The retirement bonus (emekli ikramiyesi), which is paid in return for the years spent in public service, is often not paid to persons who retire by combining their service periods in different social security institutions. The Constitutional Court’s judgment of 22 April 2026 has reopened the debate on this difference in treatment in terms of constitutional equality. The short answer: the Court found that the rule making the payment of a retirement bonus to those who combine their service periods dependent on the manner in which they left office imposed a disproportionate burden on the applicants and violated the prohibition of discrimination in conjunction with the right to property.
Worked in the public sector for years, retired, but did not receive the retirement bonus
Thousands of people who have retired by combining service periods spent in different social security institutions have faced the same problem for many years: a retirement pension is granted, but the retirement bonus that should be paid in return for public service is refused on the grounds of the manner in which they left office. In practice, these persons complete their retirement without receiving anything in return for the years they actually worked in the public sector.
The Constitutional Court’s judgment in Mine Zeynep Arı and Others, dated 22 April 2026 (application no. 2023/4822), has brought this problem back onto the agenda in terms of constitutional rights. The Court examined the difference in treatment between those whose service period alone is sufficient for retirement and those who combine their service, and concluded that the applicants bore a disproportionate burden. The text of the judgment can be accessed via the Constitutional Court Decisions Database.
Same public service, different bonus outcome
At the root of the problem lies Article 89 of the Law No. 5434 on the Retirement Fund of the Republic of Turkey. Under the first paragraph of that article, a retirement bonus may be paid to those whose service period alone is sufficient, regardless of how their office ended; for those who combine their service, however, an additional condition is imposed that they must have left in a manner meeting the conditions for entitlement to severance pay.
Article 89 of Law No. 5434 on the Retirement Fund of the Republic of Turkey provides as follows:
“As for those who, although not falling within the scope of the first paragraph, have service under this Law and/or provisional Article 4 of Law No. 5510 and who are granted a retirement, old-age or invalidity pension on the basis of service periods combined pursuant to Article 8 of the repealed Law No. 2829 on the Combination of Services Performed Subject to Social Security Institutions, a retirement bonus shall be paid on condition that their employment in departments, institutions and partnerships subject to this Law, under the provisions of this Law or provisional Article 4 of Law No. 5510, ended in accordance with the conditions for entitlement to severance pay set out in Article 14 of Labour Law No. 1475 dated 25/8/1971.”
This provision makes the right to a bonus subject to a heavier condition for public servants who combine their service. The applicants’ objection focuses precisely on the point that this difference is neither fair nor proportionate.
Constitutional Court: the difference in treatment exceeded constitutional limits
The Constitutional Court (AYM) assessed whether persons who spent a substantial part of their service in public office could be subjected to a heavier condition merely because they combined their service.
According to the Court’s approach, if most of the period required to qualify for a retirement pension was spent in the public sector, a condition relating to the manner in which the person left public office that completely eliminates the right to a bonus may not be proportionate.
The judgment concluded that this differing practice with regard to the retirement bonus violated the prohibition of discrimination in conjunction with the right to property. Thus, the issue was addressed not merely as a technical application of social security legislation, but within the framework of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Under Article 10 of the Constitution:
“Everyone is equal before the law without distinction as to language, race, colour, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion and sect, or any such grounds.”
The Court considered that, in the specific case, the difference established with respect to the right to a bonus between those who combine their service and those whose service period alone is sufficient was not based on an objective and reasonable ground.
The source of the violation is the statutory provision itself
One of the most important findings in the Constitutional Court’s judgment is that the violation did not stem solely from an erroneous practice of the administration. The Court concluded that the inequality arose directly from the second paragraph of Article 89 of Law No. 5434.
This finding broadens the impact of the judgment. The problem is not limited to the applicants’ individual case; it also creates an important legal debate for persons in a similar situation who are subject to the same statutory rule.
However, the judgment does not mean that everyone in a similar situation will automatically and directly receive a retirement bonus. Each person’s service periods, retirement status, manner of leaving office, whether they previously received any compensation or bonus, and any ongoing judicial proceedings must be assessed individually.
The case was sent back for retrial
In order to redress the consequences of the violation, the Constitutional Court decided to send the case file to the relevant court for retrial. Furthermore, since the violation stemmed from a statutory provision, it ordered that the judgment be notified to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.
The Court dismissed the applicants’ claims for compensation. The reason is that retrial was considered a sufficient means of redress for the violation, and that the problem could be resolved through a legislative amendment or the retrial process.
The judgment also emphasised that there is a legal interest in holding a retrial so that, pursuant to Article 152 of the Constitution, an application can be made to the Constitutional Court by way of objection (concrete review) for the annulment of the relevant statutory provision.
Why is the reference to Labour Law No. 1475 important?
With regard to the bonus entitlement of those who combine their service, Article 89 of Law No. 5434 refers to the severance pay conditions set out in Article 14 of the Labour Law No. 1475.
