CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 2025

.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 } Published on 7 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 66041/17 Mustafa KOŞUCU against Türkiye lodged on 21 July 2017 communicated on 19 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the miscalculation of the applicant’s term of employment by the Social Security Institution ( Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu ) and the domestic authorities’ refusal to grant compensation for pecuniary damage incurred due to that failure. The Social Security Institution informed the applicant in two different letters issued upon the applicant’s request that he could retire on 1 May 2011 and that his pension would be paid from 15 May 2011 onwards. The applicant relied on these letters and resigned from his employment. However, contrary to the indications given in these letters, the Social Security Institution rejected the applicant’s retirement pension request on the grounds that he had not attained 25 years of service, which is a prerequisite for retiring. Accordingly, it informed the applicant that the date on which he could receive a pension was 22 September 2012. The applicant brought an action against the Social Security Institution to obtain the payment of the amount corresponding to the pension for the period from the date of his early termination of employment to the date corresponding to 25 years of service. The case was dismissed on the grounds that it was the applicant’s responsibility to determine when he could retire and obtain a pension. The application lodged by the applicant before the Turkish Constitutional Court was found inadmissible. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the rejection of his action for compensation. QUESTIONS 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 total rejection of the action introduced by the applicant to claim compensation for the damage resulting from the erroneous information provided by the Social Security Institution impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant ( Moskal v. Poland , no. 10373/05, §§   64 and   67-76, 15 September 2009, and Romeva v.   North   Macedonia , no.   32141/10, §§ 54-59 and 68-72, 12 December 2019)?