The G-87 restriction code is, in practice, one of the records that affect a foreign national’s entry into or stay in Türkiye because of assessments connected with general security. However, seeing G-87 on a screen does not by itself explain the reasoning of the decision, its period, its supporting documents or the route of application. Legal examination begins by identifying the entry ban or other administrative act behind the code. An application to the administration, an annulment action and, where the conditions are met, a request for a stay of execution may be considered; the outcome depends on the specific grounds of the file. [K1, Articles 9-10; K2; K3]
In files involving a security ground, both extreme approaches are mistaken: the existence of the code does not make a person guilty in the sense of criminal law; and the absence of a criminal conviction does not, by itself, invalidate every administrative measure. The essential question is whether the facts on which the administration relied can be attributed to the person and whether the interference can be reviewed under the law.
What act may have been taken with the G-87 code?
Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (YUKK) regulates separate powers concerning entry bans, making entry subject to prior permission, deportation and administrative detention. G-87 is not defined in the law as a separate offense or as a penalty that applies automatically. The legal effect of the code should be determined from the act that was taken and the explanation in the relevant record. [K1]
A person who is abroad may learn of the record when refused entry at a border gate or when learning the result of a visa application. A person who is in Türkiye may encounter the same code during a residence permit procedure, a law-enforcement check or a separate deportation decision. That the ways of learning of it differ does not mean that the same action will be filed for all of these acts.
| Document or record in the file | Legal issue to be examined | Difference from the other acts |
|---|---|---|
| Entry ban decision | Authority, grounds, period and proportionality | May also have effect outside Türkiye |
| Prior-permission requirement | Legal basis of the permission and the assessment procedure | Not the same act as a fixed-term entry ban |
| Decision refusing or cancelling a residence permit | Type of permit, grounds and personal circumstances | Waiting for the outcome of the restriction action does not protect the time limit in every case |
| Deportation decision | Articles 53-55 of the Law and personal risks | Has a special seven-day time limit for filing an action |
| Administrative detention decision | Statutory and personal grounds for the detention | An application to the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) is assessed separately |
This distinction directly changes the subject of the petition. Applying only with a request to delete the record does not remove the need to file an action against the deportation decision that has been separately notified. Likewise, release from administrative detention does not mean that the entry ban has been lifted or that a residence permit has been granted.
For the general legal framework of restriction codes, see our guide to restriction codes and entry bans; for a similar record arising from a violation of the entry or exit rules, see our article on the Ç-113 restriction code.
By what criteria is the security ground reviewed?
The act must rest on a specific person and specific facts
A mention of general security in an evaluation letter does not, by itself, explain which conduct creates a risk. The time and source of the allegation made against the person, the related events, how current the information is and the matching of identity are important. Confusion that may arise from a similar name, a different spelling, an old passport number or a different date of birth should be investigated separately.
That a person is merely a citizen of a particular country, has traveled to a particular region or was in the same place as certain people may not explain the entire legal consequence unless the context of these facts is examined. Conversely, the court’s review is not conducted by disregarding the security assessment and relying only on the person’s statement. The information put forward by the administration and the personal objections must be discussed together. [K3, paras. 50-58]
Why is the absence of a conviction not sufficient on its own?
The purposes and evaluation criteria of criminal proceedings and of a preventive administrative measure are not the same. The Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) has not required that measures based on national security necessarily depend on a criminal conviction, or that all confidential information be disclosed in every case. It has, however, required that the grounds be supported by serious and concrete information that makes judicial review possible. [K3, para. 53]
For this reason, an acquittal or a decision that there is no ground for prosecution (kovuşturmaya yer olmadığı kararı) is an important document; but it must be explained for which event and which accusation it was given. If the administrative act rests on a different event, submitting only the operative part of the decision may not be sufficient. Conversely, if the sole basis of the administrative act is the same fact that was clearly refuted in the criminal file, this relationship must be established in detail.
Currency and proportionality are assessed separately
For an act based on old information, circumstances that have changed over time are important. The person’s later life, history of lawful residence, family ties and whether the administration has made a current assessment may be examined. The length of the period, the effect of the ban on the family and whether a more limited measure would have been sufficient are also separate questions. That a risk assessment was made in the past does not by itself justify maintaining that assessment with the same result in every period.
This review does not reduce the importance of public security. It makes visible which concrete risk the decision seeks to eliminate and by what means. In an annulment action, lawfulness is reviewed; the court does not take the place of the administration and conduct an unlimited review of expediency. [K2, Article 2]
Confidential documents and the right to an effective defense
In security files, it is possible that the supporting documents are not given directly to the person. This does not mean that an act may be taken without reasons or that the court will not look for any basis. In the petition, it may be requested in concrete terms that the letters on which the act is based, the identity-matching records, the date of the assessment and the relevant administrative file be obtained.
