Evaluation of the Decisions of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation Regarding the Application in Terms of Time of the Regulation Introduced by the Law No. 7394 on the Non - Seeking of the Opinion Litigation Requirement in Certain Cases

Sadık Melih İşler

Makale detayları

Evaluation of the Decisions of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation Regarding the Application in Terms of Time of the Regulation Introduced by the Law No. 7394 on the Non - Seeking of the Opinion Litigation Requirement in Certain Cases

Yazarlar:

Sadık Melih İşler

Yayıncı:

Erzincan Binali Yildirim University

Ana Başlıklar:

Ceza Hukuku

Dergi:

Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.27 Issue 2, pp.279-301

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001306555

pISSN:

2651-494X

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 A special procedure is stipulated in Article 367 of the Tax Procedure Law regarding the pursuit of tax evasion crimes regulated in Article 359 of the TPL No. 213, and it is regulated in the said article that it is mandatory to obtain an opinion from the relevant. The Court of Cassation sees the provision of a reasoning as a condition of judgment and checks with great care whether it is given for both the act and the perpetrator. In addition, the Court of Cassation accepts that the opinion is a discretionary proof that guides the trial authorities. However, with Article 5 of Law No. 7394 dated 08.04.2022, a significant Change has been made by adding a new paragraph to Article 367 of the Tax Procedure Law, wich regulates the condition of opinion reasoning. With this amendment, it is stated that if it is later determined that a tax evasion act regulated in Article 359, which has been the subject of investigation or prosecution, was committed by or together with another person, there will be no need to obtain a separate opinion in order to file a public lawsuit against these newly identified persons. Thus, before the amendment, the Court of Cassations practice that the opinion was required to be given about both the act and the perpetrator in every case, and that if it was understood that the opinion could not be given, the decision to dismiss it was ended, specifically with the regulation introduced. The 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation of Appeals, on the other hand, evaluated that this regulation introduced by Law No. 7394 is within the scope of the principle of immediate implementation, and stated that in cases filed before the amendment and where a decision was made to abatement of action due to lack of opinion, abatement of action decision cannot be given, stating that this regulation was introduced. This practice of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation of Appeasl is based on the acceptance that the condition of opinion of opinion reasoning hearing is an institution that belongs only to criminal law. However, in our opinion, due to the essence and function of the condition of opinion reasoning, it is not possible to accept it as an institution specific only to form of criminal law; in its absence, it has an important aspect specific to substantive criminal law in that it ends the punishing relationship between the state and the individual. In this respect, in the present study, contrary to this opinion of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation of Appeals, it has been tried to explain that the opinion has both substantive criminal law aspects, and the amendment brought by law No. 7394 is subject to retroactive implementation in pending cases. Two decisions are evaluated and criticized in this context.

 A special procedure is stipulated in Article 367 of the Tax Procedure Law regarding the pursuit of tax evasion crimes regulated in Article 359 of the TPL No. 213, and it is regulated in the said article that it is mandatory to obtain an opinion from the relevant. The Court of Cassation sees the provision of a reasoning as a condition of judgment and checks with great care whether it is given for both the act and the perpetrator. In addition, the Court of Cassation accepts that the opinion is a discretionary proof that guides the trial authorities. However, with Article 5 of Law No. 7394 dated 08.04.2022, a significant Change has been made by adding a new paragraph to Article 367 of the Tax Procedure Law, wich regulates the condition of opinion reasoning. With this amendment, it is stated that if it is later determined that a tax evasion act regulated in Article 359, which has been the subject of investigation or prosecution, was committed by or together with another person, there will be no need to obtain a separate opinion in order to file a public lawsuit against these newly identified persons. Thus, before the amendment, the Court of Cassations practice that the opinion was required to be given about both the act and the perpetrator in every case, and that if it was understood that the opinion could not be given, the decision to dismiss it was ended, specifically with the regulation introduced. The 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation of Appeals, on the other hand, evaluated that this regulation introduced by Law No. 7394 is within the scope of the principle of immediate implementation, and stated that in cases filed before the amendment and where a decision was made to abatement of action due to lack of opinion, abatement of action decision cannot be given, stating that this regulation was introduced. This practice of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation of Appeasl is based on the acceptance that the condition of opinion of opinion reasoning hearing is an institution that belongs only to criminal law. However, in our opinion, due to the essence and function of the condition of opinion reasoning, it is not possible to accept it as an institution specific only to form of criminal law; in its absence, it has an important aspect specific to substantive criminal law in that it ends the punishing relationship between the state and the individual. In this respect, in the present study, contrary to this opinion of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation of Appeals, it has been tried to explain that the opinion has both substantive criminal law aspects, and the amendment brought by law No. 7394 is subject to retroactive implementation in pending cases. Two decisions are evaluated and criticized in this context.

 A special procedure is stipulated in Article 367 of the Tax Procedure Law regarding the pursuit of tax evasion crimes regulated in Article 359 of the TPL No. 213, and it is regulated in the said article that it is mandatory to obtain an opinion from the relevant. The Court of Cassation sees the provision of a reasoning as a condition of judgment and checks with great care whether it is given for both the act and the perpetrator. In addition, the Court of Cassation accepts that the opinion is a discretionary proof that guides the trial authorities. However, with Article 5 of Law No. 7394 dated 08.04.2022, a significant Change has been made by adding a new paragraph to Article 367 of the Tax Procedure Law, wich regulates the condition of opinion reasoning. With this amendment, it is stated that if it is later determined that a tax evasion act regulated in Article 359, which has been the subject of investigation or prosecution, was committed by or together with another person, there will be no need to obtain a separate opinion in order to file a public lawsuit against these newly identified persons. Thus, before the amendment, the Court of Cassations practice that the opinion was required to be given about both the act and the perpetrator in every case, and that if it was understood that the opinion could not be given, the decision to dismiss it was ended, specifically with the regulation introduced. The 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation of Appeals, on the other hand, evaluated that this regulation introduced by Law No. 7394 is within the scope of the principle of immediate implementation, and stated that in cases filed before the amendment and where a decision was made to abatement of action due to lack of opinion, abatement of action decision cannot be given, stating that this regulation was introduced. This practice of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation of Appeasl is based on the acceptance that the condition of opinion of opinion reasoning hearing is an institution that belongs only to criminal law. However, in our opinion, due to the essence and function of the condition of opinion reasoning, it is not possible to accept it as an institution specific only to form of criminal law; in its absence, it has an important aspect specific to substantive criminal law in that it ends the punishing relationship between the state and the individual. In this respect, in the present study, contrary to this opinion of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation of Appeals, it has been tried to explain that the opinion has both substantive criminal law aspects, and the amendment brought by law No. 7394 is subject to retroactive implementation in pending cases. Two decisions are evaluated and criticized in this context.

 213 sayılı VUKnun 359. maddesinde düzenlenen vergi kaçakçılığı suçlarının takibine ilişkin VUKnun 367. maddesinde özel bir usul öngörülmüş olup, anılan maddede ilgili vergi komisyonundan mütalaa alınmasının zorunlu olduğu düzenlenmiştir. Yargıtay, mütalaa verilmesini bir muhakeme şartı olarak görmekte, hem fiil hem de fail için verilip verilmediğini büyük bir titizlikle denetlemektedir. Ayrıca Yargıtay, mütalaanın yargılama makamlarına yol gösterici bir takdiri delil niteliği taşıdığını kabul etmektedir. Ancak 08.04.2022 tarih ve 7394 sayılı Kanunun 5. maddesi ile mütalaa muhakeme şartının düzenlendiği VUKnun 367. maddesine yeni bir fıkra eklenerek önemli bir değişiklik yapılmıştır. Bu değişiklik ile, soruşturma veya kovuşturma konusu olmuş 359. maddede düzenlenen bir vergi kaçakçılığı fiilinin, başka bir kişi tarafından ya da başka bir kişiyle birlikte işlendiğinin sonradan tespiti halinde, yeni tespit edilen bu kişiler hakkında kamu davası açılabilmesi için ayrıca bir mütalaa alınmasına gerek olmayacağı belirtilmektedir. Böylelikle, değişiklik öncesinde mütalaanın her durumda hem fiil hem de fail hakkında verilme zorunluluğunun aranmasına ve mütalaanın verilemeyeceğinin anlaşılması halinde ise düşme kararı verilmesi gerektiğine yönelik Yargıtay uygulaması, getirilen düzenleme özelinde sonlanmıştır. Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesi ise, 7394 sayılı Kanun ile getirilen bu düzenlemenin derhal uygulama ilkesi kapsamında olduğunu değerlendirerek değişiklikten önce açılan ve mütalaa yokluğu nedeniyle düşme kararı verilen davalarda, bu düzenlemenin getirildiğini belirterek düşme kararı verilemeyeceğini ifade etmiştir. Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesinin bu uygulaması, mütalaa muhakeme şartının salt şekli ceza hukukuna ait bir kurum olduğu kabulüne dayanmaktadır. Ancak kanaatimizce, mütalaa muhakeme şartının özü ve işlevi sebebiyle yalnızca şekli ceza hukukuna özgü bir kurum olarak kabul edilmesi mümkün olmayıp, yokluğu halinde devlet ile fail arasındaki cezalandırma ilişkini sona erdirmesi bakımından maddi ceza hukukuna özgü önemli bir yönü bulunmaktadır. Bu itibarla eldeki çalışmada, Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesinin bu görüşünün aksine, öncelikle mütalaanın şekli ceza hukuku yönleriyle birlikte maddi ceza hukuku yönlerinin de bulunduğu açıklanmaya çalışılmış ve 7394 sayılı Kanun ile getiri-len değişikliğin derdest davalarda geriye yürütülmesine konu Yargıtay 11. Ceza Dairesinin iki kararının bu kapsamda değerlendirilmesi ile eleştirisine yer verilmiştir.

Makale detayları

Evaluation of the Decisions of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation Regarding the Application in Terms of Time of the Regulation Introduced by the Law No. 7394 on the Non - Seeking of the Opinion Litigation Requirement in Certain Cases

Yazarlar:

Sadık Melih İşler

Yayıncı:

Erzincan Binali Yildirim University

Ana Başlıklar:

Ceza Hukuku

Dergi:

Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.27 Issue 2, pp.279-301

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001306555

pISSN:

2651-494X

Tax Criminal Law

Tax Evasion Offenses

Condition of Opinion Reasoning

Law No. 7394

Application in Terms of TimVergi Ceza Hukuku

Vergi Kaçakçılığı Suçları

Mütalaa Muhakeme Şartı

7394 Sayılı Kanun

Zaman Bakımından Uygulama.

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Sadık Melih İşler

Yayıncı: Erzincan Binali Yildirim University

Ana Başlıklar: Ceza Hukuku

Dergi: Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.27 Issue 2, pp.279-301

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2023

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001306555

pISSN: 2651-494X

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Sadık Melih İşler

Yayıncı:

Erzincan Binali Yildirim University

Ana Başlıklar:

Ceza Hukuku

Dergi:

Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.27 Issue 2, pp.279-301

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001306555

pISSN:

2651-494X