An international protection application allows the risk of persecution or serious harm that a person would face on returning to their country to be examined. The principle of non-refoulement, in turn, is the fundamental safeguard that prohibits sending a person to a place where there is a danger of torture, death or other serious dangers specified in the law. A protection claim, a deportation decision and administrative detention are not the same procedure. For each of them, the authority to apply to, the time limit and the effect on the enforcement of the decision must be determined separately.
In an urgent file, the first question is to which country, on the basis of which decision and when the person is planned to be sent. The second question is what can be used to show the personal danger the person would face as a result of that removal. Merely writing the name of an application or referring to the general conditions in the country may not be enough to secure timely and effective protection.
How international protection differs from temporary protection
Under the YUKK (Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection), refugee, conditional refugee and subsidiary protection are the individual international protection statuses. In distinguishing a refugee from a conditional refugee, Türkiye’s geographical limitation matters. Subsidiary protection is considered for persons who do not fall within the other two statuses but who, if returned, may face the death penalty, torture or the serious threats specified in the law. Status is not determined by looking at the person’s nationality alone.
Temporary protection is a separate regime applied in circumstances such as a mass influx. For this reason, a temporary protection identity document should not be presented as a fourth type of individual international protection. There are differences among the rules on application, identity, work, health and termination. If a measure concerns temporary protection, it should not be assumed that all the time limits in YUKK Article 80 apply automatically.
Being an applicant is also different from holding a status. The acceptance of an application does not mean that a final decision has been made that the person is a refugee. Conversely, the refusal or termination of a protection status does not mean that the obligation of non-refoulement will not be examined at all. The real risk in the place of removal must be assessed separately.
How to apply and why registration matters
An international protection application is, as a rule, made by the person themselves to the governorate. A lawyer does not remove the personal nature of the initial application; the lawyer supports preparation, representation and the pursuit of remedies. In a family application based on the same grounds, the consent and personal circumstances of the adults are taken into account. If family members face different risks, these must be explained separately.
A protection claim stated at a border gate, before law enforcement or at other public bodies is immediately notified to the competent governorate. There is also a notification safeguard for the claim of a person whose liberty has been restricted. Being in a removal center does not prevent a person from putting forward a protection claim. However, the acceptance of the application does not by itself eliminate other judicial or administrative measures.
The date, place, responsible unit and document number of the claim should be kept. A copy of the written request, the receipt record and, if any, the reply showing that the application was not accepted can be placed in the file. If a written record cannot be obtained, the situation can be documented with the lawyer’s interview notes, witness information and other accessible records. For documents the person cannot read or understand, the need for an interpreter and for information should be stated explicitly.
Irregular entry does not on its own make an examination of the protection claim unnecessary. However, the timing of the application and why it could not be made earlier may matter for credibility or for the procedure to be applied. Reasons such as trauma, health, a language barrier and difficulty in accessing information and a lawyer should be made concrete. One should not act as if every application had an unchanging short filing period; the reasons for any delay should be explained.
Access to a lawyer, an interpreter and legal aid
YUKK Article 70 regulates the provision of information on procedure, rights, obligations and time limits for objection during registration. On request, interpretation services are provided in personal interviews at the application, registration and interview stages. A failure to understand the language used, deficiencies in the interpretation or errors in the minutes should be recorded as early as possible. Merely signing a document does not mean that all objections to its content have fallen away.
An applicant or a holder of international protection status who cannot afford a lawyer’s fee may benefit from the legal aid provisions of Law No. 1136 for applications before the courts under Article 81/2. The appointment of a lawyer by the bar association and a request to the court for legal aid regarding litigation costs are assessed separately. Making a legal aid request does not mean that the short time limits for filing an action are automatically suspended; the risk of imminent removal and the date of notification should be stated at the time of the application.
What information is needed in a non-refoulement examination
Personal risk and current country information
The prohibition of return in YUKK Article 4 and the persons against whom no deportation decision may be taken under Article 55 are assessed together. If there is a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of ECHR Article 3, this risk cannot be made acceptable by balancing it against public security grounds. The existence of a security allegation does not make a risk examination unnecessary.
