Page 53 - iyi-yonetim-ilkleri

Manual On Good Administration Principles

a) remove the restriction arising from the implementation of the zoning plan
on the applicant’s land by taking into account the balance between personal
interest and general public interest in the event that the administration
determines that it does not need the mentioned property or;
b) take a new action in order to ensure that the exchange transaction with
another property is carried out within a reasonable time period on the basis of
the current expropriation market value to be determined or;
c) determine the expropriation price of the property through compromise
between the administration and the applicant, if possible, taking into account
the current market value and to take a new action in order to ensure that the
expropriation price is paid by the administration within a reasonable time
period.
Case 3: In the Decision of the Ombudsman Institution dated 06.08.2019 and
No. 2019/2515, it was stated that the applicant, who retired willingly on the
date of 01.05.1986 while he was working as an accounting manager at the
Turkish Naval Forces Command, was paid retirement pension as of the same
date, made a request to be paid the pension differential with legal interest as
his/her additional indicator was elevated to +2200 and the adjustment to the
3rd rank of the 1st level, as of the date of 01.10.2008 by the SSI ‘s proceeding
dated 18.12.2018.
As a result of the examination and investigation conducted by the Ombudsman
Institution, it was decided that the administration was responsible for the
mistake occurred in the calculation of the pension and pension bonus, in other
words, when the fact that the administration was authorised and responsible
during the whole process except the start of the retirement proceeding, it
was evaluated that the calculation of the retirement pension was complex,
that there was no suspicion or hesitation in regard to the calculation of
the difference between the amount of pension/pension bonus, which the
applicant was supposed to receive, and the amount of pension/pension bonus
he/she received. The applicant stated that he/she had a reasonable excuse for
not applying to the administration. As the applicant’s request for receiving the
differential pay was rejected with the excuse of a time-out, it was decided that
the reasonable balance, which had to be established between the applicant’s
right of property and general public interest, was disturbed to the detriment
of the applicant, which caused the intervention on the right of property to be
disproportional.
In conclusion, the administration was recommended to take a new action within
a reasonable period of time to compensate for the applicant’s differential pay
by establishing balance between the differential and purchasing power on the
date the applicant started getting paid.

52