A restriction record (tahdit kaydı) can affect the security and public order assessment in a Turkish citizenship application; however, not every code automatically and permanently results in rejection for all applications. The basis of the record, whether it is current, its connection to the person concerned and the citizenship route applied for must be examined. Nor does the removal of a restriction record by itself confer citizenship. A rejection decision, a migration record and a criminal file are separate legal processes with different consequences.[1, 2]
Article 10 of the Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901 provides that meeting the statutory conditions does not give a person an absolute right to acquire citizenship. On the other hand, administrative discretion is not outside judicial review. For general information on how to apply, see the firm’s guide to acquiring Turkish citizenship. This article focuses in particular on the security assessment and the legal review that follows an unfavorable decision.
For which citizenship routes is the security condition required?
For acquisition by the general route, Article 11 of the Law requires, among other conditions, that there be no obstacle in terms of national security and public order. Article 12 on exceptional acquisition and Article 16 on acquisition through marriage also contain conditions relating to security and public order. Accordingly, family ties, long residence or suitable investment documents do not remove this review by themselves.[1, 2]
On the marriage route, having been married to a Turkish citizen for at least three years and the continuation of the marriage are among the application requirements; marriage does not directly confer citizenship. Other conditions, such as living within the family union and not engaging in activities incompatible with marriage, are also examined separately. The grant of a family residence permit does not mean that all conditions of a citizenship application have previously been definitively assessed.
For exceptional citizenship, the Directorate General of Population and Citizenship Affairs explains that applications are evaluated and that the final decision is made by the President. However, not every unfavorable document or letter is a Presidential decision. The acceptance of an application, the processing of the file, the Ministry’s assessment and the final act must be distinguished from one another. This distinction matters in identifying the act under challenge and the competent court.[2]
Is a restriction code the same act as a citizenship rejection decision?
A restriction record may be linked to a migration administration, entry, stay or security-related act and information record. The letters and digits of the code alone do not explain the entire content of the file. A citizenship rejection decision, on the other hand, is a separate administrative outcome concerning the person’s request under a specific route of acquisition. How the reason for the record was carried into the citizenship assessment must be examined.
| Record or decision in the file | What to examine | Conclusion that cannot be drawn automatically |
|---|---|---|
| Current restriction record | Code, date, basis, the authority that made the act, and attribution to the person | An indefinite bar to citizenship under every application route. |
| Removed restriction | Reason for removal, update of the record and the effect of the old information on the rejection act | The end of the entire security assessment. |
| Acquittal or non-prosecution | Subject matter of the decision, its reasoning, finality and its relationship to the administrative allegation | The automatic erasure of every administrative act. |
| Citizenship rejection | Route applied for, competent authority, reason for rejection and notification | Cancellation of residence or direct deportation. |
First, the possibility of a record belonging to another person with the same name, a different passport or identity number, and out-of-date information should be investigated. A problem of attribution to the person and an objection to the legal basis of the record are not the same. In the first there is a matching error; in the second there is a debate over the lawfulness of a record that does belong to the actual person.
The removal of an old record is an important new document. But was the removal made because the period expired, because of a factual error, or by a court decision concerning the unlawfulness of the underlying act? These reasons carry different weight. Where the rejection decision is explained merely as “there was a code in the past,” the currency of the record and its connection to the citizenship condition must be discussed concretely.
How is the security ground examined, and which documents are requested?
As far as possible, the applicant should collect the rejection letter, the notification, information from the application file, the known restriction record and the relevant court decisions. The petition should state clearly which objection is raised against which record. The statement “my criminal record is clean” may be important; but it does not answer the whole security assessment without identifying the different fact on which the administration relied.
That a security record is confidential does not mean that the applicant can access the entire content through the same procedure. At the same time, confidentiality is not a general exemption that removes the court’s duty to examine the basis of the act. Under Article 20 of the İYUK, the court has the power to request information and documents. The special procedure in the same article concerning state security or high interests, and the rule that a decision cannot be made without a defense based on information that has not been provided, are assessed in the concrete case.[3]
In this context, the applicant’s request need not be limited to having all intelligence records sent to him or her in an undefined manner. It may be requested that the fact producing the rejection, the person’s connection to it, the date, the currency of the record and documents pointing the other way be brought into judicial review. The weight of the reason the administration puts forward on public security should also be assessed honestly; it cannot be said that every security assessment is unlawful solely because of the existence of a code.
How do acquittal, non-prosecution or annulment of the restriction affect the file?
The subject of the criminal proceedings and the condition assessed by the citizenship administration may not be the same. An acquittal or a decision of non-prosecution therefore does not automatically produce a citizenship outcome. On the other hand, matters such as the reasoning of a decision given on the same event, a mistake in matching identities, or the failure to verify the concrete allegation are important in assessing the application.
