CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 novembre 2018

.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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 22 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 16743/11 Enver YAPICI against Turkey lodged on 27 December 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the miscalculation of the applicant’s term of employment by the Social Security Institution ( Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu ) and the domestic authorities’ refusal to reimburse the amount he had paid in excess due to that error. The case brought by the applicant for the annulment of the decision refusing his reimbursement claim was dismissed by the Labour Court. The court found that there was no legal provision allowing for such reimbursement and that the applicant’s term of employment had been taken into account in the calculation of his monthly pensions. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the error in the calculation of his term of employment and the authorities’ refusal to reimburse the amount he had paid in so far as it exceeded the basic amount required for a retirement pension?   If so, was that interference in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, taking account of the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Cassation’s Civil Division ( Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu ) dated 9 October 2002 (2002/10E, 2002/779K) regarding a case raising a similar issue?   Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant? In that connection, was the surplus amount he had paid reflected to the monthly pensions he received?