International and Temporary Protection under Turkish Law: Statuses, Rights, Deportation, Administrative Detention and Routes of Application (2026)

Important legal warning: This guide provides general information; it is not a legal assessment of a concrete case. In particular, time limits of 7, 10, 15 and 30 days are very short. Every document served should be shown to a lawyer on the same day, together with the date and time of service. Legislation and administrative practice may change, so official sources should be checked again on the day of the application.

1. Legal sources and the hierarchy of norms

The principal sources of the regime are:

1. The Constitution; in particular the provisions on personal liberty, the right to life, the prohibition of ill-treatment, family life, effective remedy and judicial review of the administration.
2. The European Convention on Human Rights; in particular Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13.
3. The 1951 Geneva Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Because Türkiye maintains the geographical limitation, the status of "conditional refugee" under the YUKK is important for persons coming from outside Europe.
4. Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (YUKK).
5. The Temporary Protection Regulation (GKY) and the secondary legislation implementing the YUKK.
6. Articles 45 and 46 of Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure as amended by Law No. 7589, published in the Official Gazette No. 33326 of 31 July 2026.
7. Law No. 6735 on International Labour Force and the work permit regulations under the status regime.
8. Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data, Article 94 of the YUKK and the data security provisions.
9. Decisions of the Constitutional Court, the European Court of Human Rights and the relevant administrative and judicial courts.

A law, a regulation and an administrative announcement are not the same thing. For example, restrictions on the registration of new foreign nationals in certain neighbourhoods, or the technical details of the application of a travel permit, are administrative policies that may change over time. They should not be presented as a permanent rule of law without checking the official announcement at the date of its publication and the application in the particular province.

2. The four basic statuses and the concept of applicant

A temporary protection identity document is not a residence permit. It provides lawful stay, but on its own it does not form a basis for long-term residence permit or for citizenship through the general five-year residence route. International protection applicant and status-holder identity documents may, however, take the place of a residence permit under the conditions of the YUKK. These distinctions must always be taken into account in matters of citizenship, work, family residence and long-term residence calculations. For official information on documents, see the official page of the Presidency of Migration Management.

3. How is an application for international protection made?

3.1. The personal nature of the application

An application for international protection is made by the person themselves to the governorate. If the request is expressed at a border gate or to a law enforcement unit, the request must be notified immediately to the competent Provincial Directorate of Migration Management. Irregular entry into Türkiye or irregular stay is not an automatic ground preventing the taking of a request for international protection. The Presidency of Migration Management has also officially stated that the entry rules cannot be interpreted so as to prevent an application for international protection.

The intention to apply must not depend on the use of a particular legal term. Statements such as "if I return to my country I will be killed", "I would be tortured", "I cannot return because of war" or similar should, depending on their content, be assessed as a request for protection. Nevertheless, in practice, expressly stating in writing and orally the intention "I want to apply for international protection", and asking for a receipt or record copy, reduces the problem of proof.

3.2. Registration, interview and procedural safeguards

In a file, not only the outcome of the event the person describes but also the conditions in which the account was taken are important. The minimum safeguards are:

• Information in a language the person understands and, where necessary, an interpreter;
• Privacy and confidentiality vis-à-vis the authorities of the country of origin;
• Early identification of special needs, such as those of women, children, disabled persons, seriously ill persons, and victims of torture or sexual violence;
• For an unaccompanied child, the best interests of the child, representation and child protection mechanisms;
• Access to a lawyer and, under the statutory conditions, legal aid for those who lack financial means;
• Accurate translation of the interview record, recording of errors and omissions, and, where possible, obtaining a copy;
• Separate assessment of the different risks faced by the family unit and by individual family members.

The absence of a passport does not by itself eliminate the substance of the application. Identity, family relationship and risk may be supported, in addition to a passport, by population records, a court or search document, membership records, a health report, photographs, messages, social media records, witness accounts and reliable country information.

3.3. The ordinary calendar from registration to decision

An ordinary international protection process is not limited to a single interview. The statutory calendar and documents should be read as follows:

The time limits for documents are also explained on the Documents to Be Issued page of the Presidency of Migration Management. The 30-day interview and six-month decision schedule of an applicant should not be treated as a "final date of outcome"; it should be treated as the legal framework showing the administration's obligation to conduct the procedure with reasonable promptness.

3.4. Non-registration or de facto obstruction of the application

Where a request for protection is in practice ignored by the governorate, at the border gate, by law enforcement or in the transit area; where a written application is not received; where the applicant's request is recorded with different content in the minutes; or where no file registration number is given, serious loss of rights may arise. In such a situation there is no single and fixed route of application; simultaneous measures are required according to the proximity of the risk and the nature of the procedure. See also: Refusal of Entry at an Airport in Türkiye: INAD Passenger Decision and Routes of Application.

• The intention to "apply for international protection" should be notified clearly and, if possible, by a signed petition.
• A copy of the petition showing the date and time, the receiving unit and the registration number should be requested.
• If the application is not being received, the place and time of the event, the officials concerned, witnesses, and search and correspondence records should be preserved lawfully.
• Contact should be made with the 157 Migration Hotline (YİMER), the competent Provincial Directorate of Migration Management, the legal aid unit of the bar association and a lawyer.
• Where there is a near risk of deportation or of a refusal to admit the person, administrative judicial proceedings and, when the conditions are met, an interim measure under Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court should be considered without delay.
• Where a deportation, inadmissible passenger, administrative detention or other decision has been served, the time limit for each decision must be run separately.

An application for international protection under the YUKK is made in person to the governorate. Contact with and support and referral from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or a civil society organisation may be given, but these do not replace the official registration with the Presidency of Migration Management.