The events the person has experienced in the past, political or religious activities, membership of a social group, investigations and cases opened against the person, earlier threats and measures directed at family members may matter. A general country report must be linked to this personal story. It must be shown why the situation described for the whole country or a particular region of it affects the applicant.
| Area to examine | Records that can be used | Link to be explained |
|---|---|---|
| Previous violence or threats | Medical record, statement, messages and witness information | The relationship of the incident to the person and to the risk on return |
| Judicial or political prosecution | Summons, arrest, court and official correspondence | The genuineness and currency of the measure and its likely consequence |
| Country conditions | Current reliable country and human rights reports | The applicant’s region, profile and personal situation |
| Child or health needs | Care, education, treatment and specialist records | The severe person-specific effect of the removal |
| Planned removal | Deportation decision, flight or transfer record | The imminence of the danger and the need for an urgent decision |
The source and date of the documents should be clear. The fact that the original of a document could not be obtained, or a difference in the account, does not necessarily show that the application is unfounded; the reasons should be investigated. However, ignoring contradictions is not correct either. An interpretation problem in the interview minutes, the effect of trauma on the account or a wrongly recorded date should be explained as early as possible.
Removal to a third country and chain risk
Sending a person not directly to the country of origin but to another country does not end the risk examination. Whether the person can actually access protection in that country, and the risk of being sent on from there to a dangerous country, are assessed. In accepting a first country of asylum or a safe third country, the statutory conditions and the person’s admission to that country must be examined. That a country is considered safe in general is not a sufficient personal safeguard for everyone.
In a health file, too, it is not enough to rely on the mere theoretical availability of treatment. The person’s access to treatment, the travel risk and the consequence of an interruption of treatment should be explained with concrete evidence. Because assessments of health and family life are not entirely the same as the conditions for international protection status, the relevant legal bases should be built separately.
Which time limit applies to an objection to a rejection decision
No time limit should be calculated without seeing the heading of the decision and the statutory article it relies on. A rejection after ordinary examination, an inadmissible application, accelerated examination and administrative detention are subject to different procedures. Deeming an application withdrawn or the termination of a status should also not be treated as the same as the word “rejection” alone.
| Measure | Route of application | Basic time limit or distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Ordinary international protection rejection decision | Administrative objection to the UKDK or an action before the administrative court | Administrative objection ten days; direct action thirty days |
| Inadmissible application and accelerated examination | Directly the administrative court | Fifteen days from notification; no objection to the UKDK |
| Detention under YUKK Article 68 | Criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) | Special judicial route; the other rejection time limits do not apply |
| Separate deportation decision | Administrative court | Seven days from notification |
| Rejection of a residence permit | Administrative court | The general sixty-day limit where there is no special time limit |
The UKDK is the International Protection Evaluation Commission. For decisions under Article 80/1-a and Articles 68, 72 and 79 of the Law, it provides only the judicial route. In an ordinary rejection file, applying to the Commission should not be presented as a mandatory precondition for an action. If an administrative objection has been chosen, the later time limit for an action must be tracked separately on the basis of the date of the application, the Commission’s decision and its notification; a general CİMER petition should not be substituted for this special application.
Article 80/1-e of the Law permits a stay in the country until the objection or judicial process is concluded. Nevertheless, if there is a separate deportation decision, that decision must also be challenged within the time limit. In particular, in deportation decisions taken while protection proceedings under Article 54/2 are ongoing, it is risky to assume that a single file stops all measures.
The difference between a deportation action and an urgent interim measure
The seven-day special action route against a deportation decision allows the person to obtain judicial review before being sent away. In YUKK Article 53, subject to a record of consent, there is a safeguard against deportation within the time limit for an action and, if an action is filed, until the proceedings are concluded. The filing of the action should also be notified to the administration that issued the decision.
The court’s statutory decision period is not a fixed result date that starts on the day the action is filed and covers all measures. The current Article 53 provides a fifteen-day period from the completion of the file or of the necessary interim decision and hearing. This procedure should not be confused with the fifteen-day provisions in Article 80 concerning protection decisions.
The pilot judgment of the AYM (Constitutional Court) Y.T. [GK], Application No. 2016/22418, 30 May 2019, shows the importance of giving a person who alleges a risk of ill-treatment an effective opportunity to object before removal. The judgment found that the right to an effective remedy had been violated because of legislation that, at that date, left some foreigners outside the safeguard of automatic suspension. A retrial, the applicant not being deported until that trial concluded, and non-pecuniary damages were ordered. The historical fifteen-day time limit for an action and the exception provision in the judgment cannot be used in place of today’s Article 53. In the current text the time limit for an action is seven days, and the exception criticized in the judgment has been removed.
When to request an interim measure from the Constitutional Court
An AYM individual application is not a general higher review that replaces the ordinary action or the appeal on points of fact and law (istinaf). The exhaustion of effective remedies, the explanation of the alleged violation and, as a rule, the thirty-day application period are assessed. If there is a serious danger to life or to material and moral integrity, the interim measure request is separately reasoned under Rule 73 of the Rules of Procedure.
