An acquittal or a decision of non-prosecution is an important legal basis for having a restriction record based on the same event lifted. However, closing the criminal file does not, in every case, automatically end an entry ban, a deportation order or administrative detention. A sound assessment requires examining together the reasoning of the criminal decision, the event on which the administrative act rests, and the developments that have occurred since the act was issued.
The most common problem with Ç-114 and Ç-115 records is that different decisions are treated as if they were a single “deportation file”. In fact, there is no necessary link between the closing of the prosecutor’s file and the period for bringing an action before the administrative court. The period for the administrative action may lapse while the outcome of the criminal proceedings is still awaited. This article explains which document can be used, and through which legal route, to rely on a favorable outcome in the criminal file.
Why is the criminal file examined separately from the restriction measure?
Criminal procedure investigates whether the alleged offence was committed and whether the person bears criminal liability. An administrative act under foreigners’ law, by contrast, concerns the conditions for admission to the country, stay in the country or deportation. This separation does not mean that the administration may take any measure whatsoever regardless of the criminal file. Every act must have a legal basis, a sufficient reason relating to the person and a proportionate outcome. [K1; K2]
Article 9 of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, which concerns entry bans, and Article 54, which concerns grounds for deportation, are different regulations. In reasoned assessments of public order or public security, the law does not require a final criminal conviction in every case. However, the mere existence of a complaint, or an abstract reference to an investigation that produced no result, does not replace a concrete reason. The general framework of restriction records is discussed in the article restriction code and lifting of the entry ban.
For example, if the administrative act rests only on the assumption that the foreign national used a specific forged document, a finding by the criminal court that no such document existed may directly affect the basis of the act. On the other hand, if the administration also relied on a different residence violation, an acquittal does not by itself remove that second ground. The petition must clearly show which criminal finding affects which administrative ground.
Which information must be examined for the Ç-114 and Ç-115 codes?
In practice descriptions, Ç-114 is associated with foreign nationals against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated, and Ç-115 with foreign nationals released from prison. These short labels alone are not evidence of a current conviction or of an entry ban for a fixed period. The file must contain the date on which the code was entered, the authority that made the entry, the criminal file on which it is based and any separate entry ban decision. For an examination based on an unlawful entry or exit record, see the article Ç-113 restriction code.
Different periods are given for the same code in internet sources. For that reason, statements such as “Ç-114 always lasts two years” or “Ç-115 is completely erased after five years together with all its consequences” should not be relied on without reviewing the individual decision. Article 9 of Law No. 6458 sets a general upper limit of five years for entry bans; where there is a serious threat to public order or public security, a further period of at most ten years may be added to that. This provision does not mean that every restriction code is applied for the same period. [K1]
It must also be examined whether the code is merely an information record, whether it creates a requirement of prior permission, or whether it represents an entry ban. The legal application must be built on the act affecting the person’s rights and on its consequence. Knowing the record number is not the same as knowing the full scope of the act.
How do the different outcomes in the criminal file affect the restriction?
Decision of non-prosecution
Under Article 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), a decision of non-prosecution may be issued for reasons such as the absence of sufficient suspicion to justify bringing a public prosecution, or the absence of a possibility to prosecute. The everyday word “takipsizlik” does not explain the reasoning behind this decision. The administrative file must therefore be given not only the result page but also the reasoned decision and the current procedural status of the decision. [K2]
If the decision discussed records showing that the event did not occur, those records have particular significance in the restriction file. If the decision was issued for a procedural reason, such as the absence of a complaint, it cannot be concluded that the event never took place. Equally, the administration cannot use the absence of a prosecution as proof that the offence was committed. The examination concerns whether the present facts legally support the administrative act. For the INTERPOL record based on the same event, the article red notice after acquittal and non-prosecution should be evaluated separately.
Acquittal
Article 223 of the CMK provides for different grounds of acquittal. The finding that the act does not constitute an offence, the finding that the act was not committed by the defendant, and the finding that it is not established that the offence was committed by the defendant are not the same reason. All of them result in an acquittal; none of them permits the person to be treated as if convicted. However, the effect of the reasoning on the material ground of the administrative act must be explained through that reasoning. [K2]
A ground of acquittal showing that the foreign national was not present at the scene may form a strong objection to a security assessment made on the basis of the same event. Where the evidence is not sufficient for a criminal conviction, it is separately questioned what concrete information the administration continues to rely on. When making a different legal assessment, the administrative court cannot disregard the acquittal decision or use language that again presents the person as a wrongdoer.
Release, conditional release and completion of the enforcement
A release order at the pretrial detention stage does not mean that the criminal case ended in an acquittal. Conditional release, in turn, does not show that no conviction exists; it shows that the process has moved to another stage of the enforcement of the sentence. For a Ç-115 assessment, the type of release and the current outcome of the criminal file are therefore decisive.