3.5. Evidence, credibility and country-of-origin information

In a protection file, it is not always possible to prove every fact by definitive documents, as in criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, the applicant should describe the personal risk consistently and reasonably, submit the documents that are reasonably accessible, and explain the reasons for any inconsistencies. Trauma, culture, education, age, translation problems, the passage of time and the way fear is expressed may all affect the account. The decision-maker, for their part, cannot rely on a general country note alone; they must compare the individual statement with current, reliable country information from different sources.

In assessing the evidence, the following questions should be asked:

1. Is the feared actor the State, or a non-State organisation, family or community?
2. Is State protection effectively and actually accessible?
3. Does a safe and reasonable possibility of settling in another region of the country actually exist?
4. Does the risk arise from past events, from current developments, or from the person's profile or activities?
5. Could the return route or a third country expose the person to a chain of risk in a further risky country?
6. How do the child's position, illness, gender identity or sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, political profile or family ties affect the risk?

The 2025 decisions of the Constitutional Court concretised this rigour: a new and serious document cannot be ignored; the current human rights situation in the country of origin and international reports must be taken into account; and a real risk and chain refoulement cannot be supervised before the destination country has been determined.

4. The principle of non-refoulement: the core of the protection regime

Under Article 4 of the YUKK and Türkiye's human rights obligations, a person may not be sent to a place where there is a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, death, or other absolute protection. This assessment covers not only the country of which the person is a national, but also the third country to which they would be sent and the risk of onward chain removal from there.

The refugee-law exceptions in Article 33 of the 1951 Geneva Convention and the absolute prohibition of ill-treatment arising from Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights must not be confused. A claim of public order or national security does not by itself remove the risk of ill-treatment. The administration may carry out an assessment of public security; however, the person may not be sent into a real risk within the scope of the absolute prohibition.

Minimum elements of the examination of real risk in a deportation file

• Are the country or countries to which the person would be sent clearly identified in the accessible decision or file?
• Have the person's individual risk claims been answered in the text of the decision?
• Have current and reliable country reports been used?
• Has the authenticity of the documents submitted by the person been investigated, and has the reason for accepting or rejecting them been explained?
• Have health, age, children, family, trauma and special needs been examined?
• Has the possibility of a chain removal from a third country to the country of origin been assessed?
• Have the cases in Article 55 of the YUKK in which no deportation decision may be taken been examined one by one?

5. The principal decisions the administration may take

5.1. Exclusion from international protection status — YUKK Art. 64

Grounds provided by law, such as a war crime, a crime against humanity, a crime against peace or acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, may give rise to exclusion. Exclusion may not be applied automatically on the basis of a rumour of a security concern; the allegation, the person's role and the statutory criteria must be justified. The fact that an excluded person is a family member does not lead to the automatic exclusion of other family members, disregarding the principle of individual responsibility.

Exclusion does not automatically eliminate the guarantee against refoulement. Even where status is not granted, the risk under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 of the YUKK must be examined separately before any removal.

5.2. Exclusion from the scope of temporary protection — GKY Art. 8

The reasons in Article 8 of the GKY may result in a person not being brought within temporary protection or in the cancellation of existing temporary protection. The procedure must be individualised, reasoned and accessible. Exclusion from the scope and deportation are not the same; a deportation requires a separate decision and a separate judicial remedy under Article 53 of the YUKK.

5.3. Inadmissible application — YUKK Art. 72

An application may be considered inadmissible only in the situations set out in the law:

• Renewal of the same application without advancing a different reason;
• After consenting to an application being made on behalf of a family member, making a separate application at any stage without a justified reason or new ground;
• Coming from a country of first asylum in which the person was recognised as a refugee and can still benefit from that protection, or can access adequate and effective protection that includes the guarantee of non-refoulement — YUKK Art. 73;
• Coming from a safe third country in which the person can access protection in conformity with the Convention — YUKK Art. 74.

"Country of first asylum" and "safe third country" are not abstract labels. Whether the person will be readmitted to the relevant country, whether they can actually access effective protection in that country, the guarantee against refoulement, the living conditions and the connection between the person and the country must be assessed concretely. An interview with the applicant must take place before a decision of inadmissibility is taken.

There is no UKDK objection against this decision. An action is brought before the administrative court within 15 days of notification; the time limit for the court is 15 days and the decision given is final.

5.4. Withdrawal of the application or its deemed withdrawal — YUKK Art. 77

The following may lead to the application being regarded as withdrawn:

• A written declaration that the application is withdrawn;
• Failing without excuse to attend an interview on three consecutive occasions;
• Escaping from the place where the person is held under administrative detention;
• Failing without excuse to comply with the notification obligation three consecutive times;
• Not going to the designated residence or leaving the place of residence without permission;
• Objecting to the taking of personal data;
• Not complying with the obligations at registration and interview.

However, no mechanical decision should be taken without examining whether the notification reached the person, and their illness, administrative detention, travel or address obstacle, child and special needs situation. Where the decision cannot be served, a deportation process based on it raises a separate issue of lawfulness. The acceptance of a new application, the annulment of the earlier decision and the right to stay are assessed according to the concrete reasons of the file; a new application does not automatically invalidate the earlier decisions.

An objection to the UKDK is optional. A direct action may be brought before the administrative court within 30 days. According to the decision of the Tenth Chamber of the Council of State, E.2015/907, K.2018/2401, 9.7.2018, a UKDK application is not a condition for bringing an action and does not stop the time limit for an action.

