The principle that penalties are personal requires that, on a person’s death, the penalties imposed on that person likewise fall away; there can therefore be no question of any penalty passing to the heirs. Under this principle criminal responsibility belongs exclusively to the person who committed the act, and the heirs cannot be placed under any penal obligation by reason of the deceased’s conduct.
Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye accordingly contains the provision that “criminal responsibility is personal” and states expressly that no one may be punished for the act of another. That constitutional guarantee affords protection in respect of both criminal law and administrative sanctions.
For that reason the heirs cannot, as a rule, be held liable for the deceased’s judicial fines, traffic fines, irregularity penalties or other administrative fines.
Can the Heirs Be Held Liable for Penalty Debts?
The rule in succession law is that the rights and debts forming part of the deceased’s estate pass to the heirs. That transfer is not, however, absolute and unlimited. Different consequences arise as regards rights strictly personal in nature and obligations giving rise to criminal responsibility.
The Distinction Between Debts of the Estate and Personal Debts
Not every debt passes to the heirs. Only the pecuniary debts forming part of the estate pass to them, while certain strictly personal rights and obligations come to an end with death. In particular;
- Disciplinary sanctions,
- Personal criminal responsibility,
- Penalties attached to the person,
- Certain administrative sanctions
do not pass to the heirs. By contrast, tax debts and private law debts which are economic in character and form part of the estate pass to the heirs as a rule.
This distinction is decisive in practice, since not every public receivable owed by the deceased can automatically be collected from the heirs.
The Principle That Criminal Responsibility Is Personal
One of the foundations of criminal law is the principle that “criminal responsibility is personal”. Under Article 38 of the Constitution no one may be held liable for the act of another.
As a consequence of that principle, criminal responsibility belongs only to the person who committed the act, and that responsibility comes to an end with that person’s death. The heirs therefore cannot, as a rule, be held liable for;
- Traffic fines,
- Judicial fines,
- Administrative sanctions,
- Irregularity penalties.
Where, in practice, an attempt is made to collect from the heirs fines issued in the deceased’s name after the death, the heirs have the possibility of bringing an action or lodging an objection.
The Legal Character of Judicial Fines
Judicial fines are pecuniary penalties imposed by the criminal courts which bear the character of a criminal law sanction. Although in practice they are frequently confused with tax debts or administrative fines, their legal character and their consequences differ from one another.
As a matter of succession law, the decisive criterion on the question whether such penalties are to be regarded as debts of the estate and whether they may be demanded from the heirs is the principle that “criminal responsibility is personal”.
What Is a Judicial Fine?
A judicial fine is a type of sanction imposed by the courts in response to an offence under the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237. The penalty is applied in the form of the payment of a specified sum to the State. Judicial fines may be applied;
- As a sanction alternative to a short-term custodial sentence,
- In the form of a direct pecuniary penalty,
- As an optional penalty for certain offences.
Only the criminal courts may impose these penalties; in terms of legal character they are distinct from the administrative fines imposed by administrative authorities.
The Strictly Personal Nature of Judicial Fines
Since judicial fines are directed at punishing the person who committed the offence, they bear the character of a penalty strictly attached to the person.
Under the principle that “criminal responsibility is personal”, one of the fundamental principles of criminal law, it is not possible for third parties to be held liable for an offence committed by another. Judicial fines therefore:
- May not be demanded from the heirs, even in proportion to their shares in the estate,
- Are not regarded as debts of the estate,
- Do not pass to the heirs.
The heirs are accordingly not the addressees of judicial fines imposed by reason of an offence committed by the deceased.
The Lapse of Judicial Fines on Death
On the death of the person concerned, judicial fines fall away as a rule. Since criminal responsibility belongs only to the person who committed the act, it is not possible for the penal relationship to be maintained after death.
Under the principle that criminal responsibility is personal, it is legally impossible to collect judicial fines from the heirs, even where they have become final against the deceased. In that context;
- Judicial fines at the enforcement stage,
- Judicial fines that have become final,
- Judicial fines converted from a custodial sentence
come to an end with death.
Although it may be seen in practice that a payment order is sent to the heirs following the death of the deceased, the heirs’ rights of objection and of action are reserved as regards receivables in the nature of a judicial fine.
The Position of Administrative Fines as Regards the Heirs
Administrative fines are financial sanctions applied by administrative authorities with a view to protecting public order. By their nature these penalties are personal sanctions directed at the person who committed the unlawful act.
Because the principle of personal responsibility in criminal law applies in the same way to administrative sanctions, it is legally impossible for administrative fines to pass to the heirs. On the death of the person against whom the penalty is directed, such penalties therefore fall away automatically and can be collected neither from the estate nor from the heirs.
What Is an Administrative Fine?
An administrative fine is a pecuniary sanction applied by administrative authorities within the framework of the powers conferred by statute. Unlike judicial fines imposed by the courts, it rests for the most part on a decision of the administration. These penalties may arise in a variety of fields, such as;
- Municipal fines,
- Traffic fines,
- Fines relating to licensing and inspection breaches,
- Environmental fines,
- Sanctions falling within the Misdemeanours Act.
Each of them is directed at the person who carried out the unlawful act.
Traffic Fines
One of the heads of dispute most frequently encountered in practice as regards heirs is traffic fines. Since these penalties bear the character of an administrative sanction, under the principle of personal responsibility they cannot be collected from the heirs where the driver has died.
