Annulment and Withdrawal of Turkish Citizenship by Investment: Grounds, Defence and Legal Remedies

Turkish citizenship acquired through investment may subsequently be annulled or withdrawn for the reasons set out in the law. However, no legal conclusion can be drawn until what act has been taken concerning the investor, when the irregularity arose, and by what evidence it is established has been determined. A false declaration, an investment that was incomplete from the outset and the later disposal of the investment are different problems. Responding to each with the same defence may lead to a loss of rights.

Protection against loss of citizenship is not achieved merely by saying "I paid the price" or "I had an eligibility certificate". The basis of the decision must be obtained; the investment, payment, eligibility and citizenship transactions must be placed in chronological order; the family members affected must be identified; and the time limit for each act must be calculated separately. In particular, the annulment of an eligibility certificate and the withdrawal of a citizenship decision may constitute separate subjects of litigation.

This article focuses on the termination of citizenship already acquired by administrative act. The refusal of an application before citizenship has been granted is a different dispute. The review is based on Law No. 5901 on Turkish Citizenship, the relevant Regulation, the rules of administrative procedure and the Council of State decisions whose details are given below. The date of the legal assessment is 12 October 2026.

The difference between annulment and withdrawal of citizenship

Under Article 31 of Law No. 5901, annulment is linked to a false declaration by the person or the concealment of a material fact relevant to the acquisition. Under Article 40, withdrawal is linked to a citizenship decision that was issued without the legal conditions being met, or that was issued in duplicate and is later discovered. Whereas an annulment takes effect from the date of the annulment decision, a decision that has been withdrawn becomes void from the date of the original decision, in accordance with Article 66 of the Regulation. [1] [2]

These concepts should also not be confused with deprivation of citizenship (kaybettirme) for specific acts under Article 29 of the Law. A further distinction lies between the administration's annulment of citizenship and the court's annulment of that administrative act. What is sought from the court is review of the lawfulness of the decision that led to the loss of citizenship. The principle of legality in Article 66 of the Constitution and the guarantee of judicial review form the basis of this examination. [1] [3]

When is a false declaration or concealment of material facts a ground for annulment?

An annulment review does not end when some error in the file is identified. It must be examined to which declaration the error relates, how it was attributed to the applicant, and whether the citizenship decision would have been issued had the correct information been known. Article 57 of the Regulation provides for examination and investigation by the Ministry and for proof of the false declaration or concealment. [2]

For example, the position of an investor who knew that the price had not in fact been paid, and who submitted a document suggesting payment, is not the same as that of a buyer who was unaware of a methodological error in a report prepared by a licensed valuation institution. In the first case the investor's conduct and the reality of the investment are discussed together. In the second, the existence of an error in the report does not by itself show that the investor knew of it. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that every document prepared by a representative will have no consequences for the investor; the power of attorney, instructions, signatures and flow of information are examined.

The good faith defence must be made concrete. Correspondence with the seller, who commissioned the valuation service, the version of the report made available to the investor, the payments made and whether any refund took place are relevant for this purpose. Whether the investor was informed in a language he or she understood may also be used in assessing the case. However, relying solely on the statement "I did not read it" in respect of a signed document may not constitute a strong defence.

The administration may argue that the investor knew the real price was lower, accepted that the difference would be refunded, or directed the creation of a false record. The defence should examine these possibilities as well; it should explain not only the favourable receipts but also the continuing movements of the account. Where the transaction is based on Article 31, the link between the conduct attributed by the administration and the acquisition of citizenship must be clearly contested.

Absence of the conditions from the outset and withdrawal

For withdrawal, the investor's personal deceit and the objective absence of the investment condition are separate matters. Even if the investor relied on the statement of an intermediary, the mere assertion of good faith may not be sufficient if the investment required by the legislation was in fact not made. Conversely, the fact that the administration later reaches a different assessment does not show that the earlier decision was necessarily unlawful.