Article 20/3 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) contains a special provision under which certain authorities may refuse, giving reasons, to provide information or documents in the interest of state security and high interests. The same provision also regulates that a decision cannot be made on the basis of a defense relying on the information and documents that have not been provided. For this reason, the statement “it is confidential” and the procedure and authority provided by the law are not the same thing. Which authority declined to disclose, on what grounds and to what extent must be examined. [K2]
On the other hand, it would not be correct to promise that every document will be disclosed to the applicant unconditionally and completely. A legal balance must be struck between confidentiality and effective judicial review in accordance with the nature of the file. If all of the events, travels or relationships that the person could explain have been left unclear, it must be shown why the defense has been rendered ineffective. [K3, paras. 53-54]
What does the Constitutional Court’s A.G. decision say about G-87 files?
The Constitutional Court’s decision in A.G., Application No. 2018/6143, December 16, 2020 addresses the effect on family life of an entry ban connected with a G-87 record. With regard to an applicant who had lived in Türkiye for a long time and had family ties here, the Court examined whether a reasoned balance had been struck between the security ground and the interference with family life. [K3]
In the decision, it was particularly significant that the opinion formed after the interview at the airport was not supported by concrete information and that the circumstances relating to family life were not properly assessed. The Constitutional Court held that the right to respect for family life had been violated and indicated a retrial as the means of remedying the violation. Because it regarded the retrial as sufficient redress, it rejected the claim for compensation. [K3, paras. 55-58, 65-66]
This decision is not one that lifts all G-87 records collectively. The existence of serious and concrete security information in a person’s file, or a different family situation, may affect the assessment. The value of the decision in a petition emerges not merely from writing the application number, but from matching the principles on judicial review, concrete reasoning and family life with the documents in the case.
For example, if family life is relied upon, a marriage certificate alone should not be considered sufficient. Living together, the care of children, their education, health needs and the real difficulties of maintaining family unity in another country should be explained. The existence of a family tie and the weight of the interference on that family are different matters of proof.
What documents should be prepared in a G-87 file?
The file should be prepared not to increase the number of documents but to explain the disputed facts. In the first stage, the date and number of the act, the authority that took it, the notification or learning record and all of the person’s identity details are determined. When documents are obtained through a representative, the rules on authority and personal data are observed.
| Subject of examination | Useful document or record | Limit of the document |
|---|---|---|
| Identity confusion | Old and new passports, date of birth, different spellings of the name | Similarity of names alone does not conclusively prove an error |
| Security allegation | The event mentioned in the act, the related investigation and court documents | A criminal record does not explain all intelligence assessments |
| Purpose of travels | Entry-exit records, work, education or health documents | Not every travel document refutes the entire reasoning of the act |
| Family life | Records of marriage, children, care, school, health and living together | An official family tie alone does not automatically create a right of entry |
| Currency of the act | Later permits, new decisions, changed circumstances | The lawfulness of the old act and a new request are examined separately |
| Application time limit | Notification, delivery, electronic notice and earlier applications | A copy obtained later does not start a new period in every case |
Adding a timeline of events to the document list is useful. In the timeline, entries, exits, permits, the event that is the subject of the security allegation, the date on which the code was learned and earlier applications are listed in order. Attaching a large number of documents to the petition without explaining dates that do not match may reduce the visibility of the main legal issue.
Application to the administration and annulment action
The purpose of the administrative application should be stated clearly
An application may be aimed only at requesting information, or at having the act withdrawn or amended, or at having a new assessment made. Their effect on the time limit is not regarded as the same. Within the scope of Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law, an application properly made within the time limit for filing an action may suspend a time limit that has begun to run. If no reply is given within thirty days, the request is deemed rejected; in calculating the period, the days that have elapsed up to the application are taken into account. It should not be assumed that a new and full sixty-day period arises. [K2, Articles 7 and 11]
It cannot be said that a general message to the Presidential Communication Center (CİMER), a telephone call or a request for a copy of the record will necessarily produce the result under Article 11. The content of the request, its addressee, the date of the application and the delivery record must be examined. In addition, if there is a separate deportation decision, waiting for the administrative reply may cause a serious loss of rights with regard to the special seven-day time limit for that decision. [K1, Article 53/3]
Which court and which time limit?
In an annulment action concerning an entry ban, the general time limit for filing an action and the rules of territorial jurisdiction of the Administrative Procedure Law apply to the extent that there is no special provision. The general period is sixty days. The starting point is determined on the basis of notification and the discussions on learning of the act in the specific file; in not every case can only the date on which the code was first queried be taken as the basis. [K2, Articles 7-8]
The court with territorial jurisdiction is determined by taking into account the authority that took the act and the special rules on jurisdiction. It would not be accurate to say that all G-87 actions will be filed in a single city without distinguishing between an act taken by the central administration and an act of a governorate. The act that is the subject of the action and the correct respondent administration must be identified on the basis of the decision document. [K2, Article 32]
Does filing an action stop the entry ban?
Filing an annulment action, as a rule, does not stop the execution of an administrative act automatically. For a stay of execution, the conditions that the act is clearly unlawful and that its implementation would cause damage that is difficult or impossible to remedy are assessed together. In the request, the claim of unlawfulness and the grounds of the urgent damage must be explained separately. [K2, Article 27]
If a child’s critical treatment, actual care needs or a serious family separation are relied upon, documents showing the date and the need are important. Not every claim of family separation or loss of employment automatically produces an interim measure. The special enforcement safeguard granted in Article 53/3 of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection for deportation actions cannot be carried over to all restriction-code actions.
