CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 août 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sE97A48DC { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase; color:#3db2ff } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s69A82CF5 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left } .s40745CA1 { width:244.55pt; display:inline-block } .s62385048 { width:73.73pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s6704F2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s3B53EBD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sEAF1EF9B { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s83BD7893 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sFD82DC6 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sC64A5D7A { height:26.65pt } .s42E65D7A { height:27.75pt } .s57165D7A { height:28.05pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9D73D86 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s16087E0F { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle }   Communicated on 31 August 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 39534/10 Muhsin DEMİR against Turkey and 31 other applications (see list appended) 1.     The applicants, whose names appear in the appendix, are Turkish nationals and live in Kütahya. A.     The circumstances of the cases 2.     The applicants were employed as labourers by Eti Gümüş A.Ş. , a State ‑ owned mining company (hereinafter “the Company”) at the material time, until their employment contracts were terminated by the Company on 13   August 2004 owing to its privatisation. 3.     Although the applicants were paid at the end of their contract their wages, bonuses and remuneration for unused annual leave, the Company declared only the applicants’ gross wages to the Social Security Institution for the month of July. Following the applicants’ complaint, the latter conducted an inspection of the records of the Company and discovered the amounts that had not been declared. The inspection report concluded that the undeclared amounts were subject to social security premiums and deductions, and ordered the Company to make the necessary contributions. 4.     On an unspecified date after their contracts were terminated, the applicants applied to İŞKUR , the Turkish Employment Agency, to collect loss of employment indemnity as provided in section 21 of the Privatisation Act (Law no. 4046, paragraph 19 below). This section referred the calculation of the daily net amount to be paid to employees to another law, namely sections 77 and 78 of the Social Security Act (Law no. 506), which listed and specified the types of earnings subject to social security premiums and deductions. 5.     İŞKUR paid various sums to the applicants based on their salaries originally declared by the Company to the Social Security Institution for the month of July 2004. 6.     On 18 April 2005 the applicants brought separate sets of proceedings against İŞKUR before different chambers of the Ankara Labour Court, contesting the amounts they had received and seeking the full amount they would be entitled to under the applicable law. They claimed that the amount declared by the Company was less than the actual amount paid to them for the last month of employment, as was also disclosed by the inspection carried out by the Social Security Institution. 7.     On 21 July 2005 section 21 of the Privatisation Act was modified with respect to the method of calculation of the indemnity for loss of employment. On the basis of this modification the indemnity for loss of employment would thereafter be equal to twice the daily minimum wage. 8.     During the proceedings, the Ankara Labour Court decided to seek an expert opinion on the calculation of loss of employment indemnity in accordance with the law applicable at the time of the termination of the contract. 9.     On 24 April 2006 the expert, referring to the official social security inspection with respect to the Company and the applicants’ final payment, concluded that the applicants should have received amounts calculated on the basis of their last salary, including remuneration for unused annual leave and salary bonuses paid out to the employees twice a year. 10.     İŞKUR contested the expert report and stated that bonuses and other payments not in the form of an ordinary salary should be apportioned over the course of one year and calculated accordingly. 11.     The Ankara Labour Court asked for a new expert opinion, following the defendant’s objections. On 19 October 2006 the expert delivered a modified report, based on a calculation which continued to take into account the remuneration paid for annual leave, but this time only one-sixth of the salary bonus. 12.     On 22 January 2007 the Ankara Labour Court delivered its decision and awarded the applicants the amounts stated in the expert opinion report. 13.     On 29   January 2007 İŞKUR appealed against the decision of the Ankara Labour Court, arguing that it should not have been held responsible for the failure of the Company or the Social Security Institution for the amounts not declared on the applicants’ final payslip, and that these bodies and individuals should have been made parties to the proceedings. 14.     On 19 July 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Labour Court, on the ground that the expert report had taken into account the remuneration for unused annual leave, which could not be considered “wages earned” in the technical sense. 15.     