Özet:

This study deals with the question of harmonization between tax and criminal proceedings in Turkish law resulting from the condition of “sufficiently close in substance and in time” as applied within the scope of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (P7-4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In this context, the study first examines the developmental line of jurisprudence regarding the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and then examines how the elements of “substance” and “time” have been interpreted, starting with the Glantz and Nykänen judgments against Finland in 2014 and ending with the Kristjansson judgment against Iceland in 2021. Afterward, the study finds aspects of the case-law as created by the ECtHR to be incompatible with Turkish law. Because no legal regulation exists in Turkish law that provides a connection between “substance” and “time,” the final section proposes a solution to the identified problems. In this context, a systematic distinction has been made between crimes that do and do not require knowledge of tax techniques. The study recommends with regard to the first type of crime that an investigation into deliberateness be carried out by the tax court with its expert knowledge of tax techniques in order to avoid a repetitive evaluation, and then based on the result, the criminal court should determine the real person or entity who perpetrated the crime. With regard to the second type of crime, no knowledge of tax technique is required for the investigation into intent and thus in conclusion and unlike with the first case, the tax court is recommended to take the criminal court decision into account.

Anahtar Kelimeler: