VERGİ YARGISINDA ADİL YARGILANMA HAKKININ TESİSİ BAKIMINDAN TANIK BEYANININ YERİ

Pursuant to Article 36 of the second part of the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, entitled “Fundamental Rights and Duties,” “everyone has the right to a fair trial by being a plaintiff or a defendant before judicial authorities through lawful means and procedures, including the right to claim and defend.” As can be inferred from this provision, the right to proof is afforded constitutional protection. The instruments through which the right to proof is exercised are evidentiary materials.

In tax adjudication, the concept of evidence occupies a position that requires autonomous interpretation in terms of both its underlying principles and its practical applicability when compared to other branches of the judiciary. For this reason, the present study also refers to evidentiary rules in other branches of law in order to clarify more precisely the notion of evidence within the framework of tax law.

According to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, “everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him.” In assessing the right to a fair trial, the Convention and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights aim to establish an approach that is independent of domestic law and based on their own criteria. In this context, the substance of the assessment carried out with regard to tax adjudication is likewise shaped by distinct conditions. Indeed, the applicability of witness evidence—one of the most controversial types of evidence in practice—within tax law must be evaluated separately in terms of the right to a fair trial.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the types of evidence that arise during judicial proceedings from the perspective of Turkish tax adjudication in light of the right to a fair trial, and to examine in detail the distinctive nature of witness evidence in line with the deficiencies observed in practice. As a result of this evaluation, it is concluded that the evidentiary system of tax law possesses an autonomous structure when compared to other branches of the judiciary. Notably, certain types of evidence that are comprehensively regulated in other fields of law lack explicit regulation within tax law. In practice, there is a clear expectation that this deficiency will be remedied through comprehensive legislative reform.