The Ç-113 restriction code is, in practice, one of the records connected with a violation of the rules on entry into or exit from Türkiye. The presence of the code does not, by itself, mean a deportation decision or a criminal conviction. The event that gave rise to the record, whether there is also an entry ban and a fine, the periods of the acts and the protection status must each be examined separately. If the record or the underlying act is erroneous, administrative applications and judicial remedies may be considered. [K1; K2; K5]
In these files, before the question “How many years does Ç-113 last?”, the center of the legal examination is which entry or exit was treated as a violation, on the basis of which document and in relation to which person. Preparing a petition based only on the name of the code, without connecting the finding of the act to the legal consequence, may cause different acts and short application periods to be overlooked.
Which legal provisions is a Ç-113 record assessed together with?
Article 5 of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (YUKK) regulates that entry into and exit from Türkiye are made through border gates with a valid passport or documents that replace a passport. Article 54/1-h lists those who violate the provisions on lawful entry or exit, and those who attempt such a violation, among the grounds for deportation. Article 102 also contains the provision on administrative fines relating to a violation of the entry and exit rules, or an attempted violation. [K1]
On the other hand, the law contains no independent offense definition named “Ç-113”. The code helps in understanding the administrative record; it does not replace the statutory basis and the personal reasoning of the act. Articles 9-10 with regard to the entry ban, Articles 4 and 8 with regard to access to protection, and Article 65 with regard to international protection are also important.
| Act that may arise from the same event | Basic examination | Distinction regarding the application |
|---|---|---|
| Restriction record and entry ban | Event, authority, reasoning, period and matching to the person | Administrative application or annulment action |
| Deportation decision | Statutory ground, exceptions and the country to which the person will be sent | Special seven-day time limit for filing an action, running from notification |
| Administrative detention | Reason for being held, necessity and alternatives | An application to the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) is assessed separately |
| Administrative fine | Act, basis of the sanction, amount and notification | Misdemeanors Law and special rules on subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Termination or reassessment of protection status | Status, intention to leave and new application | Remedies and periods specific to the protection act |
That these acts were notified on the same day does not mean that all of them are a single legal act. The removal of one may not automatically eliminate all the other decisions. The application file should contain separate decision and notification information for each act.
The general framework of restriction records is examined in our guide to restriction codes and entry bans, and the G-87 record imposed on security grounds is examined in our article on the G-87 restriction code.
How are a violation or an attempt made concrete?
Is the place of apprehension sufficient on its own?
A person’s presence in a border area and the crossing of the border in violation of the rules are not the same fact. The place, time and direction of movement of the apprehension, the units that drew up the record, the person’s statement and any border crossing records are examined together. In an allegation of attempt, it must be shown which conduct was directed at violating which entry or exit rule.
At the same time, the fact that the crossing was not completed does not make the statutory provision on attempt unnecessary. A defense based only on the sentence “I did not cross the border” may not suffice to answer the administration’s reasoning on attempt. If there is a concrete difference regarding the place and course of the event, it is important to show this with documents or reliable records. [K1, Articles 54/1-h and 102]
Why can a dispute arise even when there is a lawful entry record?
A change of passport, different spellings of a name, a missing entry-exit record or a matching with another person’s information may cause a dispute. It is not assumed in advance that these exist; the records are compared with the old and new identity documents. A passport stamp is useful evidence, but the possibility that the underlying event relates to an exit on a different date must also be investigated.
That a person made a lawful entry through a border gate on a particular date does not by itself resolve the legal nature of a later, separate exit. For this reason, a chronology of events covering all the relevant periods should be prepared, rather than only the most recent passport page.
If a forged document or another offense is alleged
If it is alleged that a document is forged or that another offense was committed, the relationship of this allegation with the Ç-113 record is determined. A criminal investigation, a fine and an entry ban do not replace one another. It must be explained which document was deemed forged as a result of which examination and how it was linked to the person. The effect of a decision in the criminal file on the administrative act is assessed according to whether it rests on the same facts.