5.5. Accelerated examination — YUKK Art. 79

An application may be subject to accelerated examination in the following situations:

• Not mentioning at all, when explaining the grounds of the application, matters that might require international protection;
• Use of a forged document or misleading information, misdirection of the authorities, or retention of information and documents that might affect the decision;
• Bad-faith destruction or disposal of an identity or travel document with the aim of making identity or nationality harder to determine;
• The person being held under administrative detention for deportation;
• The application being made only to delay or prevent the enforcement of a decision to deport from Türkiye;
• Creating a danger to public order or public security, or having been previously deported for those reasons;
• Making a new application after the application has been regarded as withdrawn.

In the accelerated procedure, an interview with the applicant takes place no later than 3 days from the date of application, and the application is concluded no later than 5 days after the interview. If it becomes clear that a longer examination is required, the file must be removed from the accelerated procedure.

Accelerated procedure does not mean unsafe procedure. The ground for acceleration alleged against the person must be concrete; the interview, the interpreter, access to a lawyer, individual assessment and examination of refoulement must be preserved. An action is brought before the administrative court within 15 days of the decision; there is no UKDK remedy, and the decision of the court is final.

5.6. Rejection of the status application, cessation or revocation of status — YUKK Arts. 78, 85, 86

A rejection decision must show which status criterion was not met, why, and how the evidence submitted was assessed. Cessation may be based on a legal change of circumstances or on certain conduct of the person; revocation may be based on different grounds such as false information or documents or a legal impediment. The concepts must not be used interchangeably; it must be examined whether the changed country conditions are substantial, lasting and effective for the person.

For these decisions, in general, an optional UKDK objection within 10 days or an action before the administrative court within 30 days is the normal route. Against a decision of the administrative court, an appeal under Article 45 of Law No. 2577 is, as a rule, open.

5.7. Termination or cancellation of temporary protection — GKY Arts. 11–12

The termination of the application of temporary protection at the level of a country or group is not the same as the ending or cancellation of the registration of an individual. Death, departure to a third country, benefiting from the protection of another country, voluntary return or individual reasons under the GKY may have different legal consequences. It is important whether the person has actually returned and with informed will; and whether a permitted temporary exit has been confused with permanent voluntary return.

The GKY does not indicate a special and explicit time limit for these individual procedures. Judicial review is open under Article 125 of the Constitution. Under Article 7 of Law No. 2577 the 60-day period is a strong view; however, it is also argued in legal writing that Article 80 of the YUKK may be applicable to temporary protection decisions and that the special 30-day period may be taken as the basis. A safe practice that prevents loss of rights is to bring an action within 30 days of service or learning of the decision. If there is a separate deportation decision in the same file, its time limit is 7 days.

5.8. Deportation — YUKK Arts. 53–55

A deportation decision is a separate administrative act from an international protection or temporary protection decision. It may only be taken by the governorate. Its reasons, the country to which removal would take place, the remedy and the time limit must be served in an accessible form. The assessment and decision stage lasts at most 48 hours. However, a quick decision does not allow individual risk, Article 55 of the YUKK and the non-refoulement examination to be skipped.

For the general framework of a deportation decision, see our articles Deportation Decision; for service and the time limit for an action, see Objecting to a Deportation Decision: Service, the Seven-Day Filing Period and Suspension of Enforcement.

Grounds on which a deportation decision may be taken under Article 54 of the YUKK

Under Article 54(2) of the YUKK, allegations within Article 54(1)(b), (d) and (k) may be relied upon as a basis for a deportation decision at every stage of the protection procedure of an international protection applicant or status holder. However, even this does not relieve the examination under Articles 4 and 55 of the YUKK and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Persons against whom no deportation decision may be taken under Article 55 of the YUKK

Even where there is a ground under Article 54 of the YUKK, no deportation decision is taken against:

• Persons for whom there are serious indications of a risk of the death penalty, torture, or inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment in the country to which they would be sent;
• Persons whose travel is considered risky because of a serious health problem, age or pregnancy;
• Persons whose life-threatening illness is being treated and for whom there is no possibility of treatment in the country to which they would be sent;
• Victims of human trafficking receiving support as victims;
• Victims of psychological, physical or sexual violence until their treatment is completed.

These situations are assessed for each person separately. Where the health or security ground is said to have ended, the new situation must be shown by current documents; a decision should not be based on old and abstract information. The examination under Article 55 of the YUKK and the non-refoulement control under Article 4 of the YUKK and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights must not be substituted for one another. A similar situation is also addressed separately in the article Non-Deportability Due to Health and Pregnancy.

The decision must be challenged before the administrative court of the place where the governorate that carried out the procedure is located, within 7 days of notification. The application is also notified to the authority that issued the decision. Subject to the person's consent, the deportation procedure may not be applied within the time limit for an action and, if an action has been brought, until the proceedings are concluded. The court decides within 15 days; the decision is final. These rules are also set out on the Presidency of Migration Management's deportation information page.

Despite the automatic suspensive guarantee in the law, the filing number and case number of the action, the notification that enforcement is suspended by law, and the service documents should be delivered immediately to the governorate and the removal centre, which reduces the risk of actual enforcement.

Invitation to leave Türkiye — YUKK Art. 56

A person against whom a deportation decision has been taken may, as stated in the decision, be given a period of not less than 15 and not more than 30 days to leave Türkiye, and an exit permit document, which is not subject to fees, is issued. A person who leaves within the period may not be made the subject of an entry ban decision. In statutory cases such as the risk of flight or disappearance, a breach of legal entry or exit, use of a fake or unfounded document, and threats to public order, public security or public health, no period for an invitation to leave is given. The invitation to leave does not remove the seven-day time limit for an action against the deportation decision.

