CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 décembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s943D4F93 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.8pt; text-align:justify } Published on 12 January 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 23058/22 Cemal YEŞİLTAŞ against Türkiye lodged on 25 April 2022 communicated on 17 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the disbursement by the State authorities to the applicant of the retirement bonuses in respect of his deceased father’s periods of service under the Retirement Fund ( Emekli Sandığı ), as well as the loss in value of those amounts due to monetary depreciation. The applicant’s father was appointed as a civil servant on 29   November 1939. On 18 February 1965 he passed away whilst he was still in active civil service. Under the legal framework in force at the relevant time, a civil servant became eligible for a retirement bonus upon completion of 25 full years of service. Following the exclusion of the applicant’s father’s probationary period from the calculation, his total length of service – 24 years, 7 months and 6 days – was found to fall short of the statutory threshold. Accordingly, the request submitted by the deceased’s heirs (which included the applicant) for the disbursement of the retirement bonus was rejected. In 1983, Law No. 2829 on the Merging of Periods of Service Subject to Different Social Security Institutions (now abrogated) was enacted, which allowed for the applicant’s father’s probationary period to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating retirement entitlements. However, at the time, Article   12 of Law No. 2829 stipulated that a retirement bonus would be payable only to those who “retire from positions last held under the Retirement Fund.” As the applicant’s father was still in active civil service at the time of his death and had not yet formally retired, entitlement to a retirement bonus on his behalf was not recognised under the applicable legal framework. In 2009, the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC) repealed the relevant condition set out in Article 12 of Law No. 2829. Subsequently, in 2011, the applicant submitted a request to the Social Security Institution (SSI) for the payment of his deceased father’s retirement bonus. Following the SSI’s rejection of his request, the applicant brought an action before the administrative court, seeking annulment of the administrative decision and claiming payment of the retirement bonus for his father’s periods of service under the Retirement Fund, together with interest to compensate for the depreciation in the value of his claim. The domestic courts partially upheld his claim and annulled the administrative decisions rejecting the applicant’s request. Consequently, it was recognised that the applicant’s father was entitled to a retirement bonus at the time when he became eligible for a monthly pension. Subsequently, the applicant was paid the impugned retirement bonus, calculated based on the coefficients applicable as of the date when his father became eligible for a monthly pension, together with statutory interest accruing from the date of his application to the SSI. In this regard, the applicant received a payment of 0.1   Turkish Liras (TRY) in respect of his father’s retirement bonus, along with TRY 0.1 in statutory interest, calculated from the date of his application to the SSI. The applicant complained before the TCC of the loss in value of the retirement bonus due to the high inflation rates during the periods concerned and the domestic courts’ failure to adjust the amount on the basis of the inflation rates. The TCC rejected his individual application on the grounds that the applicant’s claim for the retirement bonus had been calculated in accordance with the existing legal framework. The TCC made no assessment regarding the loss in value resulting from inflation. The applicant complains 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 his deceased father’s retirement bonus as a result of high inflation between the date when his father became eligible for a monthly pension and the payment of the bonus resulted in a violation of his peaceful enjoyment of possessions.         QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, on account of the loss in value of his deceased father’s retirement bonus due to monetary depreciation (see Al   and Demirci v. Türkiye , nos. 34280/17 and 71800/17, §§   70 et seq., 10   June 2025)?