If there is a possibility that the person is a victim of human trafficking, coercion or another violent incident, this must also be examined in terms of the relevant protection provisions. The existence of a signature or record does not automatically end all discussions about the person’s will and the circumstances of the event.
Is a Ç-113 record always a two-year entry ban?
In practical guides, Ç-113 is mostly explained together with a two-year entry ban. However, a code-period match on an internet list does not replace the person’s current decision document. The law contains no separate “Ç-113 penalty” that is tied to the name of the code and applied automatically to every event. The start and end date in the concrete act, the legal basis and any other records must be seen.
Article 9/3 of Law No. 6458 regulates the general maximum period of an entry ban as five years; in the case of a serious threat to public order or public security, it allows the period to be increased by up to ten years more. This upper limit provision does not mean that five or fifteen years will be applied directly to every Ç-113 file. [K1]
When preparing an application, the discussion of the period is divided into three: which period was foreseen in the act, from which date was this period calculated, and does another obstacle to admission continue even though the period has ended? The expiry of the ban period does not mean that the administrative fine has been paid or that protection status has been regained.
Persons with an international protection application
Article 8 of Law No. 6458 regulates that the conditions relating to entry shall not be interpreted in a way that prevents an international protection application. Article 65/4 contains a safeguard that no criminal action is taken against persons who apply to the governorate on their own within a reasonable time and explain the valid reasons for unlawful entry or stay. The factual basis of these conditions must be assessed on the basis of the timing of the application and the record received. [K1]
This provision must not be interpreted to mean that all entry bans or administrative measures are automatically invalid by citing the existence of a protection request. Article 65/5 separately regulates that a protection application does not automatically prevent other relevant statutory measures and acts. Registering the application is carried out together with examining the legal conditions of each of the deportation and detention acts.
The principle of non-refoulement, on the other hand, is a separate and fundamental safeguard. That a person made an irregular entry does not make unnecessary the investigation of the risks of torture, or risks to life and liberty, as specified in the law. The protection request, the decision and notification documents, and the personal risks relating to the country to which the person will be sent must be explained separately in the file. [K1, Articles 4 and 55]
How an application is made and the avenues of objection are explained separately in our guide to the international protection application.
Important distinctions for persons under temporary protection
For temporary protection status and its connection with deportation, see our guide to international protection and temporary protection.
Does the fine exception remove all acts?
Article 5 of the Temporary Protection Regulation contains a special provision that no administrative fine is applied for unlawful entry or presence where the foreigners within its scope are identified by the competent units at entry or apply for registration on their own within a reasonable time. The scope and conditions of the provision must be investigated in the file. This exception cannot be extended to mean that all restriction records will be deleted without any examination. [K4]
Article 45 of the Regulation ties the matters relating to an entry ban, on the exit of persons within its scope, to the general provisions. Therefore, different articles are assessed together with regard to the administrative fine, the entry ban and the protection status. Without explaining which result rests on which provision, the whole file cannot be resolved with a single sentence such as “cannot be punished”.
Voluntary exit and return
Article 12 of the Regulation regulates a person’s leaving Türkiye of their own will among the individual grounds for the termination of temporary protection. Article 13 provides for an individual decision on whether the temporary protection provisions will be applied where a person whose protection has ended comes to our border again or crosses the border. The existence of a previous identity document does not, by itself, show that the status continued uninterrupted at every later entry. [K4]
On the other hand, if it is disputed whether the exit was really based on the person’s own will, looking only at the title of the form is not sufficient. The language, the interpreter, the consequences explained, the conditions of the signature, the person’s statements and the actual course of the event must be examined. The record of the termination of status and the lawfulness of the entry ban are also separate matters.
Syrian citizenship, or having held a temporary protection document in the past, does not replace these examinations. Whether the person is within the scope of protection, the acts of exclusion from scope or termination, the new application and the current decision must be determined from the file. General news about a country is not a document of the person’s current legal status.
Why should the Council of State’s Ç-113 decision be read carefully?
