Constitutionality Review

Contested Provision

The contested provision stipulates that the legal liability of motorised bicycle riders shall be subject to the general provisions.

Ground for the Request for Annulment

It was maintained in brief that pursuant to the contested provision, liability arising from traffic accidents involving motorised bicycles is limited solely to the riders; and that the operators of such vehicles engage in commercial activities and derive commercial profit, yet are not held liable for the resulting damage. It was further asserted that the provisions on compulsory motor third-party liability (MTPL) insurance are not applicable to these vehicles, thereby precluding recourse against insurers for the damages sustained; that the reason for this different liability regime applicable to these vehicles cannot be discerned from either the text or the legislative intent of Law no. 2918; and that, while bodily injuries caused by other motor vehicles are covered by the Social Security Institution, healthcare expenses of persons injured in accidents involving motorised bicycles are not reimbursed. On these grounds, the contested provision was claimed to be unconstitutional.

The Court’s Assessment

The operation of motor vehicles, classified as a hazardous activity within the scope of Law no. 2918, confers benefits on the operator while exposing third persons to the risk of damage arising from such operation. The legislator has prescribed strict liability (liability for risk) on the part of the operator regarding the operation of motor vehicles and has imposed an obligation to obtain compulsory MTPL insurance to cover the potential risks arising from their operation. No such obligation has been envisaged for non-motorised vehicles and motorised bicycles, which are deemed not to pose a degree of danger that would necessitate their inclusion within the scope of the Law.

Accidents involving motorised bicycles may nevertheless result in consequences affecting an individual’s corporeal and spiritual existence as well as her/his property. Pursuant to the reference made by Article 103 of the Law, which includes the contested provision, it is evident that in the event of the rider’s fault in an accident involving a motorised bicycle, the resulting damage may be claimed under Articles 49, 53, 54 and 56 of the Turkish Code of Obligations no. 6098. Accordingly, it is apparent that the legislator has envisaged regulations capable of ensuring redress for damages caused by motorised bicycle riders.

It is within the legislator’s margin of appreciation to determine whether liability and a corresponding MTPL insurance regarding the risks posed by vehicles that do not reach a certain engine capacity or speed should be specifically regulated by law. Although the legislator has not regulated within the scope of Law no. 2918 the liability arising from the operation of such vehicles, this should not necessarily be interpreted as exempting the operators from liabilities under the general provisions. Indeed, it is set out in Article 71 of Code no. 6098 that where damage arises from the activities of an enterprise posing a significant danger, the owner of the enterprise and, where applicable, the operator may be held jointly and severally liable. Consequently, there is no legal impediment to holding the relevant persons liable under the aforementioned provision for damages caused by the operation of non-motorised vehicles.

Furthermore, it is evident that Article 65 of Code no. 6098 concerning equitable liability for damages caused by persons lacking discernment, Article 66 on employer’s liability, and Article 369 of the Turkish Civil Code no. 4721 regarding the liability of the head of household are likewise applicable to accidents involving motorised bicycles.

In conclusion, it has been observed that various liability regimes have been introduced in laws other than Law no. 2918, with a view to redressing the damages arising from accidents involving motorised bicycles. Accordingly, the Court has found that subjecting the legal liability of motorised bicycle riders to the general provisions, by excluding them from the scope of Law no. 2918, does not conflict with the State’s positive obligations regarding the right to protect and develop one’s corporeal and spiritual existence as well as the right to property.

 Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional, and therefore the request for its annulment has been dismissed.