The decision and notifications on the application, earlier actions and interim measure requests, the country to which the person is to be sent, the planned flight or transfer time if any, and personal risk documents should be attached. Which remedy was exhausted and why another could not provide protection in time must be explained. Urgency is not a general reason for the domestic remedies not to be examined at all; a concrete ineffectiveness or obstacle to access must be shown.
An application to the AYM or a request for an interim measure does not by itself stop enforcement. If an interim measure is granted, its scope, its duration and its communication to the administration are followed. An interim measure that stops only the deportation should not be assumed to end administrative detention automatically as well. An effective application may be needed separately for the detention.
Urgent protection under Rule 39 of the ECtHR Rules of Court
An ECtHR Rule 39 interim measure is intended for exceptional situations in which there is a risk of imminent and irreparable harm. It may apply in particular to risks to life and of ill-treatment. The Court’s current practice direction requires documentation of the seriousness of the risk and of the urgency, and an explanation of the effective domestic remedies available. The granting of a measure does not mean that the merits of the application have definitively been won.
In the request, the person’s identity, contact and representation details, a short chronology of the events, domestic decisions, the date of removal and risk documents are submitted in an orderly way. The terms of use of the ECHR Rule 39 website and the Court’s official application explanations should be followed. This channel is intended only for interim measure requests; it does not by itself satisfy the form and time-limit requirements of the main application.
Submitting the request does not by itself stop the removal. If a measure has been granted, the implementation of that decision and the Court’s requests for further information are followed. When circumstances change, those changes should be notified. For the main application, the four-month period following the final domestic decision is assessed separately as a rule; in a file with an imminent risk of removal, waiting until the end of that period does not serve the purpose of urgent protection.
Remedies and the continuation of the file
In actions under YUKK Articles 72 and 79, the special finality provision of Article 80 is taken into account; in deportation actions, the finality provision of Article 53. In other protection measures, the ordinary remedies are determined according to the type of decision. The exception for YUKK disputes in the new appeal route introduced by Law No. 7589 should also not be overlooked. A wrong or unnecessary remedy does not mean that the period for the individual application is safely extended.
Throughout the file, the obligations of address, notification, interview and submission of documents must be monitored. For obligations that cannot be fulfilled because of health, detention, transfer or a travel obstacle, documents showing the excuse should be submitted. If a voluntary return form has been signed, the language, interpreter, information provided and the freedom of will are examined separately. A signature is not a definitive certificate of lawfulness that removes the risk of refoulement in every case.
Conclusion
In an international protection file, effective legal work combines documenting the personal risk with using the correct remedy in time. A protection rejection, a deportation decision and detention must be tracked separately; where the safeguards obtained through the ordinary routes prove insufficient in a concrete urgent situation, an AYM or ECtHR interim measure must be reasoned. No application provides protection by its name alone, an automatic status, or a single measure that stops all proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is temporary protection a type of international protection
No. Refugee, conditional refugee and subsidiary protection are individual statuses. Temporary protection is a separate legal regime.
Can a protection application be made while in a removal center
Yes. The claim must be notified to the competent governorate. The registration of the application should be followed; the time limits for applying against other existing decisions must be protected separately.
Can a lawyer make the initial protection application on my behalf
The initial application is, as a rule, personal. The lawyer supports preparation, representation and the remedies; this does not remove the statutory requirement of a personal application.
Is the time limit against a protection rejection always thirty days
No. In an inadmissible application and accelerated examination, the time limit for an action is fifteen days. In an ordinary rejection and other related measures, the thirty-day period and, if available, the ten-day administrative objection route are examined.
Does a protection action also cover a separate deportation decision
No. A separate deportation decision must be pursued within its own seven-day time limit and on its own grounds.
Does the removal stop as soon as I apply to the AYM for an interim measure
An application or an interim measure request does not by itself have a stopping effect. The scope and implementation of any interim measure that is granted are followed.
If the ECtHR grants an interim measure, is refugee status obtained
No. The measure provides temporary protection; it is not the same as being granted international protection status or winning the case on the merits.
If there is a security restriction code, does the principle of non-refoulement not apply
It applies. A real risk of torture or ill-treatment cannot be disregarded on security grounds. The security measure and the risk examination are assessed under their own legal conditions.
Sources
1. Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, Articles 4, 53–55, 61–65, 68, 72–81 and 91.
2. AYM Y.T. Application No. 2016/22418, 30.05.2019; in particular §§45–62, 73–85 and the holding.
3. Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, Article 73; Law No. 6216, Articles 45–50.
4. ECtHR explanation of interim measure requests and Rule 39 practice direction, revision of 28.03.2024.
5. ECHR Rule 39 application website, terms of use of the channel.
6. Law No. 7589, amendment to İYUK Article 46.