Article 14 of Labour Law No. 1475 regulates in which cases of termination severance pay arises. The article covers situations such as termination of the employment contract in order to receive a retirement or old-age pension and the combination of certain public services.
This reference becomes decisive for the inclusion of service as a public servant in the calculation of the retirement bonus. However, the Constitutional Court’s assessment shows that the strict and automatic application of this condition to everyone who combines their service may lead to discriminatory results when the particular features of the specific case are not taken into account.
What happens now after the judgment?
Three issues are important after the judgment. Since these issues concern both pending cases and persons who have not yet made any application, they are decisive for reading the practical consequences of the judgment correctly.
Retrial proceedings
In the case to which the Constitutional Court’s violation judgment was sent, the relevant court is obliged to reassess the matter in a way that eliminates the causes of the violation.
The need for legislative amendment
The finding that the violation stems directly from Article 89 of Law No. 5434 reveals the need for the legislator to bring the provision into line with the constitutional principles of equality and proportionality.
Individual application and time limits for legal action
Persons in a similar situation need to have their service records, retirement procedures, reasons for leaving office and any previous court decisions examined. It is of great importance not to miss the time limits for legal remedies; it is therefore useful to assess in advance how the individual application procedure before the Constitutional Court works and what its admissibility conditions are.
The Constitutional Court has previously issued violation judgments in disputes concerning social security and working life; for example, the judgment finding a violation of the right to a fair trial in an employee receivables case is a similar example of constitutional review.
Frequently asked questions about the retirement bonus
What is the retirement bonus and who is it paid to?
The retirement bonus is an entitlement paid upon retirement in return for public service. Under the first paragraph of Article 89 of Law No. 5434, it may be paid to those whose service period alone is sufficient, regardless of how their office ended.
Why is the retirement bonus not paid to those who combine their service?
Because the second paragraph of Article 89 of Law No. 5434 imposes an additional condition on those who combine their service: their public office must have ended in accordance with the conditions for entitlement to severance pay in Article 14 of Labour Law No. 1475. If this condition is not met, the claim may be refused.
Does the Constitutional Court’s judgment ensure direct payment to everyone in a similar situation?
No. The judgment does not mean that everyone in a similar situation will automatically and directly receive a bonus. In each case, the service periods, retirement status, manner of leaving office, whether any compensation or bonus has previously been received, and any ongoing judicial proceedings are assessed individually.
Which right did the Court find to have been violated?
The judgment concluded that the differing practice with regard to the retirement bonus violated the prohibition of discrimination in conjunction with the right to property.
Were the applicants awarded compensation?
The Court dismissed the applicants’ claims for compensation. The reasoning was that retrial was considered a sufficient means of redress for the violation, and that the problem could be resolved through a legislative amendment or the retrial process.
Why was the judgment notified to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey?
The judgment was notified to the Grand National Assembly (TBMM) because it was found that the violation stemmed directly from the statutory provision, namely the second paragraph of Article 89 of Law No. 5434. This points to the need for the legislature to revisit the provision.
What does combination of service mean?
Combination of service means aggregating service periods spent in different social security institutions under a single retirement entitlement. The second paragraph of Article 89 of Law No. 5434 defines this combination by reference to Article 8 of the repealed Law No. 2829 on the Combination of Services Performed Subject to Social Security Institutions. The dispute that is the subject of the judgment concerns precisely the persons in this group.
What does the retrial decision mean?
In order to redress the consequences of the violation, the Constitutional Court decided to send the case file to the relevant court for retrial. The judgment also emphasised that there is a legal interest in holding a retrial so that, pursuant to Article 152 of the Constitution, an application can be made to the Constitutional Court by way of objection for the annulment of the relevant statutory provision.
If my retirement bonus claim was refused, which documents should I prepare?
Service records, correspondence relating to retirement procedures, documents showing the reason for leaving office and any previous court decisions are decisive in assessing the case. Since time limits for legal remedies can be short, it is important to have the documents examined without delay.
Conclusion: the retirement bonus is not merely a technical calculation issue
The Constitutional Court’s judgment represents an important constitutional review for persons who served in the public sector for years and retired by combining their service in different social security institutions.
The Court’s message is clear: public services of the same or similar nature should not lead to a heavier and disproportionate loss of rights merely because service periods were combined.
The judgment may pave the way for a new legislative amendment on the retirement bonus and for an interpretation consistent with the Constitution in similar cases. However, the concrete outcome will be determined according to each person’s service and court file.
The reward for years spent in public service is not only a retirement pension; it is also the right to fair and equal treatment.
Retirement bonus disputes require service periods and the manner of leaving office to be assessed together; it is therefore advisable to seek professional legal advice from a lawyer.
Legal Notice: This text has been prepared for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. sophoshukuk.com makes no referral, guarantee or promise of outcome. Each case must be assessed on its own particular circumstances; for your specific dispute, please obtain professional advice from a lawyer.