Radbruch Formülü ve Vergi Hukukunda Adalet: AİHM Kararları Üzerine Normatif Bir Değerlendirme

Öz

Bu çalışma, Gustav Radbruch tarafından geliştirilen Radbruch Formülü’nün vergi hukuku bağlamında nasıl işlevsel hale geldiğini normatif hukuk perspektifiyle ele almaktadır. Çalışmanın temel amacı, adaletle bağdaşmayan ancak pozitif hukuk görünümündeki vergi düzenlemelerinin, hukuki meşruiyet sınırları içinde değerlendirilip değerlendirilemeyeceğini incelemektir. Yöntem olarak normatif yorumlama yaklaşımı benimsenmiştir. Bu yaklaşımın benimsenme amacı teoriden pratiği geçişi daha kolay yansıtabilmektir. Söz konusu çerçevede özellikle Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin vergisel adaletsizliklerle ilgili içtihatları analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmada Radbruch Formülü’nün teorik temelleri ayrıntılı biçimde açıklanmış, formülün temel insan haklarını ihlal eden yasal düzenlemelere karşı sunduğu ahlaki sınırlar ortaya konmuştur. AİHM kararları aracılığıyla, vergilendirme sürecinde ortaya çıkan keyfî uygulamaların, ayrımcı denetimlerin, orantısız cezaların ve mülkiyet hakkı ihlallerinin, adaletle bağdaşmayan hukuk örnekleri olduğu değerlendirilmiştir. Temel bulgu, Radbruch Formülü’nün çağdaş hukukta, özellikle vergi adaleti tartışmalarında etik bir referans noktası haline geldiğidir. Bu formül, yalnızca yasa yapma sürecine değil, yasal normların uygulanmasında da adalet ilkesinin esas alınması gerektiğini savunarak pozitif hukuka bir denge mekanizması sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Radbruch Formülü
• vergi hukuku
• adalet
• normatif yorumlama
• Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi

Radbruch Formula and Justice in Tax Law: A Normative Evaluation on ECtHR Judgments

Öz

This study examines how the Radbruch Formula, developed by Gustav Radbruch, becomes functional in the context of tax law from the perspective of normative law. The main purpose of the study is to examine whether tax regulations that are incompatible with justice but have the appearance of positive law can be evaluated within the limits of legal legitimacy. The methodology employed a normative interpretation approach. The purpose of adopting this approach is to reflect the transition from theory to practice more easily. In this framework, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on tax injustices has been analyzed. In this study, the theoretical foundations of the Radbruch Formula are explained in detail, and the moral limits that the formula presents against legal regulations that violate fundamental human rights are put forward. Through ECtHR judgments, it has been assessed that arbitrary practices, discriminatory audits, disproportionate penalties, and violations of property rights arising in the taxation process are examples of law incompatible with justice. The main finding is that the Radbruch Formula has become an ethical reference point in contemporary law, especially in tax justice debates. This formula offers a balancing mechanism to positive law by arguing that the principle of justice should be taken as a basis not only in the law-making process but also in the application of legal norms.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Radbruch Formula
• tax law
• justice
• normative interpretation
• European Court of Human Rights.

Kaynakça

1. Alexy, R. (2006). Radbruch’s formula, and the nature of legal theory. Rechtstheorie, 37(2006): 139-149. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/236
2. Alexy, R. (2021). Law’s Ideal Dimension. UK: Oxford University Press.
3. Arifin, R., Wulandari, C., Muliadi, M., Utari, I.S. and Munandar, T.I. (2023). A discourse of justice and legal certainty in stolen assets recovery in Indonesia: analysis of Radbruch’s formula and Friedman’s theory. Volksgeist: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Konstitusi, 6(2): 159-181. https://doi.org/10.24090/volksgeist.v6i2.9596
4. Aydın, M.B. (2015). Gustav Radbruch düşüncesinde dönemsel vurgu değişimi. Journal of Istanbul University Law Faculty, 73(2): 7-28. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/iuhfm/issue/25015/264121
5. Bix, B.H. (2011). Radbruch’s formula and conceptual analysis. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 56(1): 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/56.1.45
6. Borrmann, R. and Cruz, E. (2020). The Nuremberg trials and the pure theory of law. Revista Eletrônica Do Curso De Direito Da UFSM, 15(2): 1-27. https://doi.org/10.5902/1981369463122
7. Cope, K.L. (2023). Measuring law’s normative force. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 20(4): 1005:1044. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12364
8. Coric, D. (2011). New minutes for Radbruch’s formula. Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta, Novi Sad, 45(3): 635-645. https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns1103635C

