reach 75, their license is confiscated for 2 years.
• Alcohol Detection Above 0.20 Promille: If alcohol is detected above 0.20 promille in novice drivers, their license is confiscated indefinitely. This means almost zero tolerance for novice drivers.

Driver/Vehicle Type	Legal Promille Limit	Promille Level and General Effects
Private Car Driver	0.50‰	0.20‰: Slight mood changes, beginning of decreased self-control and attention0.50‰: Distraction becomes prominent, coordination disorder and drowsiness
Commercial/Other Vehicle Driver	0.20‰	0.80‰: Impaired perception, problems with self-control
Novice Driver	0.00‰ (license confiscation indefinitely above 0.20‰)	1.00‰: Difficulty standing and walking, speech impediments, severely slowed reflexes2.00‰: Decreased pain sensation, confusion, difficulty perceiving surroundings3.00‰ and above: Critical intoxication, loss of consciousness, risk of death

2. Alcohol Detection Processes and Legal Obligations

The detection of intoxicated drivers is a critical step in ensuring traffic safety. This process is carried out within the framework of specific methods and legal obligations.

2.1. Breathalyzer Tests and Application Principles

Breathalyzer devices are primarily used to detect intoxicated drivers in traffic. Breathalyzer tests are generally performed via a breath test. These devices are designed to determine the alcohol level in 1 liter of a person's blood. In case of suspicion (such as a distinct smell of alcohol, involuntary behaviors) or for more detailed detection, blood or urine samples may be taken.

The reliability and transparency of the breathalyzer device are legally guaranteed. It is a legal requirement for the device to be calibrated and for the calibration information to be shown to the driver at the time of measurement. This aims to ensure the reliability and transparency of the test.

If the first test result is positive, a second test can usually be performed after at least 10 minutes. During this period, the person to be tested must not eat or drink anything. If the second test is also positive, a blood sample may be requested at the nearest health institution for blood alcohol level detection. The collected samples are sent to a reference laboratory following the chain of custody, and the verification test results are taken as a basis.

2.2. Legal Consequences of Refusing a Breathalyzer Test

According to the Highway Traffic Law, refusing to use a breathalyzer or not consenting to a test for alcohol detection is a serious violation. This indicates that the legislator tends to punish attempts to protect the alcohol detection process itself and obstruct legal oversight more severely. The legal system must rely on alcohol detection tests to be effective in combating drunk driving. If drivers could avoid tests with a lighter penalty, this would create a legal loophole and render drunk driving controls ineffective. Therefore, the act of refusing a breathalyzer test is considered not only a rule violation but also an attempt to hinder the legal process and sabotage evidence collection. Such obstruction, potentially concealing a more serious offense (e.g., a very high promille rate), is why the legislator has chosen to punish this behavior more deterrently. This shows that the legal regulation aims to protect not only drunk driving but also the integrity of legal oversight and evidence collection mechanisms. Refusing to consent to a test is perceived as a direct challenge to the functioning of the system and therefore requires a more severe sanction.

The legal consequences of refusing a breathalyzer test are as follows:

• Administrative Fine (2025): For 2025, the fine for refusing a breathalyzer test is set at 26,558 TL.
• Confiscation of Driver's License: In addition to the fine, the driver's license is confiscated for 2 years.

3. Administrative and Criminal Sanctions for Drunk Driving

Driving under the influence of alcohol is subject to administrative fines and license confiscation under the Highway Traffic Law. As the number of repeat violations increases, the applied sanctions also gradually become more severe.

3.1. Penalty for First-Time Drunk Driving (2025)

The sanctions applied to drivers caught drunk driving for the first time are as follows:

• Administrative Fine: As of 2025, an administrative fine of 9,268 TL is applied.
• Confiscation of Driver's License: The driver's license is temporarily confiscated for 6 months.
• Vehicle Impoundment: The vehicle is impounded by the police and towed to a parking lot.
• Penalty Points: 20 penalty points are recorded on the driver's license.

3.2. Penalties Applied in Case of Recidivism (Second and Third Time Violations)

The gradual increase in drunk driving penalties for repeat violations (fines, license confiscation period, and ultimately imprisonment) indicates that the legislator applies a "progressive deterrence" strategy against drivers who repeat this action. The first violation serves as a warning to the driver, aiming for behavioral change with a mitigated sanction. However, as the driver repeats the same violation, the legislator perceives this behavior as a more serious risk and a threat to social order. Increased penalties for the second violation aim to strengthen deterrence. Especially with the introduction of imprisonment for the third violation, it signifies the recognition that administrative measures are no longer sufficient and the driver poses a direct risk to public safety. At this point, the primary goal of the state is to protect society by removing such drivers from traffic. This demonstrates that the legal system functions not only as a punitive tool but also as a means of behavior modification and ensuring public safety. The aggravation of penalties for repeat violations underlines that drunk driving is not just a traffic rule violation but also a serious behavior that potentially constitutes a crime against society.

