CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .sEB92D88E { height:63.35pt } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s856DF1B6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10.5pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s26756D70 { height:49.85pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s76BE4627 { height:60.7pt } .s42015D7A { height:27.25pt } .s98A8263B { height:20.5pt } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 15 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 67314/17 Nuri VAR against Türkiye and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 25 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the State authorities’ disbursement of the applicants’ retirement bonuses for their periods of service under the Retirement Fund ( Emekli Sandığı ), and the loss in value of those amounts due to monetary depreciation. The applicants retired on the dates indicated in the appendix below, following their employment first as civil servants affiliated with the Retirement Fund and subsequently as employees affiliated with the Social Security Institution or social security scheme for the self ‑ employed ( Bağ ‑ Kur ). The applicants, however, were not granted retirement bonuses for their periods of service as civil servants, because Article 12 of Law No. 2829 -   then in force   - required that the persons concerned be employed as civil servants affiliated with the Retirement Fund immediately prior to retirement. In 2009, the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC) repealed that provision. Subsequently, the applicants submitted requests with the Social Security Institution (SSI) on the dates indicated in the appendix below for the payment of their retirement bonuses. Following the rejection of their requests by the SSI, the applicants brought actions before the administrative courts, seeking the annulment of the administrative decisions, and claiming retirement bonuses for their periods of service under the Retirement Fund, together with interest to compensate for the loss in value of their claims. The domestic courts accepted the claims and annulled the administrative decisions. The applicants were subsequently paid retirement bonuses calculated on the basis of the coefficients applicable on their respective retirement dates, together with statutory interest accrued from the date of their applications to the SSI. After receiving the impugned payments from the SSI, the first and second applicants brought separate actions before the administrative courts, seeking the recalculation of the impugned payments in accordance with present-day monetary values. However, both their actions were unsuccessful. The applicants complained before the TCC 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 those inflation rates. The TCC rejected the applicants’ individual applications on the grounds that the calculation of the retirement bonus based on the coefficient applicable on the payment date did not give rise to a legitimate expectation. The TCC made no assessment of the alleged loss in value resulting from inflation. The applicants complain before the Court, under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, that the State authorities’ failure to address the loss in value of their retirement bonuses as a result of high inflation between the date of their retirement and the payment of their bonuses resulted in a violation of their peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the second applicant further complains that the rejection of the administrative courts to readjust the impugned payments in accordance with present-day monetary values in the second set of proceedings rendered the first decision ineffective and hence constituted a manifest error in the application and interpretation of the national law. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ rights to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, on account of the loss in value of their retirement bonuses due to monetary depreciation (see Al and Demirci v.   Türkiye , nos.   34280/17 and   71800/17, §§ 93-106, 10 June 2025)?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Applicant Represented by Date of retirement     Date of application to the SSI The domestic court decision on which the bonus calculation was based   Date/notification of payment Sums paid (Bonus and statutory interest) The duration of service Decision of the TCC     1 67314/17 Var v. Türkiye Nuri VAR   01/02/1989     26/08/2010 Ankara 4th Administrative Court, 25/12/2012   26/04/2013 TRY 2.73   10 years and 11 months 28/02/2017 2 78740/17 Köksal v. Türkiye Metin KÖKSAL Şebnem KÖKSAL 01/01/1997     07/06/2010 Ankara 1st Regional Administrative Court, 27/12/2012   26/03/2013 TRY 331.12 12 years and 10 months 13/04/2017 3 6963/18 Terzioğlu v. Türkiye Abdurrahim TERZİOĞLU   01/02/1992     29/09/2010 Ankara 4th Administrative Court, 24/12/2012   09/06/2014 TRY 40.56 11 years 15/09/2017 4 25583/21 Balcı v. Türkiye Sadık BALCI Özay BOZDAĞ 01/08/1998     25/12/2017 Ankara 11th Regional Administrative Court, 22/05/2019   26/08/2019 TRY 1,409.52 16 years 12/11/2020 5 36781/21 Kaya v. Türkiye Halil KAYA   01/06/2000 18/09/2017 Ankara 7th Administrative Court, 06/11/2018   14/03/2019 TRY 3,382.79 13 years 16/02/2021