This briefing concerns the Tax Procedure Law No. 213, which governs service of tax-related documents in Türkiye (“Law”), and the authority granted to the Ministry of Treasury and Finance (“Ministry”) to determine electronic service procedures. It examines the Constitutional Court’s annulment judgment dated 15/01/2026, Case No. 2025/94, Decision No. 2026/11 (“Judgment”).
I. Introduction
Although the Service of Documents Law No. 7201 is the general law on service in our legal system, the importance and particular nature of tax matters mean that service relating to taxation is specifically regulated in the Law.
The first two paragraphs of Article 107/A allow service electronically at an address suitable for service, without being restricted to the methods otherwise listed in the Law. The challenged third paragraph authorised the Ministry to require such addresses and determine the persons subject to electronic service and the relevant procedures and principles.
II. Scope and Purpose of the Constitutional Referral
The 19th Criminal Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal referred the provision for constitutional review, seeking its annulment as unconstitutional. The referral argued that:
-
- the administrative rules defined the taxpayers subject to electronic service very broadly;
-
- the principle of legality in criminal offences and penalties required these matters to be regulated by statute rather than administrative measures;
-
- taxpayers who failed to produce books and records for inspection following electronic service faced custodial sentences, imposing an excessive burden on them;
these were the grounds advanced.
III. Assessment of the Judgment
The Constitutional Court observed that service of an administrative act starts the time limit for challenging it and that attaching legal consequences to service at a taxpayer’s email address restricts the right of access to a court.
The Judgment’s principal findings were:
-
- The primary requirement for restricting fundamental rights and freedoms is that the restriction be prescribed by law.
-
- The formal existence of a statute is insufficient; it must establish the basic principles and framework.
-
- The Law did not clearly specify who could be required to receive legally effective tax documents electronically, or the conditions under which that obligation would begin or end.
-
- Granting the administration such authority without statutory principles was incompatible with the requirement that restrictions on access to a court be prescribed by law.
IV. Annulment and Entry into Force
Accordingly, the relevant part of the third paragraph of Article 107/A granting authority to the administration was held contrary to Articles 13 and 36 of the Constitution and annulled.
As the resulting legal vacuum was considered capable of harming the public interest, the annulment was ordered to take effect nine months after publication of the Judgment in the Official Gazette.
For further information and assistance, please contact us at info@mapartners.com.tr .
M&A Partners
Legal Services and Consultancy