CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 12 December 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 81133/17 Refik BİLEN against Turkey lodged on 9 November 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the reduction in the supplementary payment rate of 125% applied to the applicant’s employment category as the deputy Treasury accountant ( Hazine sayman yardımcısı ), with the entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 666, which did not specify the applicant’s category among those listed in its annex. Due to the lack of the applicant’s employment category in the list, the applicant started receiving his supplementary payments with a rate of 110%, that is, the rate applied to employees who did not fall into any of the specific categories listed. The applicant brought a case before the Ankara Administrative Court, claiming compensation for his financial loss resulting from the entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 666. He also argued that he should be entitled to the rate applied to another category, namely, deputy director of accountancy ( saymanlık müdür yardımcısı ), which according to him was the equivalent of his category. The domestic court dismissed the case on the ground that the applicant’s category was not among those listed in Legislative Decree no.   666. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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 reduction in his supplementary payment rate with the entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 666? Was that interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law? In particular, was the assignment of supplementary payment rates to various employment categories made by Legislative Decree no. 666 accessible and foreseeable? Moreover, did that interference impose an excessive and individual burden on the applicant (compare Koufaki and Adedy v. Greece (dec.), nos.   57665/12 and 57657/12, 7 May 2013)?   2.     Was the applicant provided with sufficient procedural guarantees during the proceedings in which his claims were examined?