Two dates must be distinguished in the file: the date on which the event creating the obstacle occurred and the date on which the administration learned of that event. A document discovered later may reveal a deficiency that already existed before citizenship was acquired. However, a new event occurring after citizenship was acquired and having no connection with the past raises a separate question of lawfulness if it is carried back in time under Article 40. [4]

In its decision of 4 February 2026, E.2024/3835, K.2026/324, the Tenth Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 10. Daire) annulled a withdrawal decision. The Chamber found that no concrete evidence had been produced showing that the conditions were absent at the time citizenship was acquired, and that the acts alleged related to the period after acquisition. The decision concerns not the investment route but the exceptional acquisition under Article 12(1)(c). Its contribution is therefore not to determine the outcome of an investment file in advance, but to show the time and cause limits of Article 40. [4]

For claims in either direction, it is useful to prepare a chronology of events. When the investment date, the citizenship decision, the act in dispute, the first official finding and the withdrawal decision are seen in the same table, the difference between "later discovery" and "later occurrence" can be examined more easily.

Payment and the real value of the property in a claim of fake valuation

In a real estate file, the land registry price, the amount transferred through the bank, the valuation result and the eligibility transaction are records that complete one another. The existence of one document does not automatically resolve a contradiction in another. Nor does the fact that a high price was paid to the seller remove from consideration the value of the property that is legally to be taken as the basis.

A challenge to a valuation must be framed by reference to the condition of the property at the relevant date. Later completed construction, a transport line opened subsequently, or the present market increase do not directly confirm the value in an earlier report. Likewise, a current fall in price does not by itself prove that the past investment was insufficient at that time. Comparable sales, the nature of the independent unit, the level of the building, legal restrictions, the area and the method of the report must be examined together.

In the payment chain, the transfer of the amount out of the buyer's account is investigated alongside its receipt by the seller, the description of the transaction, the currency conversion and subsequent money movements. Where money returned after the sale, its real cause must be documented. The payment of a separate debt, a contractual discount and a payment that was agreed from the outset as apparent are not of the same nature. The explanation must be supported by correspondence and accounting records.

In a hypothetical example, the buyer sends the full price from a bank, but the intermediary returns a substantial part of the money to the buyer on the same day. The first receipt may show that the investment was made in appearance only; continuing movements may reveal a different economic reality. Conversely, if the refund of the money is based on an independent and documented relationship, the same movement may call for a different assessment. This example is not a real firm file.

The announcement of the Ministry of Justice dated 4 August 2026 also reported that, in connection with claims of false valuations and money movements, proceedings had been initiated for the annulment of the citizenship of 687 persons. The announcement does not show that a final annulment decision or a criminal conviction exists for each person. The individual file and the grounds for the act must be examined separately. [5]

For points requiring precautions in buying a property, see our article on land registry, valuation and payment risks in citizenship through property purchase.

Breach of the three-year investment condition does not produce the same result in every case

The obligations to refrain from selling the property, to keep the deposit, to hold fund shares and to remain in the private pension system apply according to the type of investment. The start of the period must be determined by reference to the block or annotation record and the practice of the relevant institution. The date of the citizenship decision cannot automatically be accepted as a common start date for all investment routes. [2] [6]

Article 8 of the Procedures and Principles published by the General Directorate of Population and Citizenship Affairs provides that the required conditions must be maintained for the prescribed period and that, if they are lost, an annulment must be made under Article 31 of the Law. The body that identifies the breach is required to notify the NVİ (General Directorate of Population and Citizenship Affairs) and the immigration authority. [6] For this reason, an early sale or withdrawal of money creates a serious risk to citizenship status in practice.

However, the administrative practice and the debate about the legal basis for that practice must be presented together. In her 2026 study, Çiçek Özgür argues that the subsequent loss of the investment condition does not in every case satisfy the element of false declaration or concealment under Article 31. The later withdrawal, under Article 40, of citizenship lawfully acquired at the outset because of conduct occurring afterwards is also problematic. This view is not a binding decision permitting early exit; it explains the argument on lawfulness that may be raised in a dispute. [7]

Consider, hypothetically, an investor who acquires a property at its real price, has the required annotation entered, and then sells in the second year, and compare him or her with an investor who never paid at all. In the first case the later breach is examined; in the second, the absence of investment from the outset is examined. In the first file the assessment may change if it turns out that there was a misleading undertaking or a concealed resale agreement from the beginning. The defence must therefore explain the dates of events and the genuine intention.

