A health problem or pregnancy does not in every case automatically prevent the removal of a foreign national from Türkiye. However, where travel would pose a risk to the person's health, or where the continuing treatment of a life-threatening illness would not be available in the country to which the person would be sent, these circumstances are specially protected under Article 55 of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (YUKK). The assessment must not be made by reference to the name of the illness alone; the person's current condition, the travel conditions and access to treatment must be examined together. [1]
For this reason, the central question in a health file is not only "What illness is present?" The real issue is what concrete health consequence the removal would produce, and which documents can show that consequence. The same health condition may call for separate assessments in a lawsuit against a deportation decision, in administrative detention at a removal centre, and in relation to the person's status in Türkiye.
Which health conditions does YUKK 55 protect?
Article 55 provides that no deportation decision is to be taken concerning certain persons even where the grounds for deportation listed in Article 54 exist. The health-related protections must be kept apart. [1]
| Ground of protection | Condition to examine | Key document in the file |
|---|---|---|
| Serious health problem, age or pregnancy | That travel is risky for the person | Current specialist report and fitness-to-travel assessment |
| Life-threatening illness | That treatment is ongoing and that treatment is not available in the country of removal | Treatment plan, report explaining the risk of interruption, and country information |
| Victimisation by psychological, physical or sexual violence | That treatment has not yet been completed | Health and treatment records linked to the victimisation |
Protection for victims of human trafficking, who may benefit from the victim support process, is also provided for. This cannot be reduced to a medical report alone. The risk of the death penalty, torture or inhuman treatment is an independent ground of protection under the same article.
The consequence set out in the law is that no deportation decision is taken concerning a person who meets the conditions. Where a decision has already been issued, a health obstacle that arises later or has not been considered by the administration must be reported without delay. This notification does not remove the need to monitor the deadline for suing against the decision. A similar situation is addressed separately in the article Deportation Decision.
Why are pregnancy and advanced age not enough on their own?
Making the travel risk concrete
The week of pregnancy matters, but the law does not set a single week limit for all pregnant women. Complications, the length of the journey, connections, transfer by land, waiting conditions and the need for emergency care are assessed together. In the case of advanced age too, what matters is not the number of years but the relationship between the person's health and the journey.
A document confirming pregnancy alone may not explain why travel is risky. Where possible, the report should state the nature of the risk, which means of transport are considered inadvisable, the date of the assessment and the need for re-examination. The physician makes the medical assessment; the legal consequence is determined by the administration and the court.
Fitness to fly and the lawfulness of the removal
Acceptance for a flight under an airline's passenger conditions is not the same as an assessment under YUKK 55. Being accepted for a flight does not show that the entire transfer process is safe from a health standpoint. Equally, being refused boarding does not by itself create a right to indefinite residence.
The administration may argue that medical escort or another means of transport would remove the risk. This defence must be made concrete: what measure will be taken, which health institution will take over the person, and how an interruption of treatment will be prevented? A general statement that "there is no obstacle to travel" may be challenged where it contradicts a detailed specialist report.
How is the unavailability of treatment in the destination country assessed?
Under Article 55(1)(c) of the YUKK, a life-threatening illness, ongoing treatment and the unavailability of treatment in the country of removal are examined together. Not every chronic illness meets these conditions automatically. However, where interrupting treatment could have serious consequences, it is not enough to rely only on whether the name of a hospital or medicine appears on a country's lists.
For example, for a person who needs regular dialysis, uninterrupted oncological treatment or close psychiatric follow-up, the following questions become important:
- Is the treatment that is needed actually offered, and is it suitable for this person?
- Will the person be able to register for this treatment, and will the waiting period be compatible with the person's health condition?
- Do the cost of treatment, the distance to the facility or the documentation requirements prevent actual access?
- How will the continuity of medicines and follow-up care be ensured?
- Is there family or social support able to meet the person's care needs?
Not all of these questions carry the same weight in every file. A link must be drawn between information specific to the illness and current country data. A general criticism of the health system of a country does not by itself prove the risk the person would face.
The European Court of Human Rights' Paposhvili test
In Paposhvili v. Belgium, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights did not limit protection to situations in which death is very near. The risk of a serious, rapid and irreversible deterioration in health, resulting in intense suffering, or of a significant reduction in life expectancy, because appropriate treatment is unavailable or cannot be accessed, must also be assessed. The Court held that a removal carried out without the necessary risk assessment would have violated Article 3 of the Convention. [3]
This approach does not treat the mere fact that treatment in Türkiye is better as sufficient. What matters is not that the standard of health care is the same in both countries, but whether the person would face a consequence of the prohibited severity. The cost of treatment, the distance to the facility and the support network therefore carry weight in the concrete file.
How does the Savran judgment show the limit of protection?
In the Grand Chamber judgment in Savran v. Denmark, it was explained that a serious psychiatric diagnosis alone is not sufficient. In the case at hand, it was not shown that the risk threshold required under Article 3 had been crossed. However, a violation was found under Article 8 on the protection of private life. [4]
The judgment does not mean that "psychiatric illnesses are not protected". It shows that the expected deterioration, its severity and the evidence for it are examined rather than the type of illness. Nor does rejection of a health claim necessarily mean that a family or private life claim will also be rejected. The special protections under YUKK 55 and the review under Article 3 of the ECHR must not be treated as the same thing.
How is a health report and evidence file prepared?