3.2.1. Penalty for Second-Time Drunk Driving (2025)

For drivers caught drunk driving for the second time within 5 years:

• Administrative Fine: An administrative fine of 11,622 TL is imposed.
• Confiscation of Driver's License: Their license is confiscated for 2 years.
• Additional Sanctions: The driver may be required to attend driver behavior improvement training and submit a psychotechnical evaluation report and, in some cases, a health report.

3.2.2. Penalty for Third and More Times Drunk Driving (2025)

For drivers caught drunk driving for the third or more times within 5 years:

• Administrative Fine: An administrative fine of 18,678 TL is applied.
• Confiscation of Driver's License: Their license is confiscated for 5 years.
• Imprisonment: In this case, the driver is subject to imprisonment for not less than 6 months. This means a criminal sanction comes into play, going beyond administrative sanctions.

3.3. Driver's License Confiscation and Reinstatement Process

Drivers whose licenses are confiscated due to drunk driving cannot drive for a certain period. Certain conditions must be met for the license to be reinstated:

• The administrative fine imposed must have been paid.
• The license confiscation period must have expired.
• Drivers caught for the second time are required to prove that they have attended and successfully completed driver behavior improvement training. In some cases, a psychotechnical evaluation report or a health report may also be requested.
• After all these conditions are met, the driver can apply to the Directorate of Security to get their driver's license back.

Violation Count	Administrative Fine (2025 TL)	License Confiscation Period	Additional Sanctions
First Time Caught	9,268 TL	6 Months	20 Penalty Points, Vehicle Impoundment
Second Time Caught	11,622 TL	2 Years	Driver Behavior Improvement Training, Psychotechnical Evaluation
Third and More Times Caught	18,678 TL	5 Years	Minimum 6 Months Imprisonment

4. Impact of Drunk Driving on Traffic Accidents and Legal Liabilities

When drunk driving leads to traffic accidents, it can result in more severe criminal and compensation law liabilities under the Turkish Penal Code, beyond administrative sanctions.

4.1. Crime of Endangering Traffic Safety (TPC Article 179)

Article 179 of the TPC regulates the crime of endangering traffic safety. The third paragraph of this article (TPC 179/3) punishes individuals who drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, despite being unable to safely control and operate the vehicle. This offense is a "concrete danger crime"; meaning not an abstract risk, but a real and concrete danger must have arisen for traffic safety.

Unlike administrative fines, for criminal liability under TPC 179/3, merely exceeding a certain promille limit is not sufficient; it must be proven that the vehicle could not be safely controlled and operated due to the effect of alcohol. This means that despite being administratively penalized, a driver may be acquitted of criminal liability if the concrete effect of alcohol on their actual driving ability cannot be proven. Criminal law requires a higher standard of proof than administrative law; not just the presence of alcohol, but an actual danger or incapacity caused by alcohol is sought. This allows defense attorneys to argue that even with a high promille level, their clients' driving ability was not actually affected or did not pose a concrete danger. This distinction is critically important for determining the correct strategy in the legal process.

According to the scientific evaluations of the 5th Specialization Board of the Council of Forensic Medicine, individuals with 0.30 promille or less alcohol in their blood are considered capable of safely controlling and operating a vehicle unless proven otherwise, while individuals with alcohol levels between 0.31-1.00 promille are considered incapable of safely controlling and operating a vehicle unless proven otherwise. Drivers who operate a vehicle with an alcohol level above 1.00 promille are directly punished under TPC 179/3. For commercial and other vehicle drivers, if they drive with an alcohol level above 0.20 promille and cause an accident, they are punished under TPC 179/2 with reference to TPC 179/3.

Penalties for the crime of endangering traffic safety are as follows:

• TPC 179/3 (inability to drive safely due to alcohol/drug influence): Imprisonment from 3 months to 2 years.
• TPC 179/2 (generally endangering traffic safety): Imprisonment from 3 months to 2 years.
• TPC 179/1 (endangering specific means of transport): Imprisonment from 1 year to 6 years.