For funds, a fall in the market value should be distinguished from the investor selling shares. The rules published by the Capital Markets Board (SPK) do not treat the investment condition as lost in the case of exchange rate changes or certain decreases beyond the investor's will; however, they treat sale, transfer, lifting of the block and certain encumbrances differently. [8] This approach is not a general exemption that applies automatically to all investment types.

Article 20(8) of the Regulation allows a switch between investment types. Using this does not mean that an old investment may be freely dissolved and a new investment then made. Confirmation between institutions, traceability and time conditions must be determined before the transaction. Completion of the three years also does not automatically remove allegations of fraud or incomplete investment at the outset.

The three-year holding obligation according to investment type is compared in our article on the advantages and disadvantages of investment types.

Why the annulment of the eligibility certificate must be addressed separately

An eligibility certificate is an administrative determination that the investment carries the specified conditions. The fact that the certificate was issued is an important piece of evidence for the investor; however, it does not entirely preclude later review. Where the certificate is annulled, the reason for the annulment, the competent authority, notification and the route of litigation must be investigated separately.

In its decision of 5 February 2026, E.2024/405, K.2026/361, the Tenth Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 10. Daire) annulled an eligibility certificate on the basis of a finding that foreign currency purchase documents had been issued in a manner contrary to the facts, and withdrew the citizenship decision under Article 40. The claimant asserted that he had paid the developer USD 250,000 and that he had an acquired right. The Chamber accepted that the investment precondition had not been fulfilled before acquisition and dismissed the action. The reasoning also noted that no action had been brought against the annulment of the eligibility certificate. [9]

The practical lesson from the decision is that subsidiary transactions must not be neglected. The rejection in that single file does not mean that the claims of all investors will be rejected. If the eligibility transaction remains valid, if the reason for annulment is different, or if the bank's original records refute the finding, the legal assessment will also differ. The published text of the decision leaves open the possibility of appeal; it is not presented here as a settled body of case law. [9]

Which rules from which date apply to past investments?

A past file cannot be reviewed only against today's investment threshold and documentary arrangements. Under the property route the current threshold is USD 400,000; however, different amounts applied in earlier periods. [2] When examining the accuracy of earlier transactions, the amendments' entry-into-force and transitional provisions must be matched with the dates of the land registry record, payment, application and decision.

Whether a new valuation procedure can be applied to an earlier application is a different question from whether a document that was already mandatory for that earlier application turned out to be false. A defence based on the claim "there was no rule at that time" must rely on the official text showing that the specific rule was not in force on that date. A current online guide, or an old statement by the intermediary, does not replace this examination.

Article 31 and Article 40 of the Law do not set a general five- or ten-year limit. A period mentioned in the grounds or in an earlier law cannot be presented as a fixed protection period by adding it to the text of the current article. [1] Nevertheless, the passage of time may be significant in the debate on legal certainty, where the administration itself was at fault, where the person's conduct was not misleading, and where relationships were built in reliance on the status. Nor can it be automatically concluded from this that all withdrawal proceedings must be initiated within 60 days. The time limit for bringing an action and the administration's power to withdraw an act with effect over time are separate issues.

How are the citizenship of spouses and children affected?

In annulment, Article 32 of the Law attaches consequences to spouses and children who acquired citizenship dependently on the person concerned. Article 58(2) of the Regulation excludes from the effect of the annulment a child born after the acquisition and a spouse who acquired citizenship through marriage. [1] [2] Different results may therefore arise within the same family. The reason and date of each person's acquisition must be determined from civil registry records and from their own decision.

In withdrawal, the basis for the citizenship of a family member is separately examined because of the retroactive effect. Exceptions relating to annulment must not be carried into a withdrawal under Article 40 without explanation. The child's date of birth, the other parent's citizenship and whether an independent basis for acquisition exists may affect the outcome. Risk of statelessness and the child's education, care and family ties must also be specified in any request for legal protection; these cannot be presented as an automatic guarantee of citizenship.