An effective file does not pile up large numbers of documents; it shows which question each document answers. Earlier reports may explain the history of an illness, but a current assessment may be needed to show the present travel risk.
| Document or information | What it is expected to show |
|---|---|
| Specialist report and discharge summary (epikriz) | Diagnosis, current clinical condition and the purpose of treatment |
| Medication list and follow-up plan | Continuity of use, frequency of examinations and the consequence of an interruption |
| Travel assessment | Type of journey, need for an escort and the concrete risk |
| Information on the destination country | Whether suitable treatment exists and the conditions of personal access |
| Application and notification records | When the administration became aware of the person's health condition |
Where a document is in a foreign language, the need for a properly certified translation should be assessed. If the diagnosis in one report conflicts with the treatment plan in another, this should not be concealed; it should be clarified through a new specialist assessment.
Health documents contain special categories of personal data. Details unrelated to the file should not be uploaded to public comment areas or to social media. Documents should be submitted to the competent authorities and to the legal representative through secure channels. Proof of a need does not require that the whole health history be disclosed to everyone.
What applications are made once the decision has been notified?
Action against the deportation decision
Under Article 53(3) of the YUKK, an application may be made to the administrative court within seven days of notification of the decision. The application must also be notified to the authority that issued the deportation decision. Without prejudice to the consent of the foreign national, the deportation is not carried out within the period for bringing the action and, where the action is brought within that period, until it has been concluded. [1, 2]
Submitting a health report to the administration, booking an appointment at a hospital or making an application for a humanitarian residence permit does not replace this special route to court. Where the report is not yet complete, the existing documents and the process for obtaining the missing document should be explained in the legal application rather than allowing the period to pass.
The fifteen days mentioned in the law is not the period for bringing the action. It is the period within which the court must conclude the application, counted from the completion of the file, or, where an interlocutory decision or a hearing is required, from the completion of those steps. A fixed timetable such as "the case always ends fifteen days after it is filed" therefore cannot be given. [2]
Separate assessment for administrative detention
Where a person is held in a removal centre, an application to the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) under Article 57 of the YUKK is assessed separately. Bringing a lawsuit against deportation does not release the person automatically. The five-day period relates to the time within which the criminal judgeship of peace must conclude its review; it should not be read as a five-day period for the foreign national to apply. [1]
The effect of the health obstacle on the continuation of detention must be explained, including access to treatment and whether lighter obligations are sufficient. Where there is no longer a need for detention to continue, it must be ended. Alternatives such as residence at a specified address and reporting obligations are assessed according to the person's file.
Treatment in the removal centre and status after release
Article 59 of the YUKK provides for free provision of urgent and essential health services where a foreign national cannot pay for them. This provision does not mean that all private hospital services are free without limit. Needs for medicine, requests for examination and the need for referral to a hospital must be reported to the centre management in a recorded form. Waiting for the conclusion of judicial proceedings is not expected where there is urgent health need. [1]
Being protected under YUKK 55 or leaving administrative detention does not by itself give a residence permit or a right to work. The conditions for a humanitarian residence permit under Article 46 of the law, or other residence routes suited to the person, are assessed separately. A humanitarian residence permit is not granted automatically; an administrative decision is required. For details of the subject, see the article Rights and Obligations of Applicants for International Protection.
Where the health obstacle is temporary, it should be monitored through current reports. Completion of treatment, a reduction in risk or a change in the options available in the destination country may give rise to a new assessment. On the other hand, the assumption that circumstances have changed does not replace a current medical examination. Address and notification obligations must also be followed separately. The article International Protection and Temporary Protection Law may also be consulted on procedure and documents.
Conclusion
The strength of a request for non-removal on health or pregnancy grounds rests on the link between the person's health condition and the consequence of the removal, rather than on the name of the illness. The file must explain separately the travel risk and the effect of interrupting treatment. Assessing the person's own access to treatment is as important as the existence of treatment in the destination country.
Health notification, the lawsuit against deportation, the application concerning administrative detention and the procedures on residence status must be planned together. This approach makes the medical need visible and protects the legal time limits. It does not guarantee an outcome for any report or application in advance.
Related articles: Notification of a deportation decision and the seven-day period; Objection to an administrative detention order; Application guide for relatives of persons in a removal centre.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a pregnant foreign national never be removed?
No. Under Article 55(1)(b) of the YUKK, the travel must be considered risky because of the pregnancy. The week of pregnancy, complications and the conditions of the journey are assessed on the basis of current medical documents.
Is a single health report sufficient?
The content of the documents matters more than their number. If the diagnosis, the travel risk, the continuity of treatment and the probable result of an interruption are not explained, an additional assessment may be needed.
Does better treatment in Türkiye prevent removal?
Not by itself. The conditions of YUKK 55 and the fundamental rights risk raised in the particular case are examined. Actual access to treatment must be shown in relation to the person's own circumstances.
Does submitting a health report stop the seven-day period for bringing an action?
Submitting a report to the administration does not replace the special seven-day route to court against a deportation decision. Notification and the period must be monitored separately.
Does a person leave the removal centre when a deportation lawsuit is filed?
Not automatically. Administrative detention is a separate procedure; an application concerning the effect of the health condition on detention must be made separately.
Is a residence permit granted automatically to a person who cannot be removed for health reasons?
No. A humanitarian residence permit or another residence route is assessed separately. Release from detention does not replace a work permit either.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, in particular Articles 4, 46, 53, 55, 57, 57/A and 59. Consolidated text of the law, copy hosted by METU.
- Law No. 7533, Articles 36 and 38; amendment to YUKK Article 53/3 and transitional provision. Text adopted by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye.
- ECtHR, Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], App. No. 41738/10, 13 December 2016, in particular §§183–192 and the operative provisions. Full judgment on HUDOC.
- ECtHR, Savran v. Denmark [GC], App. No. 57467/15, 7 December 2021, in particular §§133–148 and the operative provisions. Full judgment on HUDOC.