Alternative obligations to administrative detention are measures that allow the removal process to be carried out without the person being held in a removal centre (geri gönderme merkezi). Article 57/A of Law No. 6458 provides for seven types of obligation. Several may be applied together; the general upper limit on duration is twenty-four months. However, which measure is necessary, for how long and in what manner it is applied must be assessed on an individual basis.
An obligation to sign in or to reside at an address that begins after release from the centre is not merely a simple registration formality. It may affect a person’s daily life, family relationships and ability to travel to another province. For this reason, in addition to the initial decision, the routes for modification, excuse, termination and judicial review should also be known.
To whom can an alternative obligation be applied?
Assessment before detention and after detention ends
Article 57/A provides for alternatives for foreign nationals within the scope of Article 57/2 and for foreign nationals whose detention has been terminated. For a foreign national who falls within Article 57/2 but is not placed in detention, the law makes it mandatory to impose one or more alternatives. This does not mean that every foreign national in Türkiye is subject to these measures; the statutory scope is determined separately.
Under Article 7 of the Regulation dated 14 September 2022, alternatives are, in principle, to be assessed before detention. The person’s age, health, family situation and special needs are taken into account. If no assessment was made at the outset, the matter is addressed first of all after admission to the centre; it is also re-examined when detention continues and when it is extended. The decision is made by the governorate (valilik), and the provincial directorate of migration management monitors its implementation.
It is not necessary to wait for six months to elapse before requesting an alternative. However, naming an address or invoking a family tie does not on its own make acceptance of the request mandatory. It must be explained how the proposed measure addresses the risk of absconding or other risks identified in the file.
If the deportation decision is lifted, does the obligation continue?
Article 6/2 of the Regulation provides that alternatives are not applied to those within the scope of Article 55 of the Law. Where a deportation decision is annulled, lifted or withdrawn, no new alternative may be imposed under this regime either, and existing obligations are terminated. This outcome does not necessarily mean that a notification or residence obligation tied to another statutory status also disappears.
The mere filing of a deportation action is not the same as the annulment of the decision. While the action is pending, the scope of the existing alternative continues to be followed separately. Where the decision has ended, the relevant court or administrative decision should be submitted to the file, and removal of the obligation from the record and written notice to the person should be requested.
What are the seven alternative obligations?
| Type under the law | Basic function | Point to watch in the file |
|---|---|---|
| Residence at a designated address | Provides a reachable address | Verification of the address and change of province |
| Duty to report | Confirms presence at set intervals | Method, frequency and records of excuses |
| Family-based return | Allows the person to stay with certain relatives | The foreign national’s request and the relatives’ consent |
| Return counselling | Provides information on rights and the return process | Information provided and the guarantee of non-refoulement |
| Voluntary public service | Provides for voluntary duties in the public interest | Voluntariness and conditions of implementation |
| Surety (teminat) | Allows follow-up outside the centre against a financial guarantee | Current amount, special time limit and conditions of refund |
| Electronic monitoring | Provides follow-up by technological means | Legal conditions of the mobile application or electronic bracelet |
Voice recognition, the mobile application and the electronic bracelet should not be counted as three independent categories in addition to the seven types in the law. The Regulation elaborates them as ways of implementing reporting or electronic monitoring.
Applying the address and signature obligations
Verification of the address and moving to another province
Residence at a designated address is not identical to the criminal-procedure measure of not leaving one’s residence. Nevertheless, the person must reside at the address stated in the decision. Article 8 of the Regulation requires verification of the address; depending on the case, this means a lease agreement or the written consent of the person with whom the foreign national will stay. Where residence at the address can be verified through the system, there is an exception to the separately required document condition.
A request to reside in another province is made in writing. Documents showing grounds such as health, education and family ties are submitted for assessment. In some deportation grounds, the favorable opinion of the Presidency is also required. Having filed a request does not give the authority to move on one’s own before the request is accepted.
The frequency of reporting is not the same for everyone
Reporting may be performed by fingerprint verification, voice recognition or a wet-ink signature at the provincial directorate. The method and frequency are determined by an individual assessment. Under Article 9 of the Regulation, reporting intervals may not exceed one month. This upper interval does not mean that everyone will report only once a month.