The inclusion of the investor's name in a petition does not mean that all family members are lawfully claimants. The intention of affected spouses and adult children to sue, the representation of minors, custody status and the scope of any power of attorney must be explained. The claimant, subject and outcome sections of the petition must be consistent with one another.

In its decision of 14 January 2025, E.2023/6208, K.2025/169, the Tenth Chamber of the Council of State did not accept a joint petition by three separate couples affected by the same Presidential decision. The Chamber stated that the investment and personal assessment of each family differed, and rejected the petition for the purpose of separate family petitions. This decision is not a rejection on the merits; it shows that a common file number does not join all investors into a single action. [10]

Competent court and time limit for bringing an action

In an action for annulment against a Presidential decision, the Council of State is the court of first instance under Article 24(1)(a) of Law No. 2575. [11] Where another administrative authority's act annulling an eligibility certificate is involved, a separate examination of jurisdiction and competence is required. In the general rule on territorial competence, the place where the authority that carried out the act is located is the controlling factor; special rules and the connection with regulatory acts are assessed separately. [12]

The action must not be filed at random by reference to the unit that forwarded the notification. It must clearly state which act of which authority, bearing which date and number, is sought to be annulled. A refusal of a request for information, the withdrawal of citizenship and the annulment of an eligibility certificate are different acts. Bringing an action against one does not automatically preserve the time limit for the others.

Alongside the court fees and postal advance, the costs of translation, of an expert where needed, and of the power of attorney should be planned. The number of separate actions may affect cost; however, unlawful joinder should not be made merely to reduce expenses. The imposition of litigation costs, and an award of attorney's fees in favour of the opposing party, are assessed according to the outcome of the case and the applicable tariff. Security and legal aid conditions linked to foreign status must also be checked on the specific file.

The general time limit for bringing an action is 60 days, and as a rule it starts on the day following written notification. Under Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), an application for revocation, withdrawal or amendment, made in time and to the competent authority, suspends the time limit; if the authority does not respond within 30 days, the application is deemed rejected and the remaining period resumes. [12] It cannot be accepted that every CİMER (Presidential Communication Center), information request or document request has this effect.

The periods in the table indicate the general framework; in calculating the final day, holidays, pauses in work, service rules and special procedural provisions must also be considered. [9] [12] [13] For example, if a valid Article 11 application was made after 20 days had run, it cannot be assumed that a new 60-day period starts after the rejection. This example only explains the logic of the remaining period; it is not a concrete calculation of a final date.

Under Article 7(a) of Law No. 7201 on Notification, electronic service is deemed to have been made at the end of the fifth day following the day on which the notice reached the electronic address. [14] A warning in an electronic mailbox, the date of opening the document and the legal date of service must not be confused. Even where the service is thought to be irregular, the date of learning must be documented, and no one should remain inactive merely waiting for a further notification.

In its decision of 30 December 2025, E.2025/6295, K.2025/7133, the Tenth Chamber of the Council of State treated service on an attorney authorised to receive documents in citizenship matters as effective, and dismissed the action as out of time. The decision shows the importance of checking the scope of the power of attorney and the record of service before addressing the substantive defence. [15]

Which evidence should be used in the defence?

In administrative litigation, the court may conduct its own inquiry and request the administrative file. [12] This power does not remove the need for the investor to submit his or her own records. Against each factual point in the administration's reasoning, a record that confirms or refutes it should be shown separately. It is as important to explain which allegation a document answers as it is that the document is in the file.

If a technical opinion is to be obtained, the report should answer the same question as the administrative finding. A study calculating today's sale price may not resolve a problem concerning a valuation at an earlier date. Where the administration's report relies on specific comparables, the counter-analysis must discuss the suitability, date and differences of those comparables.

The translation and certification required for foreign-language documents should be determined in advance, and the source of bank or correspondence records must be preserved. Movements that appear unexplained should not be left without explanation, and document dates must not be altered. Personal and financial data should be shared only to the extent necessary for the file and through a secure channel.

What does a stay of execution achieve?