The fact that the penalty was issued against the vehicle’s registration plate does not alter that outcome. Fines issued against the plate are likewise in the nature of an administrative fine and fall away entirely on the death of the registered keeper. The heirs cannot therefore be held liable for any traffic fine issued before the death of the deceased.
Municipal and Misdemeanour Fines
Fines in the nature of a misdemeanour applied by municipalities and other administrative bodies likewise bear the character of a personal sanction. For example;
- Environmental pollution,
- Breach of the zoning legislation,
- Breach of municipal regulations,
- Unlicensed activity
administrative fines issued for these reasons are directed at the person who committed the act. On the death of the person penalised, it is therefore not possible to collect such penalties from the heirs.
The administrative fines applied by municipalities must not, however, be confused with the concrete expenditure incurred by the administration. For instance, the demolition costs arising from the demolition by the municipality of an unlicensed structure, or the clean-up costs incurred in remedying environmental pollution, are not a penalty but an administrative expense. Since actual expenditure of that kind falls outside the scope of the principle of personal responsibility, the costs incurred are collected from the estate (the assets left by the deceased) even where the penalty lapses.
The Distinction Between a Tax Penalty and the Principal Tax
Tax penalties are sanctions applied within the framework of the Tax Procedure Act No. 213 for breaches of tax obligations. Tax loss penalties, irregularity penalties and special irregularity penalties are addressed within this scope.
Article 372 of the Tax Procedure Act expressly contains the provision that “tax penalties lapse in the event of death”. Tax penalties issued during the lifetime of the deceased, or to be issued as a result of an examination carried out after the death, therefore do not pass to the heirs and cannot be collected from them.
Accordingly, the heirs cannot be held liable for;
- Irregularity penalties,
- Tax loss penalties,
- Special irregularity penalties.
This outcome follows from the fact that the principle of personal responsibility has been adopted in tax law as well. Indeed, under Article 38 of the Constitution no one may be punished for the act of another.
The most critical point to be borne in mind in practice is the difference between a tax penalty and the principal tax. The principal tax existing as at the date of the deceased’s death, that is to say the underlying public debt, does not bear the character of a penalty. Likewise the default interest and the late payment surcharge calculated in connection with that debt are not in law a penalty but an ancillary financial obligation.
The Effect of Death on Administrative Fines
Under the principle of personal responsibility, administrative fines likewise fall away on the death of the person concerned. The heirs cannot therefore be held liable for;
- Municipal fines,
- Traffic fines,
- Administrative sanctions attached to the person,
- Misdemeanour fines.
That said, it is possible in practice for a payment order to be served on the heirs after the death, or for attachment proceedings to be commenced. In such cases it is important that the character of the receivable subject to enforcement be examined and that, where necessary, an action or an objection be pursued.
Distinguishing public receivables of a penal character from public receivables in the nature of the principal tax or of an expense is in particular decisive in practice.
General Assessment
In Turkish law the principle that “criminal responsibility is personal”, guaranteed by Article 38 of the Constitution, is a mandatory provision in respect of both judicial fines imposed by the criminal courts and administrative fines issued by administrative authorities. Under that principle, just as no one may be punished for the act of another, it is likewise legally impossible for penal sanctions to pass to the heirs after death.
In summary, all penal sanctions that became final during the deceased’s lifetime or were established after the death, such as;
- Traffic fines,
- Judicial fines,
- Municipal and zoning fines,
- Tax loss and tax irregularity penalties, fall away automatically on the death of the deceased.
The liability that passes to the heirs consists solely of purely financial obligations bearing no penal character, such as the principal taxes, the Motor Vehicles Tax (MTV) and administrative expenses existing as at the date of the deceased’s death, or private law debts.
It is frequently seen in practice that, owing to a system error or a procedural omission, payment orders for penalties of this kind are sent to the heirs after the date of death, or enforcement proceedings are commenced. It is of great importance that the heirs examine with care the content of the payment orders served on them and, where they are faced with a “fine” that ought to be deleted, bring an action before the competent courts without missing the statutory time limits and have the enforcement set aside.
The Independent Legal Assessment
Most disputes in this field arise not from a legal argument but from an error of characterisation. Where it is not worked out whether the item appearing in the payment order served on the heirs is a penalty, the principal tax or an administrative expense, an unnecessary payment may be made for a sanction that has lapsed, while a time limit may equally be missed for a debt for which there is genuine liability.
Because the periods laid down for challenging payment orders are short, the route of objection must be assessed swiftly. In a specific file it is appropriate to give priority to the following matters:
- Separating the receivable subject to enforcement item by item and distinguishing between penalty, principal tax, ancillary receivable and expense
- Comparing the date on which the penalty became final and the date of its service with the date of the deceased’s death
- Taking the date of death of the registered keeper as the basis for traffic fines issued against the registration plate
- Advancing, as regards tax penalties, a request for lapse based on Art. 372 of the Tax Procedure Act
- Calendaring the period for an objection or an action for annulment against the payment order, taking the date of service as the basis
- Calculating separately the administrative expenses that must be met from the estate and assessing their effect on a decision to renounce the inheritance
Independent Legal provides advisory services in disputes at the intersection of succession law and public enforcement, above all in the examination of public receivable proceedings directed at heirs, in objections to payment orders and in the conduct of actions for annulment.