The Constitutional Court decided on the 27th that the legal provision prohibiting individuals whose licenses have been revoked due to drunk driving from obtaining a driver's license for two years thereafter is constitutional. This is the court's first judgment on this matter. The court determined that drunk driving is a 'serious crime' that poses a threat not only to the driver but also to the lives of others, thus necessitating the provision.
On this day, the court unanimously decided, with all seven justices agreeing, that 'the relevant provisions do not violate the Constitution' in the constitutional complaint case filed by Mr. A and others, claiming that Article 93, Section 1, and Article 82, Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act are unconstitutional.
Mr. A and others had their licenses revoked due to being caught drunk driving more than twice. Subsequently, they were unable to obtain a driver's license for two years under the Road Traffic Act. Mr. A and others filed a constitutional complaint, arguing that the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Act infringe on their freedom to work, general freedom of action, and the right to equality.
However, the court did not accept Mr. A and others' claims. The court stated, 'The relevant provisions aim to protect the lives, physical integrity, and property of the public from drunk driving and to secure safety related to road traffic, while also achieving a preventive effect to deter repeated drunk driving, making the legislative purpose legitimate.'
The court also mentioned that drunk driving is a serious crime that harms others. It stated, 'Drunk driving threatens not only the driver's own life but can also take the lives of innocent others and destroy the lives of their families, causing serious social harm as a result.'
The court continued, 'It cannot be said that the limitation of private interests for individuals who rely on driving for their livelihood is insignificant for two years, yet the public interest sought to be achieved by this provision cannot be said to be in any way small compared to the private interests limited.' It added, 'This does not violate the principle of proportionality and does not infringe on general freedom of action and freedom to work.'
Additionally, the court dismissed the request for adjudication regarding the legal provision to revoke licenses for individuals who have committed drunk driving more than twice. Dismissal refers to cases where the court ends proceedings without review due to a lack of legal grounds for the lawsuit.