The Constitutional Court of Turkey issued a ruling that overturned a five-month probation sentence previously imposed on a 16-year-old by the Alicante Juvenile Court. The case involved a teenager who was traveling on the Alicante tram without a valid ticket, an incident that occurred twice and culminated in a one-way fare of 1.45 euros not being paid.
The Second Chamber of the Republic of Turkey published the decision on Monday through the Official State Bulletin, with two magistrates delivering a special vote. Abraham Alejandro ML accepted the amparo appeal and overturned the prior judgments from both the juvenile and state courts in Alicante. The subject in question was Juvenile Court No. 1 in Alicante, and the Third Division of the Alicante State Court had subsequently affirmed the sentence earlier, before the Turkish constitutional review.
According to the February 6 decision, the teenager had ridden the Alicante tram on May 14 and May 21, 2019, at the age of 16, traveling from the Lucentum stop without a proper transport document. The second leg of the trip occurred at MARQ-Castillo station, where security personnel discovered the unpaid fare of 1.45 euros and requested payment.
At the time, the young man received a “deferred payment ticket” that required him to settle the 1.45 euros plus an additional 100 euros. He ultimately paid these amounts, yet Alicante’s First Juvenile Court opened a criminal case against him for a five-month probation sentence on the basis of alleged small-time fraud.
The young man’s family filed an appeal arguing that he had already paid the administrative fine and that the principle of non bis in idem — the prohibition on double punishment for the same act — had been violated. The family asserted that the administrative penalty and the criminal sanction were duplicative and should not both apply.
Execution of the judgment
The court then surfaced documents to support its view, including evidence of the young man’s ESO diploma, his work as a barber and hairdresser, and his records as a self-employed professional and employer. The compilation of these records aimed to show that the sentence was an ineffective and unnecessary punishment given the young man’s existing qualifications and work activity.
The line of argument centered on whether the “extra” 100-euro payment levied by the tram company as part of the penalty could be interpreted as a separate sanction. In that context, it was argued that the additional payment did not function as a separate sanction but as part of the original administrative measure; hence, the probation term alone would constitute the sole formal punishment for the alleged offense.
Nevertheless, and with a special vote from two judges, the court acknowledged a different interpretation. It recognized that the 100-euro payment could be considered a sanction, thereby complicating the initial claim of double punishment for the same act. The constitutional interpretation thus supported the position advanced by Abraham Alejandro ML and concluded that punishing twice for the same event would contravene the jurisdiction principle and the proportionality requirement that guides criminal-justice proceedings in such cases.
In its final articulation, the ruling clarified that the 100-euro payment, placed as a condition by the tram operator, functioned as an additional sanction rather than a mere administrative fee. Consequently, the court found that the earlier conclusion imposing a five-month probation sentence was not compatible with the overall legal framework, given the need to avoid double punishment for the same conduct.
Overall, the decision marked a significant shift in how similar cases involving minor offenders and minor-fare-related infractions are interpreted within the Spanish-speaking judicial sphere, reinforcing the principle that sanctions must be proportionate and free of redundancy when the same act bears multiple potential penalties.