EN
TR
The Application of ‘Ne Bis in Idem’ Rule in Tax Penalties under ECtHR’s Jurisprudence
Öz
Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR / Convention) provides "a ban on retrial and punishment for the same offense". The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) takes this arrangement in the context of the bis in idem rule. The conceptualization of the Court oversteps the article, and develops on the concepts of identity and bisection. Thus, there is a debate on the contradiction of some sanctions in the internal law of many state parties to the Convention, and of the inadequacy of the bis in idem rule. It is possible, in particular, to define the sanction as a punishment by the Court if it is punitive or deterrent, rather than to classify it in domestic law, and to establish repetition with other penal sanctions envisaged for the same act. The aim of the study is to determine how the concepts of identity and duplication, which form the basis of this discussion, are conceptualized by the Court and the criteria used when such conceptualisation is used. In this framework, attempts were made to critically classify ECtHR decisions with a critical view and to show the development and contradictions in the case of case law development to the attention of the reader
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Seer, Roman/Wilms, Anna Lena. (2016). “General Report”, Surcharges and Penalties in Tax Law, IBFD, Amsterdam, pp 3-25
- Erdoğmuş Belgin (der.) (2004) Hukukta Latince Teknik Terimler Sözlüğü, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul
- Gözler, Kemal. (2007), “Res Iudicata’nın Türkçesi Üzerine”, AÜHFD, Y 2007, C 56, S 2, s 45-61
- Harris, D.J./O’Boyle, M./Warbrick, C., (1995) Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, London
- Neagu, Norel (2012), Interpretation of European Courts: Towards Uniform Interpretation, Leiden Journal of International Law, N 25 pp 955-977
- Malherbe Jacques/ Peeters, Bart/ Galéa, Geoffroy, (2015) “Surcharges and Penalties in Tax Law Belgium” IBFD, Amsterdam pp 207-255
- İçel, Kayıhan, (1972), Suçların İçtimaı, İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul
- İnceoğlu, Sibel (2013) İnsan Hakları Avrupa Mahkemesi Kararlarında Adil Yargılanma Hakkı, Beta 4. Baskı İstanbul
Ayrıntılar
Birincil Dil
Türkçe
Konular
-
Bölüm
-
Yazarlar
Yayımlanma Tarihi
1 Haziran 2018
Gönderilme Tarihi
1 Haziran 2018
Kabul Tarihi
-
Yayımlandığı Sayı
Yıl 2018 Cilt: 67 Sayı: 2
APA
Bahçeci, B. (2018). İHAM İÇTİHADINDA VERGİ CEZALARINDA ‘NE BİS IN IDEM’. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 67(2), 253-278. https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000001916
AMA
1.Bahçeci B. İHAM İÇTİHADINDA VERGİ CEZALARINDA ‘NE BİS IN IDEM’. AÜHFD. 2018;67(2):253-278. doi:10.1501/Hukfak_0000001916
Chicago
Bahçeci, Barış. 2018. “İHAM İÇTİHADINDA VERGİ CEZALARINDA ‘NE BİS IN IDEM’”. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 67 (2): 253-78. https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000001916.
EndNote
Bahçeci B (01 Haziran 2018) İHAM İÇTİHADINDA VERGİ CEZALARINDA ‘NE BİS IN IDEM’. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 67 2 253–278.
IEEE
[1]B. Bahçeci, “İHAM İÇTİHADINDA VERGİ CEZALARINDA ‘NE BİS IN IDEM’”, AÜHFD, c. 67, sy 2, ss. 253–278, Haz. 2018, doi: 10.1501/Hukfak_0000001916.
ISNAD
Bahçeci, Barış. “İHAM İÇTİHADINDA VERGİ CEZALARINDA ‘NE BİS IN IDEM’”. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 67/2 (01 Haziran 2018): 253-278. https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000001916.
JAMA
1.Bahçeci B. İHAM İÇTİHADINDA VERGİ CEZALARINDA ‘NE BİS IN IDEM’. AÜHFD. 2018;67:253–278.
MLA
Bahçeci, Barış. “İHAM İÇTİHADINDA VERGİ CEZALARINDA ‘NE BİS IN IDEM’”. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, c. 67, sy 2, Haziran 2018, ss. 253-78, doi:10.1501/Hukfak_0000001916.
Vancouver
1.Barış Bahçeci. İHAM İÇTİHADINDA VERGİ CEZALARINDA ‘NE BİS IN IDEM’. AÜHFD. 01 Haziran 2018;67(2):253-78. doi:10.1501/Hukfak_0000001916