A prior permission requirement means that a foreign national's admission to Türkiye depends on an assessment by the competent authority. Lifting an entry ban, granting prior permission and issuing a visa are not the same process. For a foreign national with an N-82 or N-99 record, the correct route is determined by reviewing together the basis of the code, any other bans, the purpose of travel and the personal situation. A visa with explanatory notes should not be regarded as a document that removes all restrictions automatically or that guarantees passage at the border in every case.
This distinction is particularly important for people living abroad, people with family in Türkiye, and people who want to return to their studies or come for treatment. If a file contains only the information “there is an N code”, the route to apply has not yet been determined. First it must be clarified which procedure was carried out and which permission is being requested. A similar situation is also addressed in the article Refusal of Entry at the Airport: INAD Passenger Decision and Ways to Apply.
What is the legal basis of the prior permission requirement?
Article 9/7 of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (YUKK) provides that the admission of foreign nationals may be made subject to prior permission by the Presidency of Migration Management (Göç İdaresi) on grounds of public order, public security or public health, and by governorates (valilik) on account of administrative fines and public receivables. The Law therefore draws different lines of authority for different reasons. For this reason, it should not be assumed that all prior permission procedures rest on the same authority and rationale. [K1]
Article 9, paragraph 6 of the Law separately sets out two possibilities: lifting the entry ban, and permitting entry for a defined period while the ban is kept in place. The first changes the legal status of the ban; the second may provide admission within a specific scope where the ban continues. The duration and conditions of an entry permission must be read with this distinction in mind.
The Implementing Regulation (Uygulama Yönetmeliği) defines prior permission as a permit that must be obtained for entry into the country, and provides that a favourable opinion is sought for the admission of a foreign national whose record contains a prior permission requirement. This structure also explains why the reasoning “I have a visa exemption, so I do not need prior permission” is not sufficient. [K2]
Is the N-82 code always an entry ban?
In its decision in the case of Amanda Jolyn Krause and Others, the Constitutional Court (AYM) described N-82 as making entry subject to prior permission. Under the circular (Genelge) no. 2020/17 dated June 30, 2020, cited in paragraph 55 of that decision, N-82 is not an entry ban decision; after the necessary consultation (istizan) process, entry may be permitted with a special visa with explanatory notes while the N code is retained. [K3]
This statement has two important consequences. First, a request to remove the code and a request for entry permission while the existing record remains in place are separate matters. Second, the theoretical existence of a permit route does not mean that every application will be accepted. The administration's necessary assessment and other entry barriers may continue to apply.
If a file contains G or Ç series records alongside N-82, each is examined separately. A favourable opinion obtained for N-82 may also lift another entry ban, but this can be understood only from the clear scope of the decision. Applying the result obtained for one code to the entire migration file is incorrect.
How is an N-99 code distinguished from an INTERPOL record?
In current descriptions of practice, N-99 is frequently associated with records linked to INTERPOL. However, the code alone does not prove that a particular Red Notice exists or that the person has a final criminal conviction. The date of the record, the issuing authority, the supporting document and its current status need to be established. The legal nature of the Red Notice is also explained in the article What Is an INTERPOL Red Notice and Is It an International Arrest Warrant?
In the Constitutional Court's decision in the case of Sherapat Yagmyrova, the statement of facts records that the administration described the N-99 record as a “visa subject to consultation” (istizanlı vize). This reflects the administrative defence in that file; it does not mean that the Constitutional Court gave a complete definition of the N-99 code for all periods. The explanation of an older record should not be treated as identical to current practice. [K4, § 11]
If there is genuinely an INTERPOL connection, the Turkish administrative record and the international police cooperation record are addressed together but in separate procedures. INTERPOL states that a Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant. It is a request to locate a person and, for the relevant procedures, to arrest that person provisionally; each country acts under its own law. The absence of a name in a public INTERPOL search also does not prove the absence of all records. For the correction of national records after an INTERPOL record has been deleted, see INTERPOL kaydı silindikten sonra ulusal kayıtların düzeltilmesi. [K5]
Extradition from Türkiye to another country is a separate procedure under Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters. An N-99 record or a visa refusal is not, on its own, an extradition decision. Grounds that prohibit extradition, personal circumstances and protective measures are assessed within their own procedure. In relation to deportation in an extradition process, the special provision in Article 12 of Law No. 6706 should also be kept in mind. [K6]
What does a visa with explanatory notes provide, and what does it not provide on its own?
The term visa with explanatory notes (meşruhatlı vize) is used in practice for a special note or permission process linked to the purpose of travel and the required administrative assessment. Purposes such as family reunification, study, work or treatment may shape the content of an application. However, invoking a single purpose does not make the issue of a visa mandatory.
| Procedure or document | Basic effect | Further issues to examine |
|---|---|---|
| Lifting of an entry ban | Changes the legal status of the specific ban. | Other bans and visa conditions |
| Entry permission while the ban is retained | Provides admission within the period and conditions stated in the decision. | Scope of the permission and other obstacles |
| Prior permission or favourable opinion | Relates to the administrative condition on which admission depends. | Visa and border inspection |
| Visa | Supports an entry request for a specific purpose and under specific conditions. | General conditions for admission to the country |
| Residence or work permit | Regulates residence or work status. | