Driving License Restriction Codes in Turkey

1. Introduction

Ensuring road traffic safety, guaranteeing individuals’ freedom of travel, and supporting the integration of disabled citizens into social life in the Turkish legal system are based on a complex and intertwined legal infrastructure. In the historical process, especially within the scope of harmonization efforts with the European Union acquis, radical changes have been made in road traffic legislation; the “Class H” disabled driving license application, which was applied in the past and offered a very limited framework, was abolished and replaced by the “driver restriction codes” system. This modern system has established a mechanism that records the physical, neurological, and psychological competencies of each driver through individualized codes, drawing definitive boundaries for vehicle-specific technical equipment obligations and administrative restrictions regarding driving.

Although these health and restriction codes processed into the driving license (e.g., 01.01, 10.02, 78, 102, etc.) may seem like a mere traffic administration procedure at first glance, due to their legal consequences, they are located at the intersection of a wide variety of disciplines such as administrative, tax, insurance, criminal, and labor law. On the one hand, these codes serve as a constitutive legal document before the finance bureaucracy for disabled individuals who wish to acquire a vehicle by benefiting from the Special Consumption Tax (SCT – ÖTV) exemption; on the other hand, they form the basis of the recourse (subrogation) claims of insurance companies in legal disputes arising from traffic accidents. Likewise, in case these codes are violated, heavy administrative fines are applied in accordance with the Highway Traffic Law (KTK), and the act of the driver in a possible accident with injury may rise to the level of “conscious negligence” within the meaning of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK).

This article aims to provide an in-depth analysis and a legal perspective, starting from the allocation processes of driving license health codes; examining administrative objection mechanisms, non-retroactivity and exemption disputes arising in the dimension of tax law, the doctrine of causal link in insurance law, and its reflections on criminal law in the light of the jurisprudence of the Council of State, the Supreme Court of Appeals, and administrative courts.

2. What is the Health Legislation and the Architectural Structure of Restriction Codes?

The physical and mental competencies of driver candidates and current drivers are strictly supervised within the framework of the “Regulation on Health Conditions to be Sought in Driver Candidates and Drivers and Their Examinations” put into effect based on sub-paragraph (c) of the first paragraph of Article 41 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918. While determining general health criteria, the Regulation divides driving licenses into two main categories according to their intended use and potential risk factors. Group one driving licenses cover classes M, A1, A2, A, B1, B, BE, and F (motorcycles, standard automobiles, and tractors); while group two driving licenses include classes C1, C1E, C, CE, D1, D1E, D, DE, and G (trucks, lorries, buses, tow trucks, and construction equipment). This distinction directly determines the tolerance margin to be applied, especially in the evaluation of visual acuity, hearing thresholds, and neurological findings. The high risk potential carried by the second group of drivers necessitates the application of stricter health criteria and more restrictive codes for candidates in this group.

2.1. What are the Medical Evaluation Criteria and Areas of Specialization?

Medical evaluations carried out in accordance with the Regulation are bound to certain norms in the branches of ophthalmology, internal medicine, ear-nose-throat, orthopedics, and psychiatry and neurology. Vision criteria are among the areas where these norms are applied most strictly. For group one drivers who can see with both eyes, it is a legal obligation that the visual acuity of one eye, with or without correction, is at least 2/10 and the total visual degree of both eyes reaches the level of 10/20. The criteria are much higher for the second group of heavy vehicle and commercial vehicle drivers; the visual acuity of the lesser seeing eye must not be below 0.6 and the better seeing eye below 0.8, or both eyes must be at the level of 0.7 separately in these drivers.

In visual field examinations, there is a condition of not having a scotoma (loss of visual field) within the central 20 degrees. It is legally impossible to issue any class of driving license to persons diagnosed with central scotoma in both eyes. Likewise, binocular homonymous, bitemporal defects, and hemianopic or quadrantanopic defects are listed as cases that absolutely prevent driving on the grounds that they clearly threaten driving safety. Mental retardation (IQ level of 79 and below), severe dementia cases, continuous medication use that impairs attention and consciousness, and alcohol or drug addiction are also irreversible medical conditions that constitute absolute obstacles to becoming a driver before the regulation.

Musculoskeletal system diseases and orthopedic findings require a more specific evaluation. While a driving license is generally not granted to persons with muscle diseases such as myopathy, progressive muscular dystrophy, and myotonia; in mild cases, according to the opinion of a neurologist, a driving license can be granted provided that they undergo a medical examination once a year (Code 103.03) and only drive certain vehicle classes (A1, A2, B, F, H).

2.2. How Does the Process Work for Monocular Driving and Special Vision Conditions?

The Regulation has built a special regime regarding specific vision disorders such as monocular (seeing with one eye) individuals, night blindness (retinitis pigmentosa), and color blindness. Individuals with color blindness can obtain any class of driving license without being subject to any restriction code thanks to the positioning of lights and markings in traffic according to international standards. The situation of drivers diagnosed with night blindness is limited by the daylight level; the driving of these persons is restricted to the time frame from one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset (daytime).

Monocular drivers are subject to a special inspection and numerous restriction codes due to the weakening of depth perception in road traffic. For a person to obtain a monocular driving license, it is mandated that the visual acuity in their seeing eye is full, that is, at the level of 10/10 (1.0). Eye disease specialist physicians have the authority to process codes 42.01, 42.03, 42.05, 42.06 directly into their reports without the obligation to refer monocular individuals to a commission. Monocular individuals cannot drive commercial vehicles, official vehicles, or ambulances (Application of Code 102). Furthermore, it is a legal obligation for their vehicles to have at least three rearview mirrors, on the right, left, and inside, and to affix standard signs indicating that they are monocular drivers on the right and left upper corners of the rear window of the vehicle.

2.3. How Are Driving Restriction Codes Classified?

The codes processed into driving licenses are classified into three main axes according to their functions and the authorities authorized to allocate these codes: Codes to be Used by Physicians, Codes to be Used by the Commission, and Codes to be Used by Traffic Organizations.

Among the codes given by physicians, the 103 series codes (for example, 103.03 Annual health check, 103.04 Health check every three years, 103.05 Health check every five years) are of a nature that limits the continuity of the administrative process. Even if the codes themselves are permanently valid, the person must be re-examined at the authorized health institutions at the end of the periodic periods indicated by these codes; otherwise, the validity of the driving license is legally suspended.

The code sequences starting with 10, 20, 25, 31, 32, 33, 35, and 40, given by the commissions formed with the participation of engineers within the Provincial Health Directorates, completely regulate the interventions to be made to the vehicle. For example; very specific technical modifications such as 15.01 adapted clutch pedal, 20.06 hand-operated brake, 25.04 manual accelerator pedal, 31.01 extra set of parallel pedals, 32.01 combined brake and acceleration system operated with one hand, 40.11 obligation to use an auxiliary device on the steering wheel are determined by means of this commission. The codes processed by traffic organizations include bans concerning the general public order. For example, the code series starting with 105 (105.02 Backhoe Loader, 105.06 Forklift, 105.40 Truck Mixer, etc.) lists the types of construction equipment the person is authorized to use nominally and restrictively. Code 69, inserted into the legislation in accordance with European norms, reflects the preventive face of contemporary criminal and administrative law by mandating the “alcohol interlock equipment” planned to be integrated into the vehicles of persons with a criminal record for drunk driving by court or administration decision.

3. How Do Objections to Health Reports and Judicial Review Processes Work?

Driving health reports and the restriction codes inserted into these reports are administrative acts that are executive (mandatory to execute) and have a direct effect on the legal status of the person, pursuant to the fundamental principles of administrative law. Because a person’s inability to get a driver’s license with a “cannot be a driver” decision or the cancellation of their license is an intervention that deeply shakes that individual’s freedom to work (inability to practice the profession of driving), freedom of travel, and social integration. The principle of the rule of law has fully opened administrative objection and judicial review mechanisms to individuals against this unilateral declaration of will of the administration. The most common misconception in practice is the belief that referee hospital decisions are closed to judicial remedy.