9. Dalar, M. and Mutlu, M. (2020). Uluslararası hukuka çözüm önerisi: iyileştirici yaklaşım bağlamında bir değerlendirme. Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(43): 199-237. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/duhfd/issue/59581/857576
10. Duke, G. (2019). Law’s normative point. Law and Philos, 38: 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-018-9334-8
11. ECtHR. (1995). Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. Netherlands (Application no. 15375/89). Judgment of 23 February 1995. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57918%22]}
12. ECtHR. (2001). J.B. v. Switzerland (Application no. 31827/96). Judgment of 3 May 2001. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-59449%22]}
13. ECtHR. (2002). Janosevic v. Sweden (Application no. 34619/97). Judgment of 23 July 2002. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-60628%22]}
14. ECtHR. (2006). Jussila v. Finland (Application no. 73053/01). Judgment of 23 November 2006. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-78135%22]}
15. ECtHR. (2008a). Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom (Application no. 42184/05). Judgment of 4 November 2008. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-89309%22]}
16. ECtHR. (2008b). André and another v. France (Application no. 18603/03). Judgment of 24 July 2008. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-87938%22]}
17. ECtHR. (2009a). Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary (Application no. 37374/05). Judgment of 14 April 2009. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-92171%22]}
18. ECtHR. (2009b). Bulves AD v. Bulgaria (Application no. 3991/03). Judgment of 22 January 2009. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-90792%22]}
19. ECtHR. (2009c). Ruotsalainen v. Finland (Application no. 13079/03). Judgement of 16 June 2009. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-92961%22]}
20. ECtHR. (2011). Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah v. France (Application no. 8916/05). Judgment of 30 June 2011. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-494%22]}
21. ECtHR. (2013a). Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (Application no. 11082/06 and 13772/05). Judgment of 25 July 2013. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-122697%22]}
22. ECtHR. (2013b). N.K.M. v. Hungary (Application no. 66529/11). Judgement of 14 May 2013. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-119704%22]}
23. ECtHR. (2014). Yukos v. Russia (Application no. 14902/04). Judgment of 31 July 2014. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-145730%22]}
24. ECtHR. (2016a). Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi v. Turkey (Application no. 19920/13). Judgment of 26 April 2016. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-162211%22]}
25. ECtHR. (2016b). Guberina v. Croatia (Application no. 23682/13). Judgment of 22 March 2016. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-161530%22]}
26. ECtHR. (2018). Navalnyy v. Russia (Application no. 29580/12 and others). Judgment of 15 November 2018. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-12206%22]}
27. Farelly, C. (2004). Taxation and distributive justice. Political Studies Review, 2(2): 185-197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2004.000
28. Giudice, M. (2024). The normativity of law. UK: Cambridge University Press.
29. Gomuùowicz, A. (2006). Principle of tax justice and tax system. Public Policy and Administration, 1(15), 57-61. https://ojs.mruni.eu/ojs/public-policy-and-administration/article/view/2370
30. Haldeman, F. (2005). Gustav Radbruch vs. Hans Kelsen: a debate on nazi law. Ratio Juris, 18(2): 162-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2005.00293.x
31. Kern, A. (2020). Illusions of justice in international taxation. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 48(2): 151-184. https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12161
32. Kühl, C. and Ozansü, M. (2012). Radbruch Formülü. Journal of Istanbul University Law Faculty, 70(1): 369-374. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/iuhfm/issue/9186/115114
33. LeFevre, T. (2018). Justice in taxation. Vermont Law Review, 41: 763-798. LeFevre, Tyler, Justice in Taxation (June 8, 2016). Vermont Law Review, Vol. 41, Book 4, Page 763, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2792393
34. Low, C.A. (2009). The rule of capture: its current status and some issues to consider. Alberta Law Review, 46(3): 799-829. https://doi.org/10.29173/alr226
35. Mertens, T. (2006). But was it law?. German Law Journal, 7(2): 191-197. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200004557
36. Miller, R. (2001). Rejecting Radbruch: the European Court of Human Rights and the crimes of the East German leadership. Leiden Journal of International Law, 14(3): 653-663. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156501000322
37. Morris, D.G. (2016). Accommodating nazi tyranny? The wrong turn of the social democratic legal philosopher Gustav Radbruch after the war. Law and History Review, 34(3): 649-688. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0738248016000213
38. Muñoz, N. (2018). What remains of the principle of the legality in ınternational criminal law? considerations on the relevance of the Radbruch formular. ARSP Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 104(4): 455-487. https://doi.org/10.25162/arsp-2018-0024
39. Nurkić, B. (2022). Radbruch’s formula in the constitution of bosnia and herzegovina – untapped potential for strengthening the rule of law. Društvene i humanističke studije, 7(3), 169-188. https://doi.org/10.51558/2490-3647.2022.7.3.169
40. Paulson, S.L. (1995). Radbruch on unjust laws: competing earlier and later views?. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 15(3): 489-500. https://www.jstor.org/stable/764560
41. Paulson, S.L. (2006). On the background and significance of Gustav Radbruch’s post-war papers. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1): 17-40. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqi043
42. Pürsünlerli Çakar, E. and Saraçoğlu, F. (2014). Vergi idaresinin denetim biçimleri ve hukuka aykırı deliller. Niğde Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1): 415-423. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/niguiibfd/issue/19754/211478
43. Saliger, F. (2004). Content and practical significance of Radbruch’s formula. Проблеми філософії права, II: 68-70. http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/9658
44. Serediuk, V.V. and Dudar, S.K. (2024). Radbruch’s formula: conceptual analysis and practical importance. Uzzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law, 4(84), 389-396. https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2024.84.4.54.
45. Shelton, D. (2006). Normative hierarchy in international law. American Journal of International Law, 100(2): 291-323. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0002930000016675
46. Stark, J. (2022). Tax justice beyond national borders-international or interpersonal. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 42(1): 133-160. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqab026
47. Taekema, S. (2018). Theoretical and normative frameworks for legal research: putting theory into practice. Law and Method, (2): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.5553/rem/.000031
48. Tan, S.H. (2021). Radbruch’s formula revisited: the ‘Lex Injusta Non Est Lex’ Maxim in constitutional democracies. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 34(2), 461-491. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3808
49. Tan, S.H. (2024). Punishing individuals who complied with intolerably unjust ‘laws’ in predecessor regimes. Israel Law Review, 57(3): 480-506. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002122372400013X
50. Trivisonno, A.T.G. and De Oliviera, J.A. (2018). Gustav Radbruch’s supposed turn against positivism: a matter of balancing. A & C Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional, 18(73): 57-73. https://doi.org/10.21056/AEC.V18I73.1010.
51. Young, H.P. (1988). Distributive justice in taxation. Journal of Economic Theory, 44(2): 321-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(88)90007-5