5.9. Restriction code, entry ban and distinguishing the deportation decision

Codes such as G-87, V-69 or Ç-series may appear in the administrative record of a foreign national in practice; however, these codes are not a fixed list in the law that explains all the consequences alone. Four separate questions should be asked in the file:

1. Which code was imposed, on what date, by which authority and on the basis of which concrete information?
2. Is there also an entry ban decision?
3. Is there also a deportation decision?
4. Has the intelligence or judicial information on which the code is based been disclosed to a sufficient degree to allow the person to defend themselves?

A general action to annul a code or an entry ban does not by itself stop the enforcement of a separate deportation decision. If a deportation decision exists, a special seven-day action must be brought; for other procedures, competence, time limit and, where necessary, a stay of execution must be considered separately. The assumption that "an action to delete the code has been brought, therefore deportation has stopped" is dangerous.

For the examination and removal of restriction codes, see our article What Is a Restriction Code? Entry Ban to Türkiye and Removal of the Code.

5.10. Administrative detention of an applicant — YUKK Art. 68

Making an application for international protection is not by itself a ground for administrative detention. The detention of an applicant is an exception and may be decided by the governorate only when one of the following purposes or grounds is concretely established:

• Where there is serious doubt about the accuracy of identity or nationality information, to determine that information;
• To prevent an unauthorised entry at a border gate;
• Where the elements on which the application is based could not be determined in the absence of administrative detention;
• Where the applicant poses a serious danger to public order or public security.

Before detention, the governorate must assess whether the obligations to reside at a particular place and to report under Article 71 of the YUKK would be sufficient. The decision must show its reason, its duration and why lighter measures would be insufficient, and must be served on the person, their legal representative or their lawyer.

The administrative detention of the applicant under Article 68 may not exceed 30 days; procedures must be completed as quickly as possible, conditions must be reviewed at every stage, and detention must be ended immediately when the reason disappears. This 30-day period must not be confused with the 6+6-month system of detention for the purpose of deportation under Article 57.

An application to the criminal judgeship of peace does not by itself stop detention. The judge examines within five days; the decision is final. If circumstances change or disappear, a new application is possible.

5.11. Administrative detention for the purpose of deportation — YUKK Art. 57

The governorate may order administrative detention on statutory grounds such as the risk of flight or disappearance, a breach of entry or exit rules, a fake or non-genuine document, failure to leave within the period given, or a threat to public order, public security or public health. The period in the removal centre (GGM) may, as a rule, not exceed six months; if the deportation procedure cannot be completed because the person does not cooperate or does not provide correct information and documents about their country, it may be extended by a further maximum of six months. The necessity of continuing detention must be regularly reviewed each month.

In each file the following must be controlled:

• Is it possible to carry out the deportation reasonably and realistically?
• What concrete steps has the administration taken to obtain an identity or travel document?
• Has it been documented that the person has actually not cooperated?
• Is there a personal and current fact relating to the risk of flight?
• Have family, fixed address, health, children and special needs been taken into account?
• Why are the lighter measures in Article 57/A of the YUKK insufficient?
• Was the monthly assessment carried out on time, with reasons, and served?

For the drafting of an application to the criminal judgeship of peace, our article Objection to a Decision on Administrative Detention may also be reviewed.

5.12. Alternative obligations to administrative detention — YUKK Art. 57/A

The law lists residence at a specified address, reporting, family-based return, return counselling, voluntary service in public-benefit services, a guarantee, and electronic monitoring. One or more obligations may be applied; the total period may not exceed 24 months.

An application against electronic monitoring is made to the criminal judgeship of peace; the application does not by itself stop the obligation, the judge decides within five days, and the decision is final. The unlawfulness of other alternatives is examined in administrative judicial review, depending on the nature of the procedure. It is not correct to take alternatives other than electronic monitoring automatically to the criminal judgeship of peace.

6. Rights and obligations

6.1. The right to work

The statement on international protection statuses of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and the work permit FAQ page of the Presidency of Migration Management should be checked together. Unregistered work does not remove workers' rights, but it may give rise to administrative sanctions and the risk of a migration status problem for both worker and employer.

6.2. Health services

Under Article 89 of the YUKK, for applicants and status holders who have no other health coverage and no ability to pay, general health insurance premiums are paid, as a rule for one year from the date of registration, from the budget of the Presidency of Migration Management. Persons with special needs and persons for whom the Presidency of Migration Management considers continuation of insurance registration appropriate may form an exception. Changes in income or health coverage may affect the premium and the repayment outcome. The current statement of the Presidency of Migration Management is available here.

Access to health care under temporary protection is assessed together with Article 27 of the GKY, registration, province, referral, current financing and participation payment rules. A promise of "unlimited and entirely free health care everywhere, for every procedure" is not correct. Emergency situations, infectious disease, pregnancy, children and special needs are also addressed separately. For current practice, the Presidency of Migration Management's rights and obligations page and the Ministry of Health statement should be checked.

6.3. Education, social assistance and access to interpreters and lawyers

Access of children to education is protected within the framework of the best interests of the child and the prohibition of discrimination. Social assistance and services depend on the status, the needs assessment, registration, and the current conditions of the relevant programme. The fact that a service is legally possible does not mean that it will be provided on an unconditional basis and in the same amount to every person.

In international protection procedures, an interpreter forms part of the effective application. A person in administrative detention who cannot pay lawyer's fees may, on request, obtain legal aid under the Attorneyship Law. The request to reach the bar association's legal aid office must be recorded in writing.

6.4. Common misunderstandings about residence, family and citizenship

• A temporary protection identity is not a residence permit.
• Time spent under temporary protection does not by itself give a right to a long-term residence permit.
• Refugee and subsidiary protection status holders may act as sponsors in a family residence permit under the conditions of Article 34 of the YUKK; for conditional refugees there is no equivalent express provision.
• Refugee, conditional refugee, subsidiary protection and temporary protection status do not confer citizenship. Citizenship is subject to separate statutory conditions and assessment by the competent authority.
• Possessing an identity document does not remove obligations regarding address, province or the rules on work permits.