This offense is not subject to complaint, meaning a public lawsuit is filed and investigated ex officio (automatically). Arrest warrants cannot be issued for TPC 179/2 and 179/3.

4.2. Crimes of Causing Injury or Death Due to Drunk Driving (TPC Articles 85, 89)

In accidents occurring while driving under the influence of alcohol, if consequences such as injury or death arise, the driver is subject to more severe penalties under the relevant articles of the Turkish Penal Code.

Causing Injury by Negligence (TPC Article 89): If a person causes injury to another as a result of a traffic accident while driving under the influence of alcohol, the driver is tried for the crime of "causing injury by negligence" under Article 89 of the Turkish Penal Code. Penalties vary according to the severity of the injury and the number of victims:

• Simple injury: Imprisonment from 3 months to 1 year or a judicial fine.
• Qualified injury (e.g., bone fracture, organ loss, life-threatening): Penalties are increased.
• Injury to more than one person: Imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years.
• The crime of causing injury by negligence is generally subject to complaint; however, if committed with "conscious negligence," a complaint is not required.

Causing Death by Negligence (TPC Article 85): If a person causes the death of another as a result of a traffic accident while driving under the influence of alcohol, the driver is tried for the crime of "causing death by negligence" under Article 85 of the TPC. The penalty is imprisonment from 2 to 6 years.

Both Injury and Death (TPC Article 85/2): If an intoxicated driver causes both death and injury in an accident, they are punished under TPC 85/2 with imprisonment from 2 to 15 years.

Conscious Negligence: Drunk driving, especially at high promille levels (e.g., 1.19 promille) or when the driver continues to drive despite foreseeing the possibility of an accident, is considered "conscious negligence." Simple negligence is the failure to foresee a foreseeable outcome or to exercise due diligence. Conscious negligence, on the other hand, is acting with the hope that the outcome (e.g., accident and injury/death) will not occur, despite foreseeing it. In the case of drunk driving, the application of "conscious negligence" is based on the assumption that the driver should know that their driving ability is diminished by the effects of alcohol and that the risk of an accident is increased, but nevertheless gets behind the wheel with the thought of "nothing will happen." This removes the action from being a simple mistake and characterizes it as irresponsible and reckless behavior towards the lives of others. This legal classification emphasizes that drunk driving is not just a rule violation but also an act that potentially creates intentional danger. The increase in penalties shows that society has low tolerance for such irresponsible behavior and that the legal system aims to increase deterrence by punishing such actions more severely. This is a legal reflection of how seriously drunk driving is perceived in the public conscience.

In crimes committed with conscious negligence, the penalty determined for the negligent crime is increased by 1/3 to 1/2. This can lead to a significant increase in penalties; for example, in the event of a single death, the prison sentence can go up to 9 years.

Ideal Concurrence: In cases where drunk driving causes injury or death, TPC 179 (Endangering Traffic Safety) is generally not applied. Instead, under the principle of "ideal concurrence" (düşünsel içtima), the driver is punished for the more severe and specific crime of causing injury by negligence or causing death by negligence.

4.3. Material and Moral Compensation Liabilities

Persons who suffer harm (or their relatives in fatal accidents) as a result of accidents caused by drunk driving have the right to file material and moral compensation lawsuits against the intoxicated driver.

• Material Compensation: Covers items such as treatment expenses incurred due to the accident, loss of earnings (due to temporary or permanent disability), funeral expenses, loss of support compensation (in case of death), and damages to the vehicle. Factors such as age, income status, gender, disability rate, and fault ratio in the accident are considered in compensation calculations.
• Moral Compensation: Compensation paid for the pain, suffering, and distress experienced as a result of the accident. According to Article 56 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, in cases of severe bodily harm or death, an appropriate amount of moral compensation may be awarded to the injured party or the relatives of the deceased. The amount of moral compensation varies according to the severity of the injury, the trauma experienced by the victim, and the judge's discretion.