Bringing an action does not by itself suspend the act that leads to loss of citizenship. A stay of execution requires both a manifest breach of law and damage that is difficult or impossible to remedy. [12] For this reason, merely explaining that the family is experiencing hardship may not be considered sufficient; the specific reason why the act is unlawful must also be established.

In the application, for example, the administration's use of a bank record belonging to the wrong person, or its carrying back of a later event into the past, may support the unlawfulness; ongoing treatment, the child's education, and concrete interruptions to work and family life may support the element of damage. These must be based on documents, and general statements unconnected to the event should be avoided.

The court may consider security where necessary. A refusal of a stay of execution does not mean that the main action has been lost, and its grant is not a final result of winning. Where the same grounds are repeated, the remedy of objection and the legal effect of any new facts should be assessed instead. A protective measure for an expulsion or passport procedure that has been issued should also not be treated as identical with the request in the citizenship file. [12] [13]

Consequences for residence and property

The end of citizenship does not mean that a deportation decision has been issued at the same time. The basis for the person's stay in Türkiye and any foreigners' law proceedings already initiated must be investigated. A special seven-day period applies to a deportation decision; the rule under Article 53 of Law No. 6458 that a person may not be deported during proceedings is assessed within its own conditions. [13]

A residence application must correspond to the person's genuine purpose of stay. A pending case in Türkiye does not in itself provide an automatic residence permit. Stay dependent on a request or decision of judicial or administrative authorities under Article 31(1)(g) of the Law and residence of an investor under Article 31(1)(j) are different sub-paragraphs. The status of any previous permit, the current passport and the conditions of each family member must be separately examined. [13]

The annulment of citizenship does not mean that assets automatically pass to the Treasury in every case. Article 33 of the Law provides for a liquidation period, of at most one year, specified in the annulment decision where considered necessary, and for the liquidation to be left until the end of the litigation where an action is brought. [1] This special result does not mean that all effects of the loss of citizenship have ceased. For withdrawal, the rule applicable to assets must be assessed separately by reference to the decision and the basis of ownership.

Acts performed as a citizen before annulment are protected under Article 58 of the Regulation. The retrospective effect of a withdrawal, however, must not be generalised as the automatic invalidity of every contract, marriage or property transaction; the relevant legal relationship is examined under its own rules. [2] Nor should it be assumed that the Blue Card and simplified routes for reacquiring citizenship automatically apply to these persons.

Criminal investigation and claims against the seller

The fact that an investigation is pending against a seller, an intermediary or a valuation institution does not show that every investor has committed an offence. The presumption of innocence must be protected. [3] At the same time, administrative assessment cannot be presented as a process that must await a final criminal conviction in every case. The evidence relied on by the administration and the conditions of the provision applied are examined separately. The grounds for an acquittal or a decision that there is no need for prosecution are therefore important.

Where the investor has genuinely been deceived, contractual, tort, restitution and compensation claims may be considered against the seller, the intermediary or other responsible persons. [16] The contractual undertaking, the amount paid, the fault of the responsible person, the loss and the causal link must be established. An allegation of loss of citizenship does not in itself prove every head of damage or the amount claimed.

In events where the property was acquired for a non-commercial and non-professional purpose, and other conditions are present, consumer law may come into play. Not every investor is automatically a consumer; the competent court and the requirement of mediation as a condition of suit are assessed together with the nature of the relationship and any exceptions. [17] Where there is a risk that evidence may be lost, an evidence-preservation procedure may be considered; for interim protection of a right in dispute, a precautionary measure may be examined separately. It cannot be promised that a measure will be imposed on all assets without showing its conditions. [18]

These routes do not replace the citizenship action. While an application to the seller, a criminal complaint or negotiations on the refund of the price are being conducted, the administrative time limit for action must be separately protected. The limitation period for private law claims also differs from the 60-day period in citizenship litigation; it is calculated according to the legal basis of the claim.

Legal remedies after the decision and its implementation

An appeal against a first-instance merits decision of the Council of State is, as a rule, lodged with the Plenary of the Administrative Chambers of the Council of State within 30 days. [9] [12] A procedural decision such as the rejection of a petition is not the same as a rejection on the merits; the operative part of the decision must be considered. For other decisions, where the administrative court has given judgment, the conditions for appeal to the regional administrative court and, where available, for appeal on points of law are assessed separately.