6.5. Principal obligations

For applicants or holders of international protection status, the notification periods must be closely observed:

The person is also subject to the obligations of cooperation and telling the truth, complying with the law, attending appointments and interviews, and providing information requested by the administration within the framework of the law. Where it is established that a service or assistance has been unlawfully obtained, repayment of the cost in whole or in part may be requested. In the event of a breach of obligation, some rights other than education and basic health rights may be restricted. The official periods are shown on the Presidency of Migration Management's Rights and Obligations page.

Because failure to receive a notification may cause serious loss of rights, the address record must be kept up to date. Where a change of province is necessary for a justified reason such as health, family unity, education or work, the request for permission and the supporting documents must be submitted in advance.

Local restrictions in administrative practice are not fixed. The intensity policy announced by the Presidency of Migration Management in 2022 is a historic announcement; whether a particular address is open for registration in 2026 should be confirmed from the current official system and the provincial directorate. An old announcement should not be treated as definitive proof of a current right or prohibition.

6.6. Confidentiality, GÖÇ-NET records and the protection of personal data

Under Article 94 of the YUKK, confidentiality is essential for information and documents relating to applicants and status holders. Protection files may contain very sensitive data such as political opinion, religion, ethnic origin, health, sexual orientation, torture, sexual violence, human trafficking, family and criminal investigation information. Therefore:

• Contacts that could disclose the protection request or the personal risk to the authorities of the country of origin should be avoided; mandatory document verification must be carried out by a method that does not create risk.
• Application forms, interview records, health reports and security information should be processed only for official and legal purposes, in a limited way.
• Where the GÖÇ-NET or other administrative records contain an error in name, date of birth, nationality, family relationship, address, entry-exit or status, a written application for correction should be made and a file registration number obtained.
• The request to correct an administrative record and an action to annul a deportation, entry ban, status or other procedure based on that record must not be substituted for one another.
• Documents sent to a lawyer should be shared through a secure channel; the identity and health data of third persons should not be spread unnecessarily into the file or onto the internet.
• The applicability of requests for information, access, correction and erasure under the Law on the Protection of Personal Data (KVKK) should be examined on the concrete record, together with public duties, archive obligations and the duty to preserve judicial evidence.

The duty of confidentiality does not remove the person's right to access their own file and the documents necessary for effective defence. Where security information to which access is restricted is concerned, the administration and the court should, at the least, establish a reasoning and procedure that enables an effective answer to the allegation.

7. Routes of application and litigation: the time-limit matrix

Time-limit safety rule: Do not leave the calculation of time limits until the last day. The service envelope, the service and acknowledgment form, whether an explanation was given in a language the foreign national understands, and actual access to a lawyer should each be kept separately. In a file where electronic or de facto learning is alleged, the starting date may be disputed; a protective application should be made on the earliest possible date.

7.1. Objection to the UKDK

The International Protection Evaluation Commission (UKDK) operates under Article 164 of Presidential Decree No. 4 and the relevant regulation. An objection may be made within 10 days of notification against certain international protection decisions outside the scope of Articles 68, 72 and 79 of the YUKK. The Commission's examination takes place within the 15+5-day arrangement in the implementing regulation.

The most important practical rule is this: the UKDK objection is optional and does not stop the time limit for an action before the administrative court. If both the Commission and the court are approached, the Commission's examination stops because of the judicial application. For this reason, while a 10-day objection is being prepared, the 30-day action timetable must also be run separately.

7.2. Competent administrative court

Where the YUKK contains no special rule of jurisdiction, Article 32(1) of Law No. 2577 applies: the administrative court of the place where the administrative authority that carried out the act is located has jurisdiction. The Council of State, Tenth Chamber, E.2020/2171, K.2020/1429, 28.5.2020 is reported to this effect. Where more than one administrative court exists in a place, the allocation of work may be determined by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK).

7.3. Appeal and appeal on points of law after Law No. 7589

Law No. 7589 was published on 31 July 2026 and added a new second paragraph to Article 46 of Law No. 2577. Under the main rule of Article 46(2), decisions which the Regional Administrative Court gives by setting aside a first-instance decision in cases outside the first paragraph may be appealed on points of law under specific conditions. However, Article 46(2)(d) expressly counts actions arising from the application of the YUKK (Law No. 6458) as an exception to appeal on points of law.

This provision should be applied as follows:

• Because of the special finality provisions in Articles 53, 72 and 79 of the YUKK, an appeal against a first-instance administrative court decision is already closed.
• In other YUKK decisions, an appeal to the Regional Administrative Court against the first-instance decision is possible under the general conditions.
• Even where the Regional Administrative Court sets aside the first-instance decision and gives a new decision, if the dispute arises from the application of the YUKK, no appeal on points of law to the Council of State may be brought under Article 46(2)(d) of Law No. 2577.
• Under the transitional provision, the amendment applies to decisions given by the Regional Administrative Court after 31 July 2026; for decisions given earlier, the earlier provisions are taken as the basis.

This explanation must not be extended to mean that "every dispute with any connection to the YUKK can never go to the Council of State". The legal basis of the procedure, the subject of the action, the type of first-instance decision and the manner in which the Regional Administrative Court decided must be examined separately on the basis of the file. Official TBMM text of Law No. 7589

7.4. Individual application to the Constitutional Court and urgent interim measure

An individual application to the Constitutional Court is not an ordinary appeal. The applicant must show how a fundamental right in the common area of protection has been violated by public power, when the domestic remedies were exhausted, and that the 30-day time limit has been observed. The official time-limit rule in Law No. 6216 is 30 days from the date on which the remedies were exhausted or the violation was learned of.