The decision should not be submitted with only its result page; its reasoning and, if any, information on finality should also be added to the file. The fact on which the administrative authority based its assessment should be matched with the allegation examined by the criminal decision. Without confusing the absence of criminal liability with the scope of the public order assessment, it may also be addressed whether accusatory language contrary to the presumption of innocence was used.
If a court has annulled the restriction act, the reasoning of the decision and the status of its implementation should be submitted to the citizenship file. If there is nevertheless another, independent ground for rejection, that ground is discussed separately. Obtaining a favorable decision in the restriction case does not mean that the filing period for an action against the citizenship rejection act can be put on hold.
What possibility and what limit do the Constitutional Court decisions show?
The A.S. decision: a reason relating to private life and adequate reasoning
In the application of A.S. (Application No: 2018/31431, 3.3.2022), the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) reviewed a case in which the citizenship request had been rejected on the ground that the applicant did not meet the good morals requirement, based on a relationship in his private life. In particular in §§39–44, the Court assessed the interference with private life in terms of the reason for the act, the concrete data specific to the person, and the requirement of relevant and sufficient reasoning. Taking into account that the applicant’s long lawful stay and the absence of any activity disturbing public order had not been considered together, it found a violation of the right to respect for private life.[4]
The decision does not directly concern the removal of a restriction code. Nor does it say that all security rejections would produce the same result. Its contribution for this article is that it shows the need to explain how an abstract assessment criterion relates to the person’s circumstances. The judgment concerns retrial; the Constitutional Court did not grant citizenship to the applicant directly.
The Elmaz Kırımlı decision: the limit of a fair trial complaint
The Elmaz Kırımlı application (Application No: 2018/35678, 21.10.2020) concerned the rejection of a request for citizenship through marriage and the existence of intelligence information about the spouse. In §§24–28, the Constitutional Court held that a citizenship dispute does not fall within the scope of civil rights and obligations or a criminal charge for the purposes of the right to a fair trial, and declared the application inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae.[5]
This decision does not mean that all the factual bases of the rejection act were approved on the merits. On the other hand, it shows that an individual application relying solely on Article 36 of the Constitution in a citizenship dispute may encounter a significant admissibility obstacle. If a real interference with private or family life is alleged, its reason and effects must be made concrete; the mere fact that a citizenship request was rejected does not by itself ensure a review in terms of all fundamental rights.
Read together, the two decisions show that review of an administrative act in domestic law and the admissibility conditions of a Constitutional Court individual application are different. The result of one decision should not be detached from the other and turned into a general formula for acquiring citizenship.
Where and within what period is an action filed against the rejection decision?
Unless there is a special period for the citizenship rejection act, the general filing period is sixty days, calculated under Articles 7 and 8 of the İYUK following written notification. The authority that made the act, the type of decision and the notification must be examined. It is not correct to name a single court for every citizenship dispute. Judicial review of an act of the Ministry or another administrative authority and of a Presidential decision may not be subject to the same rule on jurisdiction.[3, 6]
Article 24 of the Council of State Law No. 2575 governs the Council of State’s first-instance jurisdiction in actions against Presidential decisions. Accordingly, in an exceptional citizenship file, jurisdiction should not be determined merely by learning the application route; the final and enforceable act to be challenged must be identified. For other administrative acts, the competent administrative court is determined by the authority that made the act and the general rules.[6]
A timely administrative appeal under Article 11 of the İYUK may suspend the filing period. The days elapsed before the appeal are taken into account in calculating the time remaining after the rejection or after thirty days without a reply. It should not be assumed that every application gives rise to a new sixty days. A new citizenship application or a request for information likewise does not renew the filing period of the earlier rejection act by itself.[3]
Filing an action does not by itself stay the execution of the act. The conditions of Article 27 of the İYUK are explained for a request for a stay of execution. A stay of an unfavorable citizenship decision cannot be read as the direct grant of Turkish citizenship or a residence permit. The applicant’s basis for staying in Türkiye must be monitored separately throughout the litigation.
Residence, reapplication and implementation of the decision after rejection
Applying for citizenship or filing an action against a rejection decision does not replace a separate right of lawful stay. On the other hand, a citizenship rejection is not an automatic cancellation of an existing residence permit either. If there is a separate residence cancellation, entry ban or deportation decision, each act is handled through its own remedy. In a deportation decision, the seven-day period under Article 53 of the YUKK differs from the sixty-day period of a citizenship action.[7]
When a new fact or document affecting the reason for rejection emerges, a reapplication may be considered. But resubmitting the same documents does not bring back the filing period of the earlier rejection act. The removal of a restriction record, a court decision or the correction of erroneous information must be shown clearly in the new file; its effect on the earlier reason for rejection must be explained.