In the proportionality assessment, distance to the centre, regular treatment, care of a child and transport options may matter. In a request for less frequent reporting or for a different province, an appointment schedule, a medical document and residence and family records should be submitted rather than merely mentioning difficulty. In files based on certain security or public order grounds, the Regulation’s limitations on applying only an address obligation or only a reporting obligation must also be taken into account.
What do family-based return and voluntariness mean?
Under Article 11 of the Regulation, family-based return rests on the foreign national being able to stay with first- or second-degree relatives who are lawfully present in Türkiye. The foreign national’s written request and the relatives’ written consent are required. The consent also includes undertakings on cooperation with the administration and on travel costs; it is not the same document as an ordinary address permission.
In return counselling, the person’s rights, obligations and exit options are explained. The Regulation reserves the principle of non-refoulement. For this reason, attending a counselling session should not be interpreted as giving up a claim of facing a serious danger in the home country. It should be understood whether the document signed is a counselling record or a separate declaration of return.
As to taking part in public-interest services, the law’s requirement of voluntariness is preserved. It cannot be asserted that this gives a general permission for paid work, or that it is a standard programme actually offered in every province to every applicant. The specific programme and its conditions should be verified separately.
How is release from the centre against surety assessed?
Current amount and payment procedure
Surety is not a system open to everyone that automatically secures release once the requested amount is deposited. The person’s suitability for this measure is assessed; Article 14/11 of the Regulation contains exceptions for certain deportation grounds. After a favorable decision, payment is made to the account of the relevant accounting unit and the receipt is delivered to the provincial directorate.
The starting amount in the Regulation is 100,000 Turkish lira (TL); it is to be increased each year by the revaluation rate and communicated to the provincial directorates. It would therefore be wrong to use this figure as the fixed current amount payable in 2026. The amount applicable to the file and the official payment details should be confirmed in writing. This article does not state an unverified 2026 payment figure.
Duration, refund and forfeiture of surety
A foreign national who has furnished surety is also made subject to a reporting obligation. The Regulation sets the surety period allowed for leaving the country at not less than one month and not more than six months. The general twenty-four-month period for alternatives must not be confused with this special exit period.
Refund is provided for in cases such as enforcement of the deportation decision, establishment of departure, or annulment of the decision by the administrative court. A request and account details are collected for the refund. As to failure to leave within the period, Article 57/A/7 of the Law reserves force majeure and cases where the court process has not ended. Forfeiture (recording as revenue) cannot be assessed by looking only at the calendar without regard to these statutory exceptions. A dispute over forfeiture or refund is not the same procedure as an objection to electronic monitoring; the competent forum and procedure are determined separately.
What safeguards exist in electronic monitoring?
The Regulation provides for electronic monitoring as a mobile application and an electronic bracelet. Use of the bracelet is tied to certain deportation grounds and additional conditions; it cannot be seen as an ordinary tool that may be freely chosen in every alternatives file. The differentiated rules for persons with special needs or in vulnerable situations should also be examined.
The decision, the technical rules of use and the consequences of violating the obligation must be notified to the person. When a technical fault, a hospital admission or a situation affecting use of the device arises, the event is documented and conveyed to the administration without delay. Technical records and medical documents matter when requesting modification or termination of the obligation.
Under Article 57/A/5, an application is made to the criminal judge of peace (sulh ceza hâkimi) against an electronic monitoring decision. The application does not stop the measure automatically; the judge concludes the review within five days and the decision is final. A fresh application upon the ending or change of the conditions is separately regulated in Article 18 of the Regulation.
Which court has jurisdiction over the signature obligation?
Although alternatives are lighter measures, they interfere with fundamental rights. The statutory basis and proportionality of the practice may therefore also be argued separately. In legal scholarship, the regulation by Regulation rather than by statute of certain limitations and additional obligations is criticized in terms of legality. A 2026 study by Cansu Kaya Ülken also points to this problem. This academic assessment does not mean that the provisions cease to apply of their own accord; it is a legal ground that may be argued in a concrete objection.