Where an annulment or stay-of-execution decision is obtained, the service of the decision on the administration and the implementation of its requirements must be monitored. The obligation to implement without delay under Article 28 of the İYUK and the general upper limit of 30 days are taken into account. [12] Planning travel or a transaction solely on the basis of a copy of the decision, without checking the actual status of population, passport and linked records, may be unwise.

After ordinary remedies have been exhausted, an individual application to the Constitutional Court is assessed within the framework of a fundamental right claimed within the common sphere of protection and the conditions of admissibility. The general period is 30 days; it is not sufficient merely to request the return of citizenship. [19] For the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the exhaustion of effective domestic remedies and the four-month period running from the final decision must also be observed. [20] Such applications should not be thought to compensate for periods missed in ordinary proceedings, nor to restore citizenship automatically.

Steps to follow when a decision is notified

The first step is to obtain the full text of the decision together with the record of service. The following sequence of work may then be followed:

• Separate citizenship, eligibility, residence and any deportation procedures, and create a date and application timetable for each.
• Identify the fact on which the annulment or withdrawal is based; record the date on which the event occurred and the date on which it was learned of as distinct dates.
• Check each family member's basis for acquisition, their intention to sue and their representation.
• Complete the bank, land registry, valuation and application records, and explain any contradictions with counter-documents.
• Prepare the action and the request for interim protection, residence status and other claims against responsible persons, each with its own conditions.

It is not necessary to wait until the end of the time limit to start the action while documents are being gathered. The claims that can be substantiated from existing records and the documents to be requested from the administration can be identified and the application prepared. The different stages of a general rejection of an application are the subject of the firm's article What Should Be Done If a Citizenship Application Is Refused.

Conclusion

What is decisive for protecting citizenship acquired through investment is that a defence consistent with the basis of the decision and supported by documents is established within the time limit. For annulment, the false declaration or concealment alleged must be examined; for withdrawal, the legal conditions at the time of acquisition must be examined. A later breach of the investment should not be treated as identical to an initial deficiency, and the eligibility certificate and the status of each family member must be addressed separately.

The administration's power of supervision does not remove the obligation to give concrete reasons and to submit to judicial review. The good faith of the investor alone does not determine the outcome. The first protection available is the ability of the right person to apply against the right act, in the right court and within time.

Frequently Asked Questions

Once three years have passed, can citizenship no longer be withdrawn?

The expiry of the three-year investment obligation does not remove a claim of a forged document or of an investment that was incomplete from the outset. The period for which the investment must be protected and the review of the lawfulness of the citizenship decision are different matters. Details are set out in the section on the three-year condition.

If I did not prepare the valuation report myself, is my good faith sufficient?

The fact that the report was prepared by someone else is important but not sufficient on its own. Your knowledge, your instructions, the payment flow and the conditions for relying on the report are examined. In addition, for the purposes of Article 40, it is investigated whether the investment condition actually came into existence. The explanation on false declaration and good faith may be consulted.

Is it enough to bring an action only against the citizenship decision?

It may not always be enough. If an eligibility certificate or another act has also been annulled, the route and time limit for challenging it must also be considered. A single action does not automatically cover all linked acts. The section on annulment of the eligibility certificate explains this distinction.

If I submit a petition to the administration, does the 60-day period start again?

An application made in time that meets the conditions of Article 11 of the İYUK suspends the period. After a rejection or a deemed rejection, the remaining period runs, taking into account the period that had already elapsed. Merely requesting documents or sending a general complaint does not guarantee the same result. The section on time limits for bringing an action may be consulted.

May I continue to use my Turkish passport when I have brought an action?

Bringing an action does not by itself suspend the act. The current status of the citizenship and passport records, and any court decision and its implementation, must be checked. The petition alone is not a valid travel document. Interim protection and implementation of the decision should be considered together.

Will my child necessarily lose citizenship together with me?

The outcome depends on the reason for and the date on which the child acquired citizenship. On annulment, dependent acquisition and a birth after acquisition are treated differently. On withdrawal, the retrospective effect is also examined. The distinctions in the section on spouses and children should be followed.