An individual application does not automatically stop deportation. Where there is a serious and imminent danger to life or to material and moral integrity, an interim measure must separately be requested under Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court. The request must include at least the following:

• The deportation decision and a legible notification;
• The administrative court decision and information on the remedy and exhaustion;
• A document showing the country of destination and the planned time of enforcement;
• Documents showing the personal risk;
• Current country information;
• The lawyer's contact details and a concrete explanation of the urgency.

7.5. The European Court of Human Rights and the interim measure under Rule 39

An application to the European Court of Human Rights is, as a rule, made within four months after the effective domestic remedies have been exhausted. The interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court arises in exceptional files, particularly where there is an imminent and irreparable risk of death or ill-treatment. Making the application or the request for an interim measure does not by itself stop enforcement; the Court must issue an interim measure decision. The exhaustion of domestic remedies and the Constitutional Court's interim measure process should generally be explained, and the decisions and risk documents must be submitted in full.

8. Administrative detention and removal centres: pilot decisions of 2025

The lawfulness of administrative detention, the conditions of detention in the removal centre and the possibility of compensation or establishment of a violation after release are different problems.

For first steps for persons with relatives in a removal centre, see our article I Have a Relative in a Removal Centre.

8.1. A preventive route to correct conditions in the removal centre

The Plenary of the Constitutional Court, in its decision in İbrahim Muhammed Ali, application no. 2025/10406, of 8 July 2025, treated as a structural problem the absence of a clear, accessible and effective preventive route which could examine a claim that the conditions of detention in the removal centre violate the prohibition of ill-treatment and, if necessary, correct those conditions; and applied a pilot-judgment procedure. The decision was published in the Official Gazette on 26 February 2026 and notified to the legislature. Official text of the Constitutional Court decision.

8.2. The problem of effective remedy after administrative detention has ended

In its decision of 20 November 2025, application no. 2022/8989, the Plenary of the Constitutional Court dealt, in the framework of a pilot decision, with the structural problem of the clarity and effectiveness of the application route through which the lawfulness of detention after the end of administrative detention could be examined and appropriate redress given. For this reason, the expression "a compensation action is definitively brought in such and such a judicial branch" in older sources does not reflect the whole of the current position. It must always be checked whether a statutory regulation was in force on the date of the application. Official text of the Constitutional Court decision.

8.3. Status of the pilot decisions — control note of 1 September 2026

In the control of legislation and official sources as of 1 September 2026, no specific statutory mechanism has been identified which clearly resolves in all respects the preventive and remedial application problems pointed to by the two pilot decisions above. Law No. 7589 has made significant changes to the administrative judicial remedies, but on its own it has not created a preventive route to correct removal-centre conditions immediately, nor the system of redress for allegations of unlawfulness after detention required by the pilot decisions.

This finding is the result of a legal research dated to a specific day; it is not a continuous and definitive declaration that no regulation will be made in future. In every concrete application, the Official Gazette, the current text of the YUKK and the Law on Administrative Procedure, and the monitoring status of the Constitutional Court's pilot decisions should be checked again.

8.4. List of evidence to preserve in the removal centre

• Samples of the administrative detention decision and of the decisions on extension/continuation and the monthly assessment;
• Dates of entry to and transfer from the removal centre;
• Dormitory capacity and actual number of persons; bed, light, ventilation, open air, hygiene and food conditions;
• Health requests, infirmary or hospital referrals, prescriptions, reports and rejected requests;
• Requests for access to a lawyer, notary, telephone, family and an interpreter;
• A written application with date and time for the preservation of camera recordings;
• Identity and contact details of persons who may be witnesses;
• Documents concerning child, pregnancy, disability, trauma, chronic illness and medicine needs;
• A petition or receipt record for each complaint showing the date and the receiving unit.

9. Persons with special needs and children

A general "vulnerable person" label is not sufficient; it must be shown how the need affects the decision.

Children and unaccompanied children

The best interests of the child must be the primary consideration at every stage, including registration, accommodation, family unity, administrative detention, education, health, and deportation. In a dispute about age, the approach favourable to the child, an appropriate medical method and representation guarantees are important. The child's views must be taken in a manner appropriate to their age and maturity. A security allegation concerning only a parent does not remove the need to assess the child's individual rights.

Family life, Turkish citizen spouses and children

Deportation, entry-ban and restriction procedures cannot be examined solely from the point of view of migration control or public security. Where real family life in Türkiye is alleged, the administration and the court must at least balance the following elements:

• The reality and duration of the marriage and family life;
• The presence of a spouse or children who are Turkish citizens;
• The child's age, dependency, education, health and best interests;
• The person's length of stay in Türkiye and social/family ties;
• The nature, gravity, currency and concrete evidence of the alleged act;
• Whether family life can realistically be continued in another country;
• The duration of the separation and the consequences for family members;
• Whether the legitimate aim can be achieved by a less intrusive measure.

According to the approach developed by the Constitutional Court in Demet Hussen Najem, application no. 2019/438, 27.7.2022, a real balancing between the public order or public security interest and concrete family life must take place in an entry ban or similar measure; family ties must not be left unanswered by an abstract security phrase. This examination is not an alternative to the absolute non-refoulement control under Article 4 of the YUKK and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights; it is an additional proportionality control in respect of the right to respect for family life. Official text of the Constitutional Court decision

Health and trauma

Serious illness, pregnancy, disability, a history of torture or sexual violence may affect the status assessment, the risk of refoulement and the proportionality of detention. An abstract finding that "treatment exists in the country" may not be sufficient; the actual accessibility, cost, continuity of treatment, the person's support network and the risk of the journey must be examined.