Article 59 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) requires that, at certain enforcement stages, the status of a foreign national be notified to the Ministry of Interior so that it can be assessed in terms of deportation procedures. This notification does not mean that the criminal court has directly ordered deportation. The administration must also examine the statutory conditions, the principle of non-refoulement and the situations listed in Article 55 of Law No. 6458. The general legal framework of deportation procedures is explained in the article deportation order. [K1; K3]
Deferral of the pronouncement of judgment and dismissal of the case
Deferral of the pronouncement of judgment (HAGB) is not an acquittal, and it cannot be equated with an announced conviction that produces consequences. The text of the CMK examined on 13 October 2026 takes as its basis Article 231 as amended by Law No. 7589 of 16 July 2026. When explaining the legal effect of HAGB, the exception concerning confiscation and the procedural provisions tied to the date of the decision must be taken into account. [K2]
The administration presenting a HAGB record as a definitive conviction and assessing the independent evidence of the event are different matters. The special recording and use limits in Article 231(13) of the CMK must also be observed. It cannot be assumed that the HAGB record may be used without limit for the purposes of a restriction review.
Decisions based on settlement, withdrawal of a complaint or the statute of limitations should not be described as acquittals as such either. The type of decision, its reasoning and the stage at which the criminal accusation came to an end are determined first. The current validity of the reasoning in the administrative act is assessed after that.
How are the presumption of innocence and the public order assessment considered together?
The presumption of innocence prevents a person whose criminal liability has not been established from being presented as a criminal. A restriction record must not be used as a register declaring that the person committed an offence. On the other hand, it cannot be said that every administrative measure aimed at protecting public order may be taken only after a conviction.
In the Constitutional Court’s decision in A.G., it was stated that in an assessment made on security grounds a criminal conviction is not necessarily required; however, serious information must be submitted to judicial review and assessed. The correct objection is therefore not confined to the sentence “my criminal record is clean”. The accuracy, currency and connection to the person of the facts on which the administration relies are discussed. [K4]
The administration’s strongest counter-argument may be that the act does not aim at punishment and is preventive in nature. The legal answer is to examine concrete necessity and proportionality, rather than resting on the name given to the measure. The fact that the event is very old, subsequent lawful life, strong family ties, a child’s care needs and health status may be taken into account in the assessment. These facts alone do not create immunity; they make visible how heavily the measure weighs on the person.
The Constitutional Court decision showing the significance of another ground despite an acquittal
In the Constitutional Court’s decision in Sherapat Yagmyrova, the statement of facts records that a forgery case concerning a document relating to the applicant ended in an acquittal. However, the deportation dispute did not consist of that charge alone. The first-instance court did not find appropriate the ground of unlawful entry asserted on the basis of the restriction records, and separately assessed the public health ground. [K5, §§ 12, 16]
The Constitutional Court found the complaints concerning private and family life, equality and ill-treatment manifestly unfounded, and the complaint concerning personal liberty inadmissible because remedies had not been exhausted. The decision does not contain a rule that a foreign national who has been acquitted will necessarily have the restriction lifted. The concrete case shows that several administrative grounds must be assessed separately. [K5]
This decision also cannot be turned into a conclusion that every health condition is a ground for deportation. The nature of the illness, current medical findings, the availability of treatment and the conditions requiring protection are examined separately. The facts of that decision, and the provisions in force on that date, should not be carried over unchanged to a current file.
How is a favorable criminal decision submitted to the administrative file?
An application is not complete merely because the entire criminal file has been attached. A direct link must be established between the relevant finding in the reasoned decision and the ground of the restriction act. The foreign identity number, different passports and different spellings of the name must be matched. Otherwise, a correct decision may be linked to the wrong person’s record, or the connection between a new surname and the former restriction may not be visible.
| Document | Function in the examination |
|---|---|
| Reasoned KYOK or acquittal decision | Shows which event and which reason brought the criminal process to an end. |
| Finality information or current file record | Explains the status of legal remedies and whether the decision can be enforced. |
| Restriction and entry ban decisions | Determine the authority, the reason, the scope and the duration of the administrative act. |
| Notification documents | Allow a timetable for applications to be set for each act. |
| Identity and passport records | Confirm that the person in the criminal and migration files is the same person. |
| Family, health and actual-life documents | Give concrete form to the personal effect of the measure and to the proportionality objection. |
For example, if the acquittal shows that the act alleged was committed by another person, the confusion of identity must be clearly demonstrated. If the administration relies on a second security record in the act, that record must also be disclosed and assessed. The request in the petition should state not only “deletion of the code” but also which act is to be lifted or re-assessed.
Which period applies to which application?