The decision of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay), E.2016/3090, K.2021/4939, dated October 20, 2021, examines an entry ban connected with a Ç-113 record concerning a Syrian citizen. The court of first instance annulled the act; the Council of State reversed this annulment judgment. For this reason, the decision cannot be used as a basis for the conclusion that “Ç-113 codes are unlawful and are removed”. [K5]
In the decision, the fact that the person’s temporary protection record, or an application to that effect, was not shown in the file is significant. The Chamber also evaluated the termination consequence of a voluntary exit and the need for an individual decision on applying the protection provisions upon a return, even assuming that protection existed at the earlier entry. The examination shows that an unconditional right of entry cannot be established on the basis of citizenship alone.
This decision, too, does not mean that all similar files will end with the same result. If the protection record, the voluntariness of the exit, the readmission decision and the underlying event are different, these must be set out clearly. The value of the decision in a concrete case lies in comparing these elements.
The former statutory text and the historical information on legal remedies reported in the decision must not be used as a current application guide. In particular, the wording in the past version of Article 9 of Law No. 6458 must be distinguished from the current consolidated text; today’s assessment of time limits and jurisdiction must be made under the provisions in force. [K1; K2; K5]
Which documents should be collected before the application?
The basic purpose of the file is to explain the link between the event that gave rise to the record and the person’s identity and legal status. The documents should be obtained by an authorized person or representative, with regard to the confidentiality of the protection file and personal data. With regard to access to the temporary protection personal file, the scope and exceptions of Article 51 of the Regulation are also important. [K4]
| Document group | Purpose of examination |
|---|---|
| Restriction and entry ban documents | To determine the date, number, authority, reasoning and period |
| Apprehension and incident records | To examine the place, time, direction and the conduct attributed |
| Old and new passports, identity records | To investigate a wrong matching or a different spelling problem |
| Entry-exit printout | To compare the actual movements with the dates accepted by the administration |
| Protection application and status decisions | To distinguish the application, termination and reassessment |
| Exit or voluntary return documents | To examine the conditions of will, interpretation and information |
| Fine and payment records | To follow the financial sanction and the entry ban separately |
| Notifications and application receipts | To protect the application period of each act |
Not being able to obtain a document does not require the event to be told only on the basis of assumption. The unknown areas are separated out with the available documents; it is requested that the incomplete administrative file be obtained from the court. In particular, why an event stated in a record is described differently by the person must be explained clearly and consistently.
Which avenues can be used against a Ç-113 record?
Application to the administration
If there is a wrong identity matching, an erroneous event record or changed circumstances, it may be requested that the act be corrected, removed or reassessed. In the application, the decision information and the requested legal result should be written instead of only the name of the code. An application made in time under the conditions of Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) may suspend the general time limit for filing an action; after thirty days of silence, the remaining time is calculated. The days that passed earlier do not disappear. [K2]
Merely requesting information or filing a general complaint does not produce this effect in every case. Where there is a separate deportation decision, a path that relies on waiting for the administrative response should not be followed in order to protect the special seven-day time limit for filing an action. The types of acts should be separated at the outset.
Annulment action and stay of execution
For the annulment of an entry ban act, to the extent there is no special provision, the general sixty-day period and the territorial jurisdiction rules of the administrative courts apply. The court with territorial jurisdiction is determined through the authority that established the act; a single-city generalization should not be made for all Ç-113 disputes. [K2, Articles 7-8 and 32]
In the petition, the finding of the act, the statutory basis, the protection status, the time limit and proportionality are made concrete. Filing an action does not, as a rule, stop the act. For a stay of execution, clear unlawfulness and damage difficult or impossible to remedy must be explained together. The special safeguard regarding enforcement in a deportation action does not mean that all entry ban actions stop automatically. [K2, Article 27; K1, Article 53/3]
Fine and other acts
Article 27 of the Misdemeanors Law regulates, in general, for an administrative fine, an application to the criminal judgeship of peace within fifteen days from notification or pronouncement (tefhim). Article 27/8, which concerns the presence in the same act of a decision falling within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts, and special provisions are examined separately. It is not correct to present the base amount written in Article 102 of Law No. 6458 as the current fine without taking annual increases into account. [K1; K3]
The remedies for deportation, administrative detention and protection decisions are followed separately. The removal or payment of a fine does not automatically eliminate an entry ban with a different reasoning. The result of one decision may be important for other acts; its effect must be explained separately to the relevant authority or court.