3.1. How Does the Administrative Application, Objection Periods, and Referee Hospital Institution Work?

An individual (or their legal representative) who wishes to object to the diagnoses contained in the driving health report notified or delivered to them, to a restriction code not given, or to a general “cannot be a driver” decision, must apply to the Provincial Health Directorate of the province where they reside with a written and reasoned petition within 30 days from the date the report is delivered to them. In administrative law, this 30-day period has the nature of a “forfeiture period”; ignoring the period means the implied disappearance of the person’s right to object and the report becoming definitive within the administrative hierarchy.

As a result of the objection made to the Provincial Health Directorate, the administration refers the person to a second state or training and research hospital authorized to issue disabled health board reports in order to re-evaluate the individual’s medical condition. If the report to be issued by the second hospital is consistent with the first report (if both say they cannot be a driver or gave the same restriction codes), the transaction is perfected and finalized in the administrative dimension. However, if there is a contradiction between the first report and the second report—for example, if the first hospital imposed a restriction while the second hospital did not feel the need for a restriction—the Provincial Health Directorate refers the file and the patient to the “Referee Hospital” closest to the place of residence to resolve the dispute. The decision to be made by the referee hospital board as a result of a comprehensive examination is the last link in the administrative process and is final in an administrative sense; the administration cannot make a new hospital referral after this stage and is obliged to base its decision on the referee hospital report.

3.2. How is an Annulment Lawsuit Filed and Why is Expert Examination Important?

The fact that the referee hospital decision is final “administratively” cannot eliminate the mandatory provision “Judicial recourse is open against all kinds of acts and actions of the administration” guaranteed in Article 125 of the Constitution. Following the exhaustion of administrative objection remedies, a lawsuit for the “Annulment of the Administrative Act” can be filed in the Administrative Court within 60 days from the notification to the concerned party of the final negative action established by the administration based on the referee hospital report. The court with jurisdiction is the Administrative Court, and the competent court is the court of the place where the Provincial Health Directorate or the Governorship establishing the transaction is located.

In annulment lawsuits heard in administrative courts, the court panel cannot examine the dispute on its merits alone, as the dispute contains deep medical and technical information rather than a mere lack of administrative procedure. Pursuant to the jurisprudence of the Council of State, in order to determine whether the referee hospital report complies with the law and medical facts in such files, it is a legal obligation for the Court to obtain a report from an expert committee composed of the relevant specialization boards of the Forensic Medicine Institute or faculty members of the relevant department of fully-fledged university hospitals. Health reports based on incomplete examinations, misinterpreting the criteria of the Highway Traffic Regulation, or failing to comply with the principle of proportionality are annulled by the Administrative Court in line with the expert reports. Moreover, since it is obvious that the person whose license is cancelled or who cannot practice their profession will suffer damages that are difficult or impossible to compensate, the evident unlawfulness of the action must also be evidenced in the lawsuit petition, and a request for a “stay of execution” must certainly be made pursuant to Article 27 of the Administrative Jurisdiction Procedures Law (İYUK).

4. Special Consumption Tax (SCT) Exemption in Disabled Vehicle Purchase and Its Legal Dimensions

The medium where the financial and economic impacts of driving license restriction codes are felt the most is the tax exemption in purchasing a disabled vehicle, which comes to life in the 2nd paragraph of Article 7 of the Special Consumption Tax (SCT) Law No. 4760. This exemption, which acts as a lifeline for the participation of disabled individuals in social life in the face of enormous increases in vehicle prices, has become a constant area of legal conflict due to the uncertainties in legal regulations and the restrictive interpretations developed by the Revenue Administration (GİB) with the motive of protecting budget balances.

4.1. Scope of SCT Exemption: What Are the Rates and Equipment Requirements?

In the systematics of the SCT Law, the disabled vehicle exemption is divided into two main categories. In the first group; there are individuals with a disability rate of 90% and above. For these individuals, there is no obligation to drive the vehicle themselves or to have special equipment in the vehicle; these vehicles can be freely driven by their relatives within the framework of legal limitations. In the second group; there are individuals with a disability rate below 90% but who have orthopedic (musculoskeletal system) disorders. In order for individuals in this group to benefit from the SCT exemption, the numerical magnitude of the disability rate is of no importance; the main condition is that they use the vehicle themselves and that “special equipment” suitable for their disability has been installed on the “moving parts” (clutch, brake, accelerator pedals, or gear lever) of the vehicle.

It is at this point that driving license codes and the phrases in health reports gain the character of a critical document. The mere presence of codes 78 (Can use automatic transmission) or 10.02 (Automatic transmission) on the driving license does not by itself create the right to SCT exemption before the Customs and Finance bureaucracy. In accordance with the mandatory provisions of the VAT General Communiqué Serial No. 14 and the relevant SCT Communiqués, it is absolutely mandatory to write the phrase “Must use a vehicle with special equipment only on the moving parts” in the disabled health board report.

Legal Consequences of the Left and Right Extremity (Limb) Distinction: In the light of the communiqués of the Ministry of Finance and the decisions of the Council of State, a very fine legal distinction has been created between left and right leg/arm disabilities. Since the main problem of a disabled person with a restriction in their left leg or left lower extremity is the inability to press the clutch pedal; standard factory-produced automatic transmission vehicles are accepted in the status of “vehicles with special equipment” without attaching any additional mechanical apparatus. These persons, with the help of the equipment phrase in their reports and driving license codes 10.02 and 78, can directly benefit from the SCT exemption without needing any other mechanical engineering project, and these vehicles without apparatus installed can be legally driven by anyone (spouse, child, etc.) who has a license.

On the other hand, for individuals with restrictions in the right lower extremity (right leg) or upper extremities (right/left arm or hand), a mere automatic transmission equipment is insufficient for exemption. It is a strict legal obligation to install mechanical equipment on the vehicles of these individuals that will directly compensate for the physical disability, such as moving the accelerator and brake pedals to the left with a mechanical transmission (Code 25.04, 20.06), mounting hand-operated accelerator-brake levers, adapting the gear lever to the steering wheel (Code 35.03), or a steering knob/fork (Code 40.11), to have engineering modification projects approved by the Turkish Standards Institution (TSE) drawn up, and to have this situation processed into the vehicle license.

4.2. The New 10-Year Rule and the Council of State’s “Non-Retroactivity” Intervention

The right of disabled individuals to buy a vehicle without SCT has recently been narrowed by overlapping legal restrictions. Firstly, the upper limit for vehicle purchase was indexed to inflation and set as 2,873,900 TL (including taxes) for the year 2026, then with Law No. 7577, a requirement of at least 40% localization rate (contribution) was introduced for vehicles to be purchased with exemption. In VAT application, there is no general exemption for disabled people, and VAT continues to be collected over the remaining amount after SCT is deducted from the tax base.

However, the main legal change occurred with Law No. 7537 dated December 27, 2024, extending the period for purchasing a new vehicle by benefiting from the SCT exemption from 5 years to 10 years (from the first acquisition). Following this legal change, the Revenue Administration announced with a published General Communiqué that it would apply the 10-year period retroactively. According to this administrative interpretation; a disabled citizen who bought a vehicle before December 27, 2024, completed the 5-year legal waiting period, and sold their vehicle was banned from purchasing a new vehicle by tax offices on the grounds that they had not completed 10 years under the new law.

This communiqué regulation by the administration, which ignored vested rights, was swiftly taken to administrative jurisdiction, and the 7th Chamber of the Council of State (E. 2025/400) made a stay of execution decision that will set a precedent in terms of legal history. The Council of State panel referred to very fundamental universal legal principles in its stay of execution decision: The fact that individuals wait the 5-year period relying on the legislation in force and dispose of their vehicles upon the expiration of the period creates a legal status. The administration imposing new burdens on past actions by exceeding the temporal application limits of the Law through a communiqué (sub-norm) clearly violates the principles of the Rule of Law (Legal Security and Predictability) and the “Legality of Taxes” of the Constitution. The Council of State stopped the execution of Article 10 of the Communiqué, stating that this application would leave disabled individuals without a vehicle, prevent their participation in social life, and cause impossible-to-compensate damages. This high court decision is the strongest legal reference for the annulment lawsuits to be filed in Administrative Courts within 30 days from the rejection date by disabled persons whose exemption applications were unjustly rejected by tax offices.

4.3. Inheritance Law and VDDK Jurisprudence in Case of Demise During First Acquisition

Another point of conflict where tax legislation and civil/inheritance law overlap is the events of demise that occur before the police/notary registration procedures are completed, although the invoice was issued in the name of the disabled individual. For many years, tax administrations claimed that the exemption condition (the disabled person being alive) disappeared by asserting that the license plate registration of the vehicle was made after the moment of demise, and sent SCT, VAT, and tax loss penalty notices ex officio to the heirs.

This practice, which created deep contradictions among Regional Administrative Courts, was finally resolved by the decision of the Council of State Tax Law Divisions Board (VDDK). In the VDDK decision, the concept of “tax-generating event” in Turkish tax law was put at the center. According to the SCT Law No. 4760, the moment generating the tax for motor vehicles subject to recording and registration is the “first acquisition” of the vehicle, that is, delivery from the dealer to the buyer and the moment the invoice is issued. The Board definitively ruled that it is sufficient for the disabled person to be alive and meet the exemption conditions on the date the invoice is issued, that the mere spillage of the registration bureaucracy to after the demise will not eliminate the vested tax exemption, and that the administration cannot narrow this right through communiqués. Therefore, it has become legally impossible to demand any tax and penalty from the heirs in case of a pre-registration demise.

However, if the disabled person passes away before the 5-year legal period expires after the vehicle is registered, and if the vehicle is sold to heirs or third parties who do not have the right to benefit from the exemption, the SCT not paid during the purchase is collected by the tax office. The sale of the vehicles of disabled individuals who are restricted (under guardianship) cannot be done by the unilateral will of the guardian. Pursuant to Art. 462 of the Turkish Civil Code, this sales transaction can only be carried out with the permission of the Civil Court of Peace (by auction or bargaining method), which is the guardianship authority.

5. Insurance Law Dimension: ZMSS Scope, Causal Link, and Recourse Lawsuits

The compensation of bodily and material damages arising after traffic accidents is guaranteed by the Highway Motor Vehicles Compulsory Financial Liability Insurance (Traffic Insurance – ZMSS) and Kasko (Comprehensive Motor) insurance mechanisms. The restriction codes on the driving license (01.01 glasses, 78 automatic transmission, 102 cannot drive commercial vehicles, etc.) are one of the most important legal bases in operating the exclusion clauses in insurance policies and the recourse (subrogation – the insurer asking back what it paid from its insured) mechanisms.

5.1. ZMSS General Conditions B.4 and the Situation of Violating Restriction Codes

A driver using a vehicle in violation of the restriction code on their driving license (for example, driving without glasses, driving manual when they should drive automatic, driving a standard vehicle instead of a vehicle with an alcohol interlock) is generally considered equivalent to driving with an “insufficient license” or “without a license” in the context of insurance law.

However, pursuant to Article 95 of the Highway Traffic Law and ZMSS General Conditions, the rights of injured third parties are not affected by the restrictions in the insurance policy. Even if its insured is grossly negligent, unlicensed, or intoxicated, the insurance company is obliged to pay the victim immediately and completely for damages such as vehicle damage, loss of value, injury, and death suffered by third parties, within the legal limits of the year 2026 (3,600,000 TL per person, 400,000 TL material per vehicle). After the insurer makes the payment, based on the severe violation reasons (unlicensed driving, drugs/alcohol, intentional act, exceeding carrying capacity) listed in Article B.4 of the ZMSS General Conditions, it files a “recourse lawsuit” against the policyholder (its insured) to recover the amount it paid.

5.2. What is the “Exclusive Causal Link” Doctrine in Supreme Court Jurisprudence?

Whether insurance companies automatically gain the right of recourse based merely on the violation of the driving license restriction code or the driver being intoxicated is one of the deepest topics of debate in Turkish Law of Obligations and Insurance Law. The established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Appeals General Assembly of Civil Chambers and its relevant chambers (especially the 4th and 11th Civil Chambers) has drawn a very clear line on this issue: In order for a violation (unlicensed driving, alcohol, restriction code violation) to grant the right of recourse to the insurer or to be considered a reason for a contributory (joint) negligence discount, there must be an “appropriate causal link (causality)” between the accident and the violation, and the accident must have been caused “exclusively” (solely and uniquely) by this violation.

For example, in a dispute subject to the precedent decisions of the 4th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 2025/2026; in an event where an unlicensed driver (or one with an insufficient code) driving properly or waiting at a red light is damaged as a result of being hit from behind by another vehicle, the court made the following assessment: The driver being unlicensed or not complying with the restriction code merely requires an administrative sanction. This situation cannot be considered a “driving fault” by itself. Because the accident was not caused by unlicensed driving (or not wearing glasses), but by the primary fault of the vehicle coming from behind (violating the following distance). Because the causal link was broken, even the unlicensed driver has the right to fully demand the material damage, loss of value, and vehicle deprivation cost on their vehicle from the other party (or the other party’s insurance).

The same exclusivity rule also applies to drunk driving. According to the Supreme Court of Appeals, the presence of alcohol above the legal limit in the driver’s blood (or being involved in an accident with a standard vehicle while having the alcohol interlock code 69 on their license) is not sufficient by itself for the insurer’s B.4 recourse. Courts investigate whether there are other factors affecting the accident, such as road defects, bad weather conditions, speed violations, or rule errors of third parties, by obtaining expert reports from neurology or forensic medicine specialists within the scope of the file. If the accident is not “exclusively” caused by the neurological loss created by alcohol or the physical inadequacy brought by the restriction code (for example, an orthopedically disabled person driving a vehicle without apparatus), the doubt is interpreted in favor of the insured, and the insurance company’s recourse lawsuit is dismissed on the merits.

6. Criminal Law Dimension: Crimes of Negligence and the Limits of Conscious Negligence

In the event of death or injury resulting from traffic accidents, the driver’s violation of the driving license health codes emerges as an aggravating factor that radically changes the nature and amount of the penalty the defendant will receive within the meaning of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK).

6.1. How Does the Transition Between Simple Negligence and Conscious Negligence Occur?

In criminal law, negligence is the situation where the perpetrator acts contrary to the obligation of care and attention, “unforeseeingly” and “unwillingly” realizing a consequence considered a crime by law (simple/unconscious negligence) (TCK Art. 22/2). However, if the perpetrator, although objectively “foreseeing” the dangerous consequence, continues to commit the unlawful act with the belief that the consequence will not occur, relying on their own skill, luck, or experience, and an accident occurs, the act reaches the dimension of “conscious negligence” (TCK Art. 22/3).

In the jurisprudence of the 12th Penal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, the presence of a restriction code on the driving license is accepted as definitive and objective evidence that the perpetrator “foresaw” the possible risks legally in advance and received an official warning on this matter. For example; if a driver with code 01.01 (Use of glasses/contact lenses mandatory) on their license goes into traffic without glasses and hits a pedestrian, committing the crime of TCK Art. 89 (Injury by Negligence) or TCK Art. 85 (Causing Death by Negligence), judicial authorities do not evaluate the perpetrator’s action as simple negligence. Because the perpetrator foresaw their vision defect and the possibility of having an accident when driving without glasses, but set out by intentionally not complying with the rules and the restriction code. In this respect, the perpetrator’s penalty is increased from one-third to half pursuant to conscious negligence provisions.

6.2. Investigation Procedure and What is Its Effect on the Personal Cause of Impunity?

Classifying the act imputed as a result of violating the restriction code as “conscious negligence” has two massive procedural consequences. First; as a rule, while the investigation and prosecution of crimes of injury by simple negligence within the scope of TCK Art. 89/1 depends on the complaint of the victim within 6 months (withdrawing the complaint drops the case), if the crime is committed with conscious negligence, the complaint condition is not sought. The prosecutor’s office must ex officio open and conduct a public lawsuit even if the victim does not file a complaint.

The second is related to the “personal cause of impunity” regulated in TCK Art. 22/6. The law stipulates that no penalty shall be given to the perpetrator if the consequence caused by the negligent act, exclusively in terms of the personal and family status of the perpetrator, “leads to them becoming a victim to such an extent that imposing a penalty is no longer necessary” (for example, the death of the driver’s own child or spouse due to their fault). However, Supreme Court practice and doctrine clearly state that if there is “conscious negligence” in the perpetrator’s action (e.g., severe and knowing violation of the restriction code), this personal cause of impunity or penalty reduction reason will not be applied.

7. Traffic Administrative Sanctions and Their Effects on Social Security Law

The violation of driving license restriction codes requires administrative fines in the context of the Highway Traffic Law (KTK). The driver driving a vehicle by not complying with the restrictions on their document is classified as a misdemeanor of “driving a vehicle not suitable for the driving license class (or contrary to its conditions)” within the scope of the provision of KTK Art. 39/3. According to the 2026 penalty tariffs, the administrative fine for the KTK 39/3 violation has been updated as 4,712 TL, and no deduction is made in the driver’s license penalty points in case this penalty is applied.

However, the legislator has also aggravated the responsibility of vehicle owners (vehicle operators) within the scope of KTK Art. 39/3 and 39/2. The vehicle owner (company or individual) who hands over their vehicle to a person who is unlicensed or strictly does not comply with the restrictions in their document is also fined the same amount of administrative fine as the driver over the registration plate (in cases of complete unlicensed driving, this penalty can go up to 46,000 TL within the scope of new penalty proposals/sanctions).

7.1. Code 102 (Commercial Vehicle Ban) and SGK Administrative Fines

Code 102 (Cannot drive ambulance, commercial vehicle, or official vehicle) on the driving license has a nature that directly regulates working life and employer responsibilities. An individual with this restriction cannot dispatch and administer any vehicle with the phrase “Commercial” instead of “Private” on its license, including light commercial vehicles.

An employer or company handing over a commercial vehicle (pickup truck, minibus, taxi, transport vehicle) to a driver with a 102 restriction code and physically employing this person is subject to heavy sanctions on the axis of administrative law and Social Security Law. Since an employer cannot show a person without a legal license on the driver roster, these people are generally employed “unrecorded” without being reported to the Social Security Institution (SGK). Within the scope of Article 102 of the Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510, if drivers who are physically working in a commercial vehicle but do not have an SGK record are detected, heavy retroactive administrative fines are applied cumulatively for each month at a certain multiple of the minimum wage (such as half a minimum wage amount, around 16,515 TL with 2025 data). Considering that in a possible traffic accident, the event will also be considered a “Work Accident,” the employer employing a driver with code 102 will be accepted as 100% at fault in the chain of SGK recourse lawsuits, deprivation of support compensations, and occupational safety violations, and will face a significant financial burden.

8. Conclusion

As a result, it is an indispensable requirement of the modern rule of law that in all processes from the allocation of driver restriction codes to their cancellation; medical necessities are carried out in harmony with universal legal principles (proportionality, certainty, fair trial), under the effective supervision of independent forensic medicine experts and judicial bodies.

ANNEX-1: Comprehensive Driving License Health and Restriction Codes Table

The following table is the current complete list of health, restriction, and vehicle adaptation codes inserted into driving licenses within the framework of the Highway Traffic Regulation and the EU acquis.