How long does a G-87 record last; is an annotated visa a solution?
Article 9/3 of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection regulates the period of an entry ban as five years at most; where there is a serious threat to public order or public security, it allows this period to be extended by up to ten years more. This provision does not mean that every G-87 record is automatically fifteen years or indefinite. The nature of the specific decision, its start, its period and any extension act must be seen. A fixed-term entry ban should also not be confused with a prior-permission record. [K1]
Article 9/6 regulates the lifting of an entry ban and the permission of entry for a specified period while the ban is reserved as separate possibilities. The process referred to in practice as a special-purpose or annotated visa (meşruhatlı vize) application does not automatically void all security records. The purpose of the application, the decision of the competent authority and the other continuing conditions of admission are decisive.
For this reason, merely buying a ticket, issuing an invitation or marrying does not create an assurance of entry. If permission has been granted, the period and purpose for which it is valid, and whether the records have been reflected in the relevant units, must be checked separately. No general promise should be made that the application will be accepted or will be concluded within a certain number of days.
How is the record followed up after a court decision?
The operative part and the reasoning of an annulment or stay-of-execution decision should be read together. Under Article 28 of the Administrative Procedure Law, the administration must act without delay in accordance with the decision; the period in the law cannot exceed thirty days from the notification of the decision to the administration. A copy of the decision, the information on its notification to the administration and the delivery record of the request for implementation should be kept in the file. [K2]
The annulment of an entry ban does not mean that all records with different grounds have also been lifted. If there is another restriction, a debt record, a visa issue or a separate prior-permission act, their legal position is examined separately. Before going to a border gate with the information “the case was won”, it must be understood exactly which act the decision concerns.
In the case of a decision rejecting the action, the legal remedy is assessed on the basis of the nature of the act and the current procedural provisions applicable to the decision. It cannot be said that every file will automatically go to the Council of State (Danıştay). After ordinary remedies have been exhausted, an individual application may arise on the claim of a violation of a fundamental right. An application to the Constitutional Court is not an ordinary re-examination of new evidence or an additional appeal route for all administrative decisions; admissibility, the thirty-day time limit and the claim of violation are separate conditions. [K2, Articles 45-46; K4, Articles 45-50]
Conclusion
In a G-87 file, effective legal work first determines the underlying act and the concrete ground directed at the person, before the label of the record. The security assessment, family life, the possibility of defense and the period of the act are different areas of examination within the same file. The route of application should be built for each of these areas with appropriate documents; other immigration acts and their time limits must also be followed separately.
A G-87 record is not an obstacle that cannot be removed in every case; nor is it a record that disappears automatically because there is no conviction or because a family tie has been established. The outcome is determined within a reasoned administrative assessment and effective judicial review.
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
Does the G-87 restriction code mean a criminal conviction?
No. A record connected with an administrative security assessment is not in itself a conviction. If there is a criminal file, its legal consequence is examined separately.
If my criminal record is clean, will the code necessarily be removed?
No. A criminal record is important; however, the concrete event on which the administration relied and other information are also assessed. A criminal record document alone may not explain all of the administrative grounds.
Is an action always filed within sixty days for G-87?
In the annulment of an entry ban, the general time limit is, as a rule, sixty days. In a separate deportation decision, the special seven-day time limit applies. The time limit should not be calculated before the type of act and its starting date are determined.
Does submitting a petition to the administration protect the time limit for filing an action?
An application made within the time limit and to the appropriate authority that meets the conditions of Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law may suspend the time limit. Not every request for information or general complaint has the same effect.
Are all G-87 actions filed in Ankara?
Jurisdiction is determined according to the authority that took the act and the relevant rules. A generalization of a single city should not be made by treating an act of the central administration and an act of a governorate as the same.
Can I enter Türkiye once I file an action?
An annulment action, as a rule, does not stop the act automatically. If there is a court decision or an administrative permission, its scope and the other conditions of entry are assessed separately.
Is marriage to a Turkish citizen an automatic solution?
No. Genuine family life, care relationships and the effect of the interference on the family are important; marriage alone does not invalidate all security assessments.
Did the A.G. decision annul all G-87 records?
No. The decision found a violation of the right to respect for family life in the specific circumstances of the applicant. Its principles may be used in other files by relating them to the facts.
Is a G-87 record always indefinite?
This generalization is not correct. The nature of the entry ban, extension and prior-permission acts and the period information of the specific record are examined separately.
Can other records continue after an annulment decision?
Yes. It is important which act the decision concerns. Records with different grounds and the conditions of admission to the country must be checked separately.
Sources and legal bases
K2 — Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577; Articles 2, 7-8, 11, 20, 27-28, 32 and 45-46.
K3 — Constitutional Court, A.G., Application No. 2018/6143, December 16, 2020; in particular paras. 50-58 and 65-66, official decision record. Access copy of the full text for comparison.
K4 — Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court; Articles 45-50.