Unless a special period applies to an administrative act concerning a restriction or entry ban, the general period for an annulment action is sixty days. An appropriate application that is made within the period and suits its nature, under Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), may suspend the period for bringing an action. After an express rejection, or after a tacit rejection arising at the end of the thirty-day response period, the remaining period continues to run; it is not assumed that a full sixty days begins anew. A request for information or documents is not, in every case, an application under Article 11. [K6]
The fact that a criminal decision is issued later does not revive the missed period for bringing an action against an earlier administrative act. A request for removal based on a new event or document, and the new decision given on it, may be assessed separately; however, this route should not be presented as an unlimited opportunity to sue over all earlier acts that have become final.
Where there is a deportation order, the special seven-day period for bringing an action under Article 53(3) of Law No. 6458 runs from notification. The outcome of an administrative application, or the finality of an acquittal, should not be awaited in a way that endangers this period. Unless the foreign national consents, deportation is not carried out during the period for bringing an action and while the proceedings are pending. This protection is not a general consequence that arises merely from filing an action against a restriction. [K1]
Administrative detention is a matter for the criminal judgeship of peace. A release order from the criminal court does not automatically end administrative detention in the removal centre. Likewise, a judicial control measure prohibiting leaving the country is different from an administrative entry ban. Each decision must be addressed before its own competent authority. An objection to an administrative detention order is examined separately in the article objection to an administrative detention decision.
Which steps follow once a court decision has been obtained?
The scope of the annulment or stay-of-execution decision must be read, and it must be determined which restriction, entry ban or refusal act it concerns. Under Article 28 of the İYUK, the administration must act without delay in line with the requirements of the decision; that period must not exceed thirty days from notification. Thirty days is not a free period during which the administration may wait until the last day in every case. [K6]
It is followed up whether the decision reached the relevant unit and whether the record was updated in line with it. Any other active restriction, visa requirement or public receivable is examined separately. The removal of a code does not mean that a residence or work permit is granted automatically.
If the application is rejected, the legal remedy depends on the type of decision. The ordinary remedies in an action against a restriction must not be confused with the special finality rule in a deportation action. An individual application, by contrast, is not a new restriction action that substitutes for the ordinary remedies and re-examines the evidence from the beginning.
Conclusion
A favorable outcome in the criminal file can be central to a restriction review; its effect must be explained through the reasoning of the decision and the ground of the administrative act. KYOK, acquittal, release, HAGB and the completion of enforcement do not produce the same legal consequence. The most sound method is to identify all decisions concerning the person, calculate the periods separately, compare the concrete finding in the criminal decision with the administrative ground, and monitor the implementation of the records after the decision.
Related articles: Ç-117 and Ç-119: unauthorized work, penalty and deportation; N-82 and N-99: prior permission and visa with reservation; V84: has conditional entry been lifted? A current legal guide; G-87 restriction code: security grounds; Notification and the seven-day period in deportation decisions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the Ç-114 code disappear automatically if I am acquitted?
No such automatic result can be stated for every file. It is examined which event the acquittal relates to and whether the basis of the record still continues. The reasoned decision can be submitted to the relevant authority, requesting the removal of the record and the assessment of linked acts.
Is a decision of non-prosecution the same as an acquittal?
No. A KYOK decision is issued at the prosecution stage, whereas an acquittal is issued as the outcome of the trial. In both cases, the reasoning and the current procedural status are important for a restriction application.
Can an action against the restriction be brought while the criminal case is still ongoing?
If the administrative act is capable of being challenged in court, it is not necessarily required to wait for the criminal case to end. The periods are independent of each other. Later developments in the criminal file can be submitted to the administrative action.
If I am released from prison, do I also leave the removal centre?
Not automatically. Detention in the criminal proceedings and administrative detention for the purpose of deportation are separate decisions. The statutory and personal conditions of administrative detention are examined separately.
Can HAGB be used as if it were a final conviction?
HAGB is not the same as an announced conviction. Under the current Article 231 of the CMK, the date of the decision and the limits on the use of special records must be assessed together. The legal effect of the HAGB decision should be separated from the independent evidence of the event.
Can a deportation case be held in abeyance until an acquittal becomes final?
Waiting for the special seven-day period may cause serious loss of rights. Whether an appropriate application should be made on the existing decision and evidence without waiting for the outcome of the criminal file, and whether the outcome should be submitted to the file later, is assessed.
Does removing the code make entry to Türkiye certain?
The scope of the removal decision and its application in the system are checked. Other bans, prior permission, visa requirements and the general conditions for admission to the country still apply separately.
Sources and legal bases
K1 — Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, in particular Articles 4, 9 and 53–57.
K3 — Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, Article 59.
K6 — Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, in particular Articles 7, 11, 27, 28 and 32.