Victims of human trafficking

Where there are indicators of human trafficking, the person must not be treated merely as an irregular migrant; the identification and referral mechanism must be operated. Facts such as forced labour, debt bondage, confiscation of documents, threats, sexual exploitation or control of freedom of movement must be recorded separately.

10. Voluntary return: is the will really free?

Voluntary return must be informed, free, without pressure, safe and dignified. The Presidency of Migration Management describes the process as voluntary, safe, dignified and orderly return. In practice, it is important that the person has access to the following safeguards:

• Correct information about the outcome, in a language they understand;
• An opportunity to consult a lawyer and an interpreter before signing the form;
• A copy of the form;
• An explanation of the effect of the return on temporary protection or other registration;
• Separate assessment of the will and best interests for family members and children;
• Recording, by date, person and document, of allegations of pressure, misleading information, physical coercion or deprivation of basic needs.

"A voluntary return form was signed" does not always establish genuine voluntariness; but the person must also make the allegation of pressure as concrete as possible. The route of dispute depends on the nature of the form and of the acts and actions connected with it; there is no single "vitiated will action" that fits every file. For the details of the subject, see the article Voluntary Return Form: Valid Consent, Objection and V-87 Record.

Akkad v. Türkiye: a signature alone is not a conscious and free waiver

The European Court of Human Rights' judgment in Akkad v. Türkiye, application no. 1557/19, 21.6.2022 is the leading decision on the legal control of voluntary return forms in Türkiye. A Syrian applicant holding temporary protection was sent to Syria two days after being apprehended near Meriç; the Government defended the procedure as voluntary return. The Court examined the safeguards in the file and found that:

• It could not be established that the applicant knew the content of the form he signed;
• Legal assistance was not provided;
• It was unclear whether effective interpreter assistance was available;
• The independent witness safeguard provided for in the legislation had not been applied;
• A copy of the document signed was not given to the applicant;
• The individual Syrian risk had not been examined, and the applicant had not in fact been allowed to use the available legal remedies.

The Court found violations of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of the removal to Syria, of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 13 because of the absence of an effective remedy, and of various paragraphs of Article 5 because of the detention process.

The practical result is this: a signature on a pre-prepared form does not by itself prove that the person knowingly, understandingly and freely waived the guarantee against refoulement. The language of the form, translation, access to a lawyer and an independent observer, the conditions of signature, provision of a copy, explanation of the legal consequences of the return and the individual risk assessment must be considered together. ECtHR decision in Akkad v. Türkiye

11. Deportation, extradition of offenders and INTERPOL records are not the same procedure

Where a foreign State's criminal investigation, search warrant or INTERPOL record exists in an international protection file, three separate fields of law may come together:

An extradition request or an INTERPOL record may enter the file both as evidence of risk and as an allegation of exclusion or public security for the purposes of international protection. However, whether the foreign State's allegation is political, military, religious or racial in nature; the risks of a fair trial, torture, the death penalty and ill-treatment; and the currency and concreteness of the allegation must be examined separately. A deportation action, extradition proceedings and a CCF application cannot substitute for one another. Ministry of Justice – legal basis of extradition procedure, INTERPOL – Red Notices

12. Implementation plan for the first 24 hours

For the person or a relative

1. Photograph all the pages and envelopes served and record the date and time of service.
2. Identify the place where the person is, the removal centre and the foreign identification number.
3. Separate the decisions in the same file: status decision, deportation, entry ban/restriction, administrative detention, alternative obligation.
4. If service and translation were not carried out in a language the person understands, record this in writing.
5. Prepare the risk narrative chronologically, with a link between person, place, date and document.
6. Obtain health and special needs documents.
7. Request in writing the legal aid of the bar association, a lawyer and access to an interpreter.
8. Base planning on the shortest possible time limit: 7 days for deportation; 10 for the UKDK; 15 for accelerated or inadmissible decisions; 30 days for other status decisions.

List of file requests for the lawyer

• All administrative decisions and their approvals;
• Service and acknowledgement forms, interpreter and information forms;
• International/temporary protection registration and identity documents;
• The application form, interview record, and a request to preserve any audio or video record;
• Country-of-origin information on which the decision is based;
• The concrete basis of the security/restriction record and an accessible summary;
• The document identifying the target country or third country;
• The deportation travel plan and consular correspondence;
• The file of administrative detention, extension and monthly assessment;
• Health, family, education and special needs documents;
• Previous cases, decisions, UYAP documents and service notices.

13. Real and verified case-law guide

13.1. Constitutional Court decisions

These decisions are not a guarantee of "winning the case outright". Their principles should be used only with fidelity to the facts of the concrete file and to the limits of the decision itself.

13.2. Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

13.3. Decisions of the Council of State and the Regional Administrative Courts

Two decisions of the Council of State whose full citations are given in the academic source are particularly important in practice:

• Council of State, Tenth Chamber, E.2015/907, K.2018/2401, 9.7.2018: that a UKDK objection is optional, cannot be treated as a condition for bringing an action, and that a direct action may be brought.
• Council of State, Tenth Chamber, E.2020/2171, K.2020/1429, 28.5.2020: that where there is no special rule of jurisdiction, under Article 32(1) of Law No. 2577 the administrative court of the place where the administrative authority that performed the act is located has jurisdiction.

The citations of these decisions were verified through Lexpera access in the 2025 peer-reviewed academic study cited above; since no publicly available official full-text link could be identified, details that the decisions do not state have not been added.

