14.07.2026 11:00
The Constitutional Court rejected the request for annulment, finding the regulation that provides for the suspension of income and pensions for spouses and children who are actually living with their divorced spouse to be in compliance with the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court (AYM) rejected the annulment request, finding the regulation, which stipulates the termination of income and pensions of spouses and children determined to be living in a de facto relationship with their divorced spouse and the recovery of payments made, to be in accordance with the Constitution.
LOCAL COURT REQUESTED ANNULMENT
According to the decision published in the Official Gazette, the Istanbul Anatolia 21st Labor Court, in a case it was hearing, requested the annulment of the provision in Article 56, second paragraph of Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance, which states: 'If a spouse and children, despite being divorced, are determined to be living in a de facto relationship with the divorced spouse, their granted income and pensions shall be terminated. The amounts paid to these individuals shall be recovered according to the provisions of Article 96,' arguing that it was unconstitutional.
In the annulment request, it was stated that the regulation in question stipulates that if the Social Security Institution conducts an insufficient investigation, the necessary investigation must be carried out by the courts, causing the judiciary to substitute for the administration, and also leads to an interference with the right to respect for private life.
ANNULMENT REQUEST WAS REJECTED
The High Court, reviewing the application, found the regulation to be constitutional and ruled to reject the annulment request.
HERE IS THE REASONING OF THE DECISION
In the AYM's decision, it was noted that the regulation in question clearly and unambiguously stipulates the circumstances under which the income and pensions granted to spouses and children will be terminated, without causing any doubt.
The decision included the finding that there is no ambiguity in the regulation regarding the procedures and principles for the recovery of granted income and pensions due to the violation, stating, 'It has been concluded that the restriction on the right to property meets the condition of legality.'
In the decision, it was expressed that granting income and pensions to divorced spouses and children 'aims to ensure the social security of rightful beneficiaries who are deprived of spousal support by providing social insurance assistance.' It said, 'It is clear that terminating the income and pensions granted to individuals who are divorced from their spouse but live together with their divorced spouse and are not actually deprived of their spouse's support aims to prevent the abuse of rights and to ensure the efficient use of public resources within the social security system.'
Emphasizing that the regulation aims to ensure the sustainability of the social security system, the decision assessed, 'It cannot be said that the restriction on the right to property imposed by the rule, which falls within the discretionary authority of the legislator, is unnecessary for achieving the aforementioned legitimate aim.'