What should be checked after the record is removed?
The judgment issued by the court, its notification to the administration and its application to the records should be tracked. Article 28 of the Administrative Procedure Law provides that the requirements of the decision be carried out without delay and within thirty days at the latest from notification to the administration. It should be clarified whether the decision concerns only the entry ban or another act as well. [K2]
Under Article 9/6 of Law No. 6458, lifting the ban and granting a fixed-term entry permit while keeping the ban in place are different results. The period and scope of the permit document should be read. If there are other restrictions, visa conditions or unpaid related debts, their situation is assessed separately. That the former temporary protection status has been regained also cannot be inferred merely from the removal of the code.
Conclusion
In a Ç-113 file, a sound legal assessment deals together with the proof of the entry or exit event, the person’s protection status and the administrative acts that differ from one another. The name of the code and the common account of the period do not replace examining the reasoning and the documents of the concrete decision.
The strength of an application comes not from asserting that all Ç-113 records are unlawful, but from showing what material or legal error exists in this person’s case. Separate follow-up of the time limits and the application of the records after the decision are complementary parts of the examination.
For litigation and application processes relating to the law on foreigners, you can also review our service page Law on Foreigners, Deportation and International Protection.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a Ç-113 record directly a deportation decision?
No. The restriction record, the entry ban and the deportation decision are examined separately. More than one act may exist because of the same event.
Does Ç-113 last two years in every case?
An account of a two-year period is common in practice; however, no definite calculation should be made without seeing the period information of the concrete decision, its start and the other records.
Can no action be taken against a person apprehended before crossing the border?
The law also regulates attempted violation. Which conduct is treated as an attempt and how it is supported by the records is examined.
Is a lawful entry stamp in the passport sufficient?
It is important evidence. However, whether the record relates to an exit on another date or to a different event, and its consistency with official records, are investigated separately.
Does paying the fine erase the Ç-113 record?
Payment concerns the financial sanction. The lifting of the separate entry ban or the expiry of its period is assessed separately.
Does being a Syrian citizen ensure the annulment of the record?
It does not on its own. The protection status, the application, the conditions of exit and the reassessment decisions must be determined from the concrete file.
Is a temporary protection identity card certainly valid even after earlier exits?
Articles 12-13 of the Regulation must be examined with regard to voluntary exit and return. The existence of an old document does not by itself prove uninterrupted status.
Does a protection application automatically remove all restrictions?
No. The safeguards for access to protection and the conditions of the other administrative acts are assessed separately. The principle of non-refoulement is also observed separately in every case.
Is the Council of State’s Decision No. 2021/4939 an annulment decision?
The decision reversed the court of first instance’s annulment judgment. It was based on the concrete conditions relating to the protection record, voluntary exit and return.
Is it mandatory to wait for an administrative response for Ç-113?
It cannot be said that there is a mandatory prior application in every file. The time limit for filing an action and the seven-day time limit of a separate deportation decision should be protected in particular.
Is entry into Türkiye certain once the record is removed?
The scope of the decision, the other records, and the visa and admission conditions are examined separately. A removal decision does not provide an exemption from all legal conditions.
Sources and legal bases
K1 — Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection; Articles 4-5, 8-10, 53-57, 65 and 102.
K2 — Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577; Articles 7-8, 11, 20, 27-28 and 32.
K3 — Misdemeanors Law No. 5326; Articles 17 and 27.
K4 — Temporary Protection Regulation; Articles 4-6, 12-13, 45 and 51, current consolidated text.
K5 — Council of State 10th Chamber, E.2016/3090, K.2021/4939, October 20, 2021, official case-law record. Access copy of the full text of the decision.