CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Communicated on 11 May 2020 Published on 2 June 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 65346/17 Rahmi GÜLLÜ against Turkey lodged on 4 August 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the State authorities’ disbursement of the applicant’s retirement bonus for his term of service in affiliation to the Retirement Fund ( Emekli Sandığı ) and the loss in value of that amount due to monetary depreciation. In 1991 the applicant was retired following his employment in affiliation to the Retirement Fund as a civil servant and subsequently in affiliation to the Social Security Institution as an employee. The applicant, however, was not granted a retirement bonus for his term of service as a civil servant, as Article 12 of Law No 2829 in force at the time required working as a civil servant in affiliation to the Retirement Fund immediately before retirement. In 2009 that provision was repealed by the Turkish Constitutional Court. Subsequently, the applicant filed a request with the Social Security Institution for the payment of his retirement bonus. Following the rejection of his request, in 2011 he lodged an action before the Ankara Administrative Court, requesting the annulment of the administrative decision and claiming the retirement bonus for his term of service in affiliation to the Retirement Fund. The Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the case. However, on 27 December 2012 the Ankara Regional Administrative Court quashed that judgment and annulled the administrative decision rejecting the applicant’s request. On 26 March 2013 the applicant was paid TRY 39, 23 calculated on the basis of the coefficient applicable on his retirement date, that is, 15 February 1991. On 24 April 2013 the applicant requested the Social Security Institution to recalculate the amount, in view of the monetary depreciation between the date of his retirement and the payment date. In 2013 he lodged an action for the annulment of the Social Security Institution’s decision rejecting his request. The domestic courts dismissed his case. The applicant complained before the Turkish Constitutional Court about the loss in value of the retirement bonus due to the high inflation rates during the period concerned and the domestic courts’ failure to adjust the amount on the basis of the consumer price index. On 24 January 2017 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s individual application in line with the approach it had adopted in the leading case ( Huseyin Remzi Polge No: 2013/2166, 25 June 2015), where it found that the calculation of the retirement bonus on the basis of the coefficient applicable on the payment date did not constitute a legitimate expectation. The Constitutional Court did not state anything about the loss in value caused by inflation. By a judgment delivered in a separate case on 27 July 2017 ( Ferda   Yesiltepe, No: 2014/7621, 25 July 2017), the Constitutional Court found a violation of that applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the loss in value of the retirement bonus as a result of inflation. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains of the loss in value of his retirement bonus due to the inflation rates between his retirement date and the payment date. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the insufficiency of the interest rate applied to the retirement bonus vis-à-vis the inflation rates, in the light of the conclusions of the Turkish Constitutional Court in the case of Ferda   Yesiltepe, No: 2014/7621, 25 July 2017 (see, mutatis mutandis , Aka v.   Turkey , 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VI)?