17.07.2025 09:10
The salaries of retirees could not be subject to seizure or blocking. With the recent unification of case law by the Court of Cassation, it has been decided that it is possible for banks to directly block retirement salaries due to imprisonment, offsetting, and similar approval and consent orders issued because of consumer loans.
Retired citizens could not have their salaries seized due to consumer loans. However, this situation has fundamentally changed with the Supreme Court's decision to unify precedents. With the new regulation, banks will have the authority to directly block the salaries of retirees based on the approvals and consent statements they provide during the loan application process.
IT AFFECTS MILLIONS OF RETIREES
The Supreme Court unified precedents to end different practices regarding whether banks can seize salaries related to consumer loans. According to the decision, if the retiree has given explicit consent, the bank can directly block the salary based on provisions in the loan agreements such as approval, consent, set-off, and compensation.
Bank loan agreements are often standard and lengthy. This can lead retirees to sign without thoroughly reviewing the clauses. Now, retirees will need to carefully read and provide consent for every clause they sign or approve when using a loan. It is still unclear whether some banks will accept this situation, but once the contract is signed, the retiree's consent will become legally valid.
DECISION PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE
In its decision, the Supreme Court referenced the first sentence of Article 48 of the Constitution, which states, "Everyone has the freedom to work and contract in the field of their choice." According to this article, everyone has the freedom to enter into contracts in their chosen field, thus the consent statements in the loan agreement are considered valid. The Supreme Court ruled that blocks could be placed on retirement salaries along with the consents and approvals given for contracts made based on this article.
Article 93 of Law No. 5510 states, "The income, monthly, and allowances of insured persons and their beneficiaries, as well as the receivables arising from the application of the general health insurance provisions of health service providers, cannot be transferred or assigned. Income, monthly, and allowances cannot be seized except for receivables that need to be followed and collected according to Article 88 and alimony debts." The continuation of the article, added by Article 32 of Law No. 5838 dated 18.02.2009, states, "Requests for the seizure of income, monthly, and allowances prohibited from seizure under this paragraph shall be rejected by the enforcement director in the absence of the debtor's consent."
HOW MUCH OF THE SALARY WILL BE BLOCKED?
Another noteworthy point in the Supreme Court's decision is the uncertainty regarding how much of the retirement salary can be blocked. For example, if a retiree receives a salary of 20,000 TL and has taken a loan with a repayment of 23,000 TL, it has not been clarified whether the entire salary or only a certain percentage will be blocked. Since this situation has not been clearly defined in the decision, it may create new disputes between banks and retirees.
Despite objections from some Supreme Court members, the unification of precedents was accepted by a majority vote and was published in the Official Gazette, coming into effect.