When the court annuls the rejection act, the administration is obliged to act in accordance with the requirements of the judicial decision. The obligation under Article 28 of the İYUK to implement without delay and in any case within thirty days of the notification of the decision to the administration should be monitored. A court’s annulment decision and the direct acquisition of citizenship are not the same thing; the new assessment and the registration steps required by the reasoning are followed.[3]
Which documents should be in the application file?
- The route of the citizenship application, the application number, proof of submission and a complete copy of the rejection act.
- Notification records or records of proper acquisition of knowledge; administrative appeals made and the replies.
- The known restriction code, the date of the record, the underlying acts, and the decisions on removal or correction.
- The reasoned decisions of the relevant criminal file, information on their finality and their connection to the reason for rejection.
- Residence history, family ties, education or employment records and documents explaining the claimed effect on fundamental rights.
- Records showing a matching problem arising from the same name, different identity details or a change of passport.
As a hypothetical example, if the application of a person whose record, placed years ago, was annulled by a court was rejected on the basis of that same record, the reasoning of the annulment and whether the record was updated may be decisive. On the other hand, if the citizenship file contains new and independent facts, these must be answered separately. The legal review cannot be completed merely by stating the name of the code.
Conclusion
In a citizenship rejection based on a restriction record and security grounds, the essential issue is establishing the connection of the information relied on by the administration to the person and to the statutory condition. Removed records, acquittal decisions and family ties are important; none of them alone is a guarantee of citizenship. Legal review should be sought by correctly identifying the act under challenge, the competent court, the date of notification and the rights basis of any individual application.
Related articles: Restriction code and lifting an entry ban; Lifting the G-87 restriction code; The Ç-113 restriction code and illegal entry or exit record; Does acquittal or non-prosecution lift a restriction code; Status and identity documents of stateless persons; Turkish citizenship through real estate purchase.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the citizenship application of everyone with a restriction code rejected?
No such general conclusion can be stated for every code. The basis of the record, whether it is current, its attribution to the person and the citizenship route applied for are examined. The security and public order conditions are assessed according to the concrete file.
If the restriction is removed, is citizenship granted automatically?
No. The removal decision can be an important document; but the other conditions for citizenship and the legal status of the existing rejection act are examined separately.
Does an acquittal necessarily remove the security ground?
Not automatically. The subject and reasoning of the criminal decision must be compared with the fact used in the administrative assessment. Treating a relevant and current decision as without effect also requires a reasoned examination.
If my spouse is a Turkish citizen, can a rejection decision not be issued?
Marriage does not directly provide citizenship. In addition to the period and other conditions of the marriage route, there is also a security and public order assessment. Family ties carry weight in the concrete file.
Is a rejection action always filed in the Ankara administrative court?
No. The authority that made the act and the decision under challenge must be identified. For Presidential decisions the Council of State’s first-instance jurisdiction may come into play; for other acts, jurisdiction and venue are assessed separately.
Can I apply to the Constitutional Court solely on the basis of the right to a reasoned decision?
The applicability of the right to a fair trial in citizenship disputes is a significant limit. The Elmaz Kırımlı decision shows this obstacle. If an effect on private or family life is alleged, it should be assessed separately with its concrete grounds.
Do I gain a right of residence by filing a citizenship action?
No. A citizenship action does not create an independent right of residence. An existing permit or protection status and any unfavorable migration acts are monitored separately.
Does the process end when the rejection decision is annulled?
The administration is obliged to implement the requirements of the judicial decision; however, an annulment decision is not itself a citizenship document. The new assessment, the correction of records and the implementation of the decision must be followed.
Sources
- Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901 — official legislation record, Articles 10–12 and 16. The provisions used were examined together with the NVI (Directorate General of Population and Citizenship Affairs) explanations and the relevant Constitutional Court decisions.
- Directorate General of Population and Citizenship Affairs, Citizenship Services FAQ, explanations on general, marriage-based and exceptional acquisition.
- Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 — official text, Articles 7–8, 11, 20, 27–28, 32.
- Constitutional Court, A.S., Application No: 2018/31431, 3.3.2022, in particular §§39–48; full-text access. Dynamic access to the official decision page is limited; the full decision was read from a legal database.
- Constitutional Court, Elmaz Kırımlı, Application No: 2018/35678, 21.10.2020, in particular §§24–28; full-text access.
- Council of State Law No. 2575, Article 24; the allocation of jurisdiction under the provision was compared with the Council of State’s official decision search record. The assessment of jurisdiction is made according to the authority that made the act and the nature of the decision.
- Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, consolidated version, in particular Articles 25, 53–55. Date of research: 14 October 2026.