The law expressly designates the criminal judgeship of peace route for electronic monitoring. For other alternatives, however, it cannot be concluded from this sentence alone that every dispute will be heard by the administrative court.
In its decision of 7.10.2024, E.2024/352, K.2024/395, the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi) examined the dispute of a foreign national on whom a weekly fingerprint and wet-ink signature obligation was imposed after detention was terminated. The majority treated this obligation as a continuation of detention, found the ordinary judiciary competent and set aside the criminal judgeship of peace’s decision of lack of jurisdiction. The dissenting opinion emphasized that the express criminal-judgeship-of-peace provision in the law is limited to electronic monitoring.
This decision is directly significant for the reporting obligation imposed after detention. It should not be carried over without reasoning to a different alternative applied from the outset, to the forfeiture of surety, or to another administrative act. The content of the decision under objection, its connection with the earlier detention and the current case law are considered together. The authority information in the notification document should also be compared with the law and the case law.
What happens if the obligation is not complied with?
Article 57/A/6 of the Law allows renewed administrative detention. Article 21 of the Regulation details cases such as abandoning the address, failing to report twice in a row and violating the electronic monitoring rules. The same provision requires that force majeure be assessed first.
For this reason, a person who is in hospital on the reporting day should submit the excuse and the supporting document as soon as possible. If a recording error is alleged, the entry record, the application receipt or the relevant technical records should be requested for examination. An allegation of breach does not create unlimited authority to detain; a new detention decision is also subject to the safeguards of reasoning, duration and judicial review.
In addition, Article 102/1-e of the Law provides an administrative fine for breach of the listed alternatives other than surety. Renewed detention, an administrative fine and forfeiture of surety are separate acts. The amount of the fine for the year in which it is applied and the route of appeal should be checked separately on the basis of the relevant decision; the starting figure in the law should not be used as if it were the current payable amount.
Conclusion
The function of alternative obligations is to carry out the removal process with less restrictive means. For this to be achieved, the type, method, duration and conditions of modification of the decision must be clear. Signature, address, surety and electronic monitoring are not the same as one another. While showing the person’s concrete circumstances, the application file should also state clearly the request for modification, easing or removal of the obligation.
Related articles: Six months, extension and monthly review in administrative detention; Conditions in removal centres and the right to an effective remedy; Redress and compensation after unlawful administrative detention; Objection to an administrative detention order; Application guide for those with a relative in a removal centre.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does an alternative obligation grant a residence permit?
No. A decision to be followed outside the centre does not on its own provide a residence or work permit. Stay status is assessed separately.
Is the signature obligation always once a week?
No. The frequency is determined by an individual assessment; the Regulation provides that the reporting interval may not exceed one month. The notified schedule is what counts.
Can more than one alternative be applied?
Yes. The law permits it; in some cases the Regulation requires an additional obligation. The overall effect and proportionality of applying them together must still be assessed.
Does a request to move to another province suspend the obligation?
Making a request does not of itself suspend the obligation or constitute permission to move. The decision and the relevant permission procedure must be followed.
Is the surety TL 100,000 for everyone?
No. This is the starting amount in the Regulation and is subject to annual increase. The current amount, scope and official payment account should be verified for the file.
When twenty-four months expire, do all migration proceedings end?
No. This period is the upper limit for alternative obligations. Proceedings concerning deportation, restriction codes and stay status are assessed separately.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu), Articles 4, 55, 57, 57/A and 102. Consolidated text; full text PDF.
- Regulation on Alternative Obligations to Administrative Detention (İdari Gözetime Alternatif Yükümlülüklere İlişkin Yönetmelik), Official Gazette 14.9.2022/31953, Articles 5–21. Text.
- Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, 7.10.2024, E.2024/352, K.2024/395; majority reasoning, holding and dissenting opinion. Official decision PDF.
- Cansu Kaya Ülken, “İdari Gözetime Alternatif Yükümlülüklerin Hukuki Niteliği ve Uygulanması”, Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 2026, pp. 487–508, especially the conclusion section. Article PDF.