The Ankara Labour Court ordered the expert to deliver a new opinion in the light of the Court of Cassation’s decision. The expert calculated the amount in accordance with the Court of Cassation’s decision and left the remuneration of unused annual leave out of its calculation altogether. 16.     On 14 May 2009 the Ankara Labour Court awarded the applicants the amounts stated in the final expert report, which were approximately 80% less than those provided in the first report (see the annexed table). 17.     On 7 July 2009 the applicants lodged appeals with the 9 th   Civil Division of the Court of Cassation, citing some 146 decisions that had been taken by the same division with regard to claims which had been calculated by taking into account the remuneration for unused annual leave. 18.     On 18 September 2009 the Court of Cassation rejected the appeals and upheld the judgment of the Ankara Labour Court, without providing reasons for the applicants’ complaints concerning the conflicting decisions. B.     Relevant domestic law at the material time 1.     The Privatisation Act and the right to indemnity for loss of employment 19.     The relevant section of the Privatisation Act (Law no. 4046) read as follows: “Indemnity for Loss of Employment and Other Services Section 21. Employees who work in enterprises (excluding subsidiaries) which are subject to privatisation under this law, who have a contract of employment and whose contracts are terminated owing to restructuring for privatisation, privatisation itself, downsizing, cessation of activities in full or in part, or permanent or temporary closure or liquidation of such enterprises, and who are entitled to compensation in accordance with labour laws and their respective collective bargaining agreements, shall be entitled to indemnity for loss of employment in addition to, and not in lieu of, compensation envisaged by laws and in the collective bargaining agreement that applies to them ... All transactions with respect to compensation for loss of employment and other services will be carried out by, and under the direction and responsibility of, the Directorate of the Turkish Employment Agency ... The indemnity for loss of employment is the daily net income to be calculated in accordance with the rules and procedure laid down in sections 77 and 78 of the Law on Social Security no. 506. Those entitled to indemnity for loss of employment under this article shall receive compensation for 90 days if they have had uninterrupted service with the same employer for at least 550 days; 120 days for service of at least 1100   days; 180 days for service of at least 1650 days; and 240 days for service of at least 2200 days.” 2.     The Social Security Act and Income Subject to Premium 20.     The Social Security Act (Law no. 506) defines “earnings” subject to premium deductions for the purposes of social security contributions as: “Earnings Subject to Deductions Section 77 - In the calculation of earnings subject to deductions accrued in a month payable by the insured and the employer, a gross total of a)   wages earned for the month, b)   any payment such as a bonus or a commission made in the month concerned ... shall be taken into account. Bereavement, childbirth, marriage and travel allowances as well as severance, notice, payments to cover cash register liability and benefits in kind, food and family allowances set annually by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security shall not be included in the calculation. Notwithstanding the exceptions set herewith, all other payments, whatever the name such payments are given, shall be included in the calculation ... For the purposes of this law, the daily net earnings of the insured are one-thirtieth of that part of his earnings subject to deductions. ...” “Daily Earning Ceilings: Section 78. The minimum daily earnings for the purposes of calculation of deductions and taxes under this law shall be the minimum wage for persons above 16   years of age, calculated in accordance with section 39 of the Labour Code no.   4857; the maximum limit shall be 6.5 times the minimum wage. Where the daily earnings of an insured person are less than the minimum limit or when an insured person works without remuneration, his daily earnings shall be calculated on the basis of the minimum limit; for those insured whose daily earnings exceed the maximum limit, the maximum limit shall be taken as a basis for calculation ...” 3.     Labour Act and Annual Leave 21.     The remuneration for unused annual leave is regulated by section   59 of the Labour Act (Law no.4857), which reads as follows: “Section 59. Where a contract of employment is terminated, payment for annual leave accrued but not used shall be made to the employee or his beneficiaries on the basis of the wages he earned on the date of termination of the contract of employment.” COMPLAINT 22.     The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that they did not receive the amount of indemnity to which they were entitled. According to them, despite the fact that the law was clear and had been applied consistently by State authorities and the courts in the social security setting, by taking remuneration for unused annual leave into account when deducting taxes and other deductions, the Court of Cassation refused their claims arbitrarily and in contradiction with its previous case-law, while providing no reasonable explanation for such divergence.         QUESTIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, does the present case concern existing possessions or a legitimate expectation of acquiring possessions?   2.     Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Brezovec v. Croatia , no. 13488/07, § 59-60, 66-67, 29   March 2011 and the references made therein)? In this regard:   a.     Did the Court of Cassation’s decision of 19 July 2007, quashing the Labour Court’s judgment on the grounds that remuneration for unused annual leave could not have been considered as ‘wages earned’ in the technical sense, have any basis in law? The Government are requested to supply information with respect to the interpretation and the application of sections   77 and 78 of the Social Security Act (Law no. 506) to the remuneration for unused annual leave.   b.     Has the Court of Cassation upheld the inclusion of remuneration for unused annual leave with respect to the cases cited below? If so, do the judgments delivered in case of the present applications conflict with them?   106 cases with case numbers 2004/1576 to 2004/1681 lodged before the Ankara Labour Court of 5 th Division;   29 cases with case numbers 2004/1645 to 1673 lodged before the Ankara Labour Court of 16 th Division;   9 cases with case numbers 2005/1194 to 2005/1202 lodged before the Ankara Labour Court of 17 th Division;   2 cases with case numbers 2004/1533 and 1534 lodged before the Ankara Labour Court of 12 th Division.   The Government is requested to submit to the Court a random selection of ten case files from the above-cited cases ( seven from the first subset and one each from the remaining ), and provide its written observations with respect to whether the Court of Cassation’s approach in those cases conflict with its approach in the present 32 cases of the applicants?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Due amount as per the 1 st Expert Report Due amount as per the 2 nd Expert Report Due amount as per the 3 rd Expert Report Final Award   39534/10 08/06/2010 Muhsin DEMİR 07/09/1965 Kütahya   7.525.437.600 7.525.437.600 948.025 948.03 + fees   39535/10 08/06/2010 Hüseyin YETİM 03/07/1964 Kütahya   7.819.938.392 5.003.819.856 1.415.190 1.415.19 + fees   39540/10 08/06/2010 Safiye KARİP 03/11/1963 Kütahya   8.257.423.696 7.680.828.704 896.789 896.76 + fees   39541/10 08/06/2010 Mehmet ALTINAY 14/05/1964 Kütahya   7.598.326.192 7.598.326.192 984.735 984.74 + fees   39545/10 08/06/2010 Umahan KARABAŞ 20/09/1962 Kütahya   8.169.426.600 4.283.340.616 896.792 896.79 + fees   39548/10 08/06/2010 Süleyman GÜRSOY 13/12/1963 Kütahya   7.968.662.008 7.898.385.960 910.773 910.77 + fees   39551/10 08/06/2010 Metin AYTAŞ 29/05/1964 Kütahya   7.491.681.600 7.491.681.600 1.533.424 1.533.42 + fees   39553/10 08/06/2010 Ali Kemal BALABAN 07/07/1966 Kütahya   7.554.600.000 6.610.275.000 945.509 945.51 + fees   39557/10 08/06/2010 Mustafa KARA 09/10/1962 Kütahya   7.500.775.200 7.500.775.200 1.196.701 1.196.70 + fees   39559/10 08/06/2010 Alaattin TOSUN 02/06/1963 Kütahya   8.148.526.408 8.038.262.768 1.118.555 1.118.56 + fees   39561/10 08/06/2010 Ahmet ÖZKAYA 30/12/1964 Kütahya   7.527.728.600 not in file 1.195.348 1.195.35 + fees   39566/10 08/06/2010 Kadir EROL 27/10/1963 Kütahya   7.526.006.008 not in file 948.06 948.06 + fees   39567/10 08/06/2010 Ali ÇAKIR 21/01/1963 Kütahya   7.531.167.992 7.531.167.992 1.185.960 1.185.96 + fees   39576/10 08/06/2010 Mehmet ARAR 20/11/1964 Kütahya   7.543.800.392 7.543.800.392 948.913 948.91 + fees   39602/10 08/06/2010 Hamdi AYVAZ 01/04/1963 Kütahya 7.819.938.392 7.819.938.392 934.436 934.44 + fees   39604/10 08/06/2010 Yusuf YÜCEL 01/02/1964 Kütahya   7.962.920.008 7.962.920.008 910.379 910.38 + fees   39609/10 08/06/2010 İzzet YALÇIN 01/05/1963 Kütahya   8.192.565.208 7.676.267.872 891.42 891.42 + fees   39615/10 08/06/2010 Erol AKPUNAR 24/07/1965 Kütahya   8.009.517.208 7.932.273.840 918.123.824 918.12 + fees   39616/10 08/06/2010 Servet KOYUN 01/11/1965 Kütahya   7.966.951.000 7.966.951.000 910.656 910.66 + fees   39622/10 08/06/2010 Salih Zeki AKSU 09/03/1965 Kütahya   8.200.940.400 8.200.940.400 1.110.927 1.110.93 + fees   39626/10 08/06/2010 Ali TUNÇ 05/03/1962 Kütahya   7.519.255.200 4.635.587.984 976.729 976.73 + fees   39627/10 08/06/2010 Necati ARMAĞAN 22/03/1961 Kütahya   8.286.595.200 8.286.595.200 626.415 626.42 + fees   39629/10 08/06/2010 Ahmet Selami YÜCEL 15/01/1963 Kütahya   7.819.938.392 7.819.938.392 934.436 934.44 + fees   44987/10 08/06/2010 Mehmet KARABULUT 02/01/1961 Kütahya   7.737.862.600 7.737.862.600 928.763 928.76 + fees   44989/10 08/06/2010 Servet İŞAL 07/11/1964 Kütahya   7.819.938.392 5.003.819.872 1.415.190 1.415.19 + fees   44992/10 08/06/2010 Behti TEKELİ 02/02/1959 Kütahya   8.188.551.600 7.902.487.608 1.118.836 1.118.84 + fees   44993/10 08/06/2010 Mehmet TAVALI 07/11/1965 Kütahya   7.531.179.600 7.531.179.600 948.422 948.42 + fees   44995/10 08/06/2010 Muammer KOYULMUŞ 01/04/1963 Kütahya   8.038.685.408 7.902.694.944 915.616 915.62 + fees   44998/10 08/06/2010 Cumhur TETİK 28/10/1965 Kütahya   7.946.378.400 7.927.833.440 914.031 914.03 + fees   45000/10 08/06/2010 Ali KARAAĞAÇ 01/04/1963 Kütahya   7.977.263.408 7.898.373.136 911.371 911.37 + fees   45003/10 08/06/2010 Halil ÇİL 01/04/1963 Kütahya   7.601.197.200 7.601.197.200 1.447.589 1.447.59 + fees   45007/10 08/06/2010 Tayyibe ALTINAY 01/12/1965 Kütahya   Cafer ALTINAY 08/11/1986 Kütahya   Resul ALTINAY 24/08/1992 Kütahya 7.630.359.600 7.630.359.600 1.017.902.816 1.017.90 + fees