Regarding the finality of first-instance decisions falling under Articles 72 and 79 of the YUKK, the same academic source reports the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court 9th Administrative Chamber, E.2016/951, K.2016/908, 23.12.2016; Istanbul Regional Administrative Court 9th Administrative Chamber, E.2017/3248, K.2017/2748, 26.10.2017; and İzmir Regional Administrative Court 6th Administrative Chamber, E.2020/1668, K.2020/1806, 15.12.2020. Regional Administrative Court decisions are not a nationally binding "leading precedent"; they are examples of application showing the interpretation of the legislation.

Law No. 7589, which entered into force on 31 July 2026, introduced a new route of judicial remedy not available at the time when these decisions were given. For this reason, when old Council of State or Regional Administrative Court decisions are used, the appeal exception for YUKK in Article 46(2)(d) of Law No. 2577 must be shown separately. The new regulation does not automatically invalidate the substantive law assessment in past case law; however, the current law is the basis for determining the higher authority to which the decision may be reviewed.

13.4. Why is there no Court of Cassation decision?

International protection status, temporary protection, deportation, restriction and many related procedures are administrative in nature; essential judicial review is carried out by the administrative courts, the Regional Administrative Courts and, in some files, the Council of State. Administrative detention and objections to electronic monitoring fall within the competence of the criminal judgeship of peace. In review of fundamental rights, the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights come to the fore. For this reason, adding an unrelated Court of Cassation decision merely to give an appearance of variety of case law does not increase legal quality; on the contrary, it disturbs the distinction between competent authorities.

14. Frequently asked questions

Are temporary protection and international protection the same?

No. International protection leads, as a result of an individual status determination, to refugee, conditional refugee or subsidiary protection status. Temporary protection is a separate regime for mass influx.

Within how many days must an action be brought against a deportation decision?

An action must be brought before the administrative court within 7 days of service. The action must also be notified to the authority that issued the decision. Outside the person's consent, and within the time limit and during the action, enforcement is stopped by law.

Does one have to object to the UKDK before bringing an action?

Yes, in those decisions in which the UKDK objection applies, the objection is optional. The objection does not stop the time limit for an action.

After Law No. 7589, can a YUKK case be taken to the Council of State?

The same answer cannot be given in every file. First-instance decisions under Articles 53, 72 and 79 of the YUKK are final by special provision. In other YUKK disputes an appeal is generally possible; however, for decisions given by the Regional Administrative Court after 31 July 2026 on the re-decision after it has set aside the first-instance decision, Article 46(2)(d) of Law No. 2577 excludes YUKK actions from appeal on points of law to the Council of State. The basis of the procedure and the date of the decision must be examined separately.

Is the time limit against temporary protection cancellation 30 days or 60 days?

The GKY does not contain an explicit special time limit. Although the general period under Law No. 2577 is 60 days, it is argued that the 30-day period of Article 80 of the YUKK may apply. Bringing an action within 30 days to prevent loss of rights is the protective approach. The time limit for a separate deportation decision is in all cases 7 days.

Does an objection to administrative detention also annul the deportation decision?

No. Administrative detention, deportation and protection status are separate procedures. An objection to the criminal judgeship of peace against detention does not replace the 7-day administrative court action against the deportation decision.

For how long may an applicant for international protection be held in administrative detention?

The detention of an applicant under Article 68 of the YUKK may not exceed 30 days. This period must not be confused with the six months and additional six months under Article 57 of the YUKK, which apply for the purpose of deportation.

Does filing an action against an entry ban or restriction code automatically stop deportation?

No. It cannot be assumed that an action against a code or entry ban automatically stops a deportation decision. If there is a separate deportation decision, a separate action within 7 days is required.

Does an application to the Constitutional Court stop deportation?

An application alone does not stop it. In an urgent and serious risk, an interim measure under Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court must be separately requested.

What should I do if the Provincial Directorate of Migration Management does not register my application?

The intention to apply must be repeated in writing; the date, time and file registration number must be requested; the rejection of the application or the de facto obstruction must be documented; contact should be made with the 157 Migration Hotline (YİMER), the bar association and a lawyer. Where there is a risk of imminent removal, administrative judicial review and the interim measure of the Constitutional Court must be considered without delay. Notification to the UNHCR or a civil society organisation does not replace the official registration at the governorate.

Does signing a voluntary return form make the return lawful in every case?

No. According to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Akkad v. Türkiye, signing the form does not by itself prove a conscious and free waiver. Translation, a lawyer, an independent observer, the form's conditions, individual risk and the rest must be examined together.

Is there a remedy against conditions in the removal centre?

The Constitutional Court's pilot decision in İbrahim Muhammed Ali, application no. 2025/10406, treated the absence of an effective preventive route capable of correcting conditions as a structural problem. As of 1 September 2026, the official sources and the legislation of the day of the application must be checked again, and the evidence must be preserved without waiting.

Does a temporary protection identity give a right to work?

No. The temporary protection identity is not a general work permit. After six months from the date the identity is issued, an application for a work permit or for exemption in a suitable field may be made, subject to the conditions of the regulation.

Does holding protection status give citizenship?

No. Protection status is not citizenship. Citizenship is subject to separate law and assessment by the competent authority.

Conclusion

The decisive question in international and temporary protection law is not only whether a person may remain in the country. A correct analysis considers together: what status the person is in; which separate administrative decisions have been issued; the competent authority and time limit for each decision; the appeal structure after Law No. 7589; the risk of refoulement; the necessity and proportionality of depriving a person of liberty; family life; the situation of the child or the person with special needs; data confidentiality; and the usable evidence.

In a file, the most serious losses of rights often arise from confusing the procedures, from being unable to document that an application was not registered, from not understanding the consequences of a voluntary return form, or from missing a short time limit. For this reason five principles should not be forgotten: obtain all the decisions, separate the decisions, base planning on the shortest time limit, personalise the real risk with current evidence, and document the delivery of every application.

---