Fault Ratio and the Effect of Alcohol: The statement "Alcohol is never a cause of fault" reveals an important legal distinction regarding fault determination in traffic accidents. This means that being intoxicated is not seen as a direct traffic violation causing the accident, but it increases the likelihood of the driver violating traffic rules due to alcohol, and these violations lead to the accident. In traffic accidents, "cause of fault" is the direct violation of traffic rules that leads to the accident (e.g., running a red light, speeding, violating following distance). Alcohol impairs the driver's judgment, reaction time, and coordination, increasing the risk of making such violations. Therefore, although alcohol may not be the direct cause of the accident, it is considered an aggravating factor in determining the driver's fault ratio. This shows that despite the intoxicated driver facing administrative and criminal sanctions, in determining the material and moral compensation liability in the accident, the direct and exclusive effect of alcohol, not alcohol itself, is taken as the basis for the specific traffic rule violation caused by alcohol. This legal distinction is critically important for understanding the legal consequences of drunk driving. Being intoxicated increases the likelihood of the driver violating these rules, so the fault ratio of an intoxicated driver involved in an accident is usually high. Furthermore, being intoxicated leads to the application of administrative and criminal sanctions and gives rise to the insurance companies' right of recourse.

5. Insurance Coverage and Right of Recourse in Accidents Caused by Drunk Driving

In accidents caused by drunk driving, the liability and right of recourse of insurance companies vary for both Compulsory Traffic Insurance and Comprehensive Motor Insurance.

5.1. Compulsory Traffic Insurance Coverage and Right of Recourse

Compulsory Traffic Insurance is a type of insurance that every vehicle owner is required to have according to the Highway Traffic Law. This insurance aims to cover the material and bodily damages of third parties (the opposing party) in accidents caused by the insured vehicle. In the event of an accident while driving under the influence of alcohol, traffic insurance generally covers the damages of the injured third parties.

However, after the insurance company pays the injured parties, it acquires the right to claim back the compensation paid (right of recourse) from the intoxicated driver or the policyholder under certain conditions. This right of recourse arises when the driver causes an accident while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The legal promille limit (0.50 promille for private vehicles, 0.20 promille for commercial vehicles) is not directly important for the right of recourse; the driver causing an accident while intoxicated gives rise to the right of recourse.

The burden of proof in a recourse lawsuit rests with the insurance company. This means that the insurance company must prove with concrete evidence that the damage was outside the scope of coverage or that the accident was caused exclusively by the effect of alcohol. Court of Cassation decisions also align with this view; merely being intoxicated is not a cause for recourse, it must be proven that alcohol was effective in the formation of the accident. This legal approach emphasizes that insurance companies cannot automatically acquire the right of recourse simply because the driver was intoxicated; they must demonstrate that alcohol had a direct and exclusive effect on the occurrence of the accident. This is important for the protection of the victim and the maintenance of the fundamental purpose of the insurance contract. If it cannot be proven, the recourse lawsuit is rejected. Expert reports, traffic accident reports, hospital reports showing the alcohol level after the accident, and police statements are important evidence in a recourse lawsuit. The insurance company can exercise its right of recourse within a 2-year statute of limitations period from the date it learns the identity of the person to whom it will recourse.

5.2. Comprehensive Motor Insurance Coverage and Court of Cassation Approach

Comprehensive motor insurance is an optional type of insurance that covers the damages sustained by the insured vehicle itself. The question of whether comprehensive motor insurance would pay in accidents caused by drunk driving has long been debated. Traditionally, insurance companies tended to refuse to pay the claim by saying "the driver was drunk."

However, this approach has changed with the settled precedents of the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation does not consider the driver being intoxicated as sufficient reason alone for the insurance amount not to be paid. According to the general conditions of motor vehicle comprehensive insurance, for the risk to be excluded from coverage, it is not enough for the driver to merely be intoxicated; it must be proven by the insurer that the accident occurred exclusively due to the effect of alcohol. This indicates a significant change in the Court of Cassation's approach to alcohol in comprehensive motor insurance. While there was previously an understanding that automatically excluded drunk driving from coverage, now it is stipulated that the insurer must prove that alcohol was the sole and direct cause of the accident. This makes it more difficult for insurance companies to avoid responsibility, offering an interpretation more aligned with the purpose of the insurance contract. This approach requires the comprehensive insurance company to pay even if the driver was intoxicated, but the accident was caused by another reason (e.g., being hit by an oncoming vehicle). The Court of Cassation makes its decision by looking at whether alcohol was the exclusive cause of the accident, road and weather conditions, and the fault ratio.

Furthermore, the Court of Cassation also has specific criteria regarding additional expenses such as towing fees. For example, if the vehicle is towed to a distant location instead of the nearest service station after an accident, it may be deemed that the damage was aggravated, and the portion beyond reasonable and ordinary towing fees may not be covered by comprehensive insurance.

6. Appeal Process for Drunk Driving Penalties and Authorized Authorities

Legal avenues of appeal are available against administrative fines and license confiscation decisions issued due to drunk driving.

