CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 juin 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sB217F55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } Communicated on 25 June 2020 Published on 15 July 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 31994/16 Hanife Gülser CAN against Turkey and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications mainly concern the State authorities’ disbursement of the applicants’ retirement bonuses for their terms of service in affiliation to the Retirement Fund ( Emekli Sandığı ) and the loss in value of those amounts due to monetary depreciation. The first two applicants and the third applicant’s father (hereinafter “the applicant”) were retired in 2000, 1993 and 1989, respectively, following their employment in affiliation to the Retirement Fund as civil servants and subsequently in affiliation to the Social Security Institution as employees. The applicants, however, were not granted a retirement bonus for their terms 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 Constitutional Court. Subsequently, the applicants filed a request with the Social Security Institution for the payment of their retirement bonuses. Following the rejection of their requests, in 2010 and 2011 they lodged actions before the Ankara Administrative Court, requesting the annulment of the administrative decisions and claiming their retirement bonuses for their terms of service in affiliation to the Retirement Fund. The domestic courts accepted their cases and annulled the administrative decisions rejecting the applicants’ requests. The applicants were paid retirement bonuses calculated on the basis of the coefficient applicable on their retirement dates. In 2013 the applicant Ayşe Al requested the Social Security Institution to recalculate the amount, in view of the monetary depreciation between the date of her retirement and the payment date. In 2014 she lodged an action for the annulment of the Social Security Institution’s decision rejecting her request. The domestic courts dismissed her case. The applicants complained before the Constitutional Court about the loss in value of their retirement bonuses due to the high inflation rates during the periods concerned and the domestic courts’ failure to adjust the amounts on the basis of the consumer price index or the inflation rates. In 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively, the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ individual applications 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 applicants complain of the loss in value of their retirement bonuses due to the inflation rates between their retirement dates and payment dates.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights 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 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)?   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1 31994/16 Can v. Turkey 23/05/2016 Hanife Gülser CAN Istanbul Turkish   2 34280/17 Al v. Turkey 24/03/2017 Ayşe AL Istanbul Turkish   3 71800/17 Demirci v. Turkey 22/09/2017 Nevin DEMIRCI Istanbul Turkish R. Leyla SÜREN   APPENDIX