Does my home or the money I invested automatically pass to the State?

The loss of citizenship does not in every case automatically produce that result. The liquidation provision in the annulment decision, the legal status of the assets and any separate measures are examined. A claim to recover the investment amount from the seller is a separate matter. The section on consequences for assets may be consulted.

Is a final criminal conviction required for annulment of citizenship?

No such precondition applies in every case. The basis and evidence of the administrative act are assessed separately; the opening of an investigation alone does not show guilt. The reasoning of any criminal decision should be examined for its effect on the administrative dispute. The section on criminal investigation and other claims explains this distinction.

Sources and legal bases

[1] Law No. 5901 on Turkish Citizenship, in particular Articles 7–8, 10, 12, 28–33, 37 and 40–41. Consolidated text.

[2] Regulation on the Implementation of the Turkish Citizenship Law, Council of Ministers Decision No. 2010/139, Official Gazette dated April 6, 2010, no. 27544; in particular Articles 20, 57–58 and 66. Consolidated text.

[3] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, in particular Articles 38, 66 and 125. Consolidated text.

[4] Tenth Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 10. Daire), February 4, 2026, E.2024/3835, K.2026/324, legal assessment and judgment. Full text.

[5] Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı), "Legal Proceedings Initiated for the Annulment of the Citizenship of 687 Persons" (“687 Kişinin Vatandaşlığının İptali İçin Yasal Süreç Başlatıldı”), August 4, 2026. Official statement.

[6] General Directorate of Population and Citizenship Affairs (Nüfus ve Vatandaşlık İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü), Procedures and Principles on the Acquisition of Turkish Citizenship by Foreign Investors on an Exceptional Basis (Yabancı Yatırımcıların İstisnai Olarak Türk Vatandaşlığını Kazanmalarına İlişkin Usul ve Esaslar), Articles 3–4 and 8. Official text.

[7] Özgür, Çiçek, "Annulment and Withdrawal of Turkish Citizenship Acquired through Investment" (“Yatırım Yoluyla Kazanılan Türk Vatandaşlığının İptali ve Geri Alınması”), Ankara University Faculty of Law Review (Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 75(1), 2026, pp. 741–779; in particular pp. 763–766 and 773–774. DOI: 10.33629/auhfd.1710185. Publication record and full text.

[8] Capital Markets Board (Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu), Acquisition of Exceptional Turkish Citizenship by Foreign Nationals through Investment (Yabancıların Yatırım Yapmak Suretiyle İstisnai Türk Vatandaşlığı Kazanımı), in particular Central Registry Agency (MKK) transactions, items c/iii–viii. Procedures and principles.

[9] Tenth Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 10. Daire), February 5, 2026, E.2024/405, K.2026/361, legal assessment and judgment. Full text.

[10] Tenth Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 10. Daire), January 14, 2025, E.2023/6208, K.2025/169, joint petition and family groups. Full text.

[11] Law No. 2575 on the Council of State (Danıştay Kanunu), Article 24(1)(a). Consolidated text.

[12] Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), in particular Articles 2–5, 7–8, 11–12, 15, 20, 27–28, 32, 45–46 and 52. Consolidated text.

[13] Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu), in particular Articles 31, 53–55 and 122. Consolidated text.

[14] Law No. 7201 on Notification (Tebligat Kanunu), in particular Articles 7(a), 11 and 32. Consolidated text.

[15] Tenth Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 10. Daire), December 30, 2025, E.2025/6295, K.2025/7133, assessment of time limits. Full text.

[16] Law No. 6098 on the Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), in particular Articles 49, 77, 112 and 146–147. Consolidated text.

[17] Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun), in particular Articles 3, 73 and 73/A. Consolidated text.

[18] Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Articles 389–392 and 400–406. Consolidated text.

[19] Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kuruluşu ve Yargılama Usulleri Hakkında Kanun), in particular Articles 45–47. Consolidated text.

[20] European Court of Human Rights, Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, sections on exhaustion of domestic remedies and the four-month period, updated February 28, 2026. Official guide.