6.1. Appeal Period and Application Method

A driver who has been issued a drunk driving penalty must exercise their right to appeal within 15 days from the date the penalty notice is served to them. This period is a forfeiture period; that is, if no appeal is filed within this period, the decision becomes final and must be paid.

An appeal petition can be submitted to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace in the place where the penalty was issued, requesting the annulment of the drunk driving and license confiscation penalty. It is of great importance that the petition is legally complete and supported by evidence; otherwise, the appeal may be rejected. The appeal petition should be accompanied by documents showing the administrative fine and, if any, alcohol reports.

6.2. Competent and Authorized Courts

In appeals against drunk driving penalties, the competent and authorized courts may vary depending on the nature of the penalty.

• Criminal Judgeship of Peace: The competent and authorized court for appeals against administrative fines and administrative sanctions such as license confiscation is the Criminal Judgeship of Peace. If the appeal is successful, the driver's license can be reinstated without waiting for the completion of the period. Decisions of the Court of Cassation and the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes also confirm that the judicial path for appeals against administrative fines is the ordinary judiciary, i.e., the Criminal Judgeship of Peace.
• Administrative Court: Historically, until 2013, when both a traffic administrative fine and another administrative sanction were applied due to a traffic rule violation, appeals were made to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace for the fine and to the Administrative Courts for other administrative sanctions. However, in current practice, appeals against drunk driving administrative fines and license confiscation decisions are primarily made to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace. For appeals to the administrative court, there is a 60-day forfeiture period.
• Criminal Court of First Instance: The trial of criminal acts such as the crime of endangering traffic safety (TPC Article 179) is heard in the Criminal Court of First Instance where the act was committed. This court may impose criminal sanctions such as imprisonment on the driver as a result of the trial.

The distinction in judicial paths for appealing administrative sanctions is important for the proper conduct of the legal process. This difference could previously lead to decisions issued by similar administrative bodies being reviewed by different judicial authorities. However, entrusting the review of administrative sanctions directly related to traffic, such as drunk driving administrative fines and license confiscation, to the ordinary judiciary aims to ensure faster and more effective resolution of disputes in this area.

7. Conclusion

Drunk driving in Türkiye is a multi-faceted violation with severe legal consequences, encompassing both administrative and criminal dimensions. Exceeding legal promille limits entails a wide range of sanctions, from license confiscation and high administrative fines to even imprisonment for repeat violations. The establishment of lower promille limits for commercial and novice drivers indicates that the legislator adopts a more targeted approach based on risk profiles in traffic and prioritizes public safety.

Attempts to obstruct testing processes, such as refusing a breathalyzer test, are met with even heavier penalties than a first drunk driving violation. This aims to protect the effectiveness of legal oversight mechanisms and secure evidence collection. The gradual increase in penalties with repeat violations is a reflection of a strong deterrence strategy aimed at changing driver behavior and protecting society from potential dangers.

The situation becomes even more serious when drunk driving leads to traffic accidents. Under the Turkish Penal Code, trials are conducted for crimes of endangering traffic safety, causing injury by negligence, or causing death by negligence. Especially the provisions on "conscious negligence" lead to a significant increase in penalties in accidents caused by the influence of alcohol, expressing societal condemnation against such irresponsible behavior on a legal level. Material and moral compensation liabilities also entail significant financial consequences for intoxicated drivers; although alcohol itself is not a direct cause of fault, it is an aggravating factor that affects the fault ratio in the accident and, consequently, the amount of compensation.

From the perspective of insurance law, while Compulsory Traffic Insurance covers the damages of injured third parties, it has the right to recourse the paid compensation from the intoxicated driver. In comprehensive motor insurance, the settled precedents of the Court of Cassation stipulate that merely being intoxicated is not sufficient for exclusion from coverage; it must be proven by the insurance company that the accident occurred exclusively due to the effect of alcohol. This is an important development that makes it more difficult for insurance companies to avoid responsibility and protects the insured.

Appeal processes for drunk driving penalties also offer legal safeguards. Administrative fines and license confiscation decisions can be appealed to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace within 15 days. Criminal offenses, on the other hand, are tried in Criminal Courts of First Instance.

Considering all these legal aspects, avoiding drunk driving is not only a legal obligation but also an indicator of social responsibility and the importance given to life safety. Due to the complexity of legal processes and potential severe consequences, it is of great importance for individuals facing such a situation to seek support from an expert legal consultant.