Published on 22 December 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 38746/19
Caner URAL
against Türkiye
lodged on 5 July 2019
communicated on 1 December 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the retroactive divestment of the applicant’s retirement pension and his obligation to reimburse amounts paid over a period of five years.
The applicant, who was a civil servant prior to his retirement, had retired in 1993 and began to receive a monthly retirement pension within the framework of the Retirement Fund (Emekli Sandığı).
In 1995, he was appointed to the Management Board of the Water and Sewerage General Directorate of the Metropolitan Municipality of Mersin. Following his appointment, the General Directorate had submitted a formal inquiry to the Retirement Fund as to whether the applicant’s pension would be subject to any reductions on account of his new position. The Retirement Fund responded in the negative.
The applicant resigned from his position on the Management Board in 2010.
On 27 April 2010 the Social Security Institution (SSI) notified the applicant that, due to his service on the Management Board, the retirement pension payments made to him between 1 January 2005 and 30 June 2010 had been erroneously disbursed. Accordingly, the applicant was required to reimburse the amount corresponding to this period, which was calculated as 122,056.28 Turkish liras (62,273.61 euros at the time).
The applicant challenged the SSI’s decision before the administrative courts. Although the Court of First Instance ruled in his favour, the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the decision, relying on Article 30(4)(e) of Law No. 5335, which entered into force on 21 April 2005. The Supreme Administrative Court found that, pursuant to the provision in question, the applicant’s membership on the Management Board constituted “salaried employment” (maaş karşılığı yürütülen görev), which rendered him ineligible to receive a retirement pension during the same period.
On 2 April 2024, the Turkish Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s individual application as inadmissible.
The applicant complains before the Court that the retroactive divestment of his retirement pension and the obligation to reimburse pension payments made over a five-year period constituted a breach of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, particularly in light of the assurances provided by the administration at the time of his appointment that his pension rights would remain unaffected by his position in the Management Board.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
In particular, taking into account the principle of good governance, did the retroactive divestment of the applicant’s retirement pension and his obligation to reimburse amounts paid over a period of five years impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (Moskal v. Poland, no. 10373/05, § 64 and §§ 67-76, 15 September 2009; Čakarević v. Croatia, no. 48921/13, §§ 71-91, 26 April 2018; and Romeva v. North Macedonia, no. 32141/10, §§ 54-59 and §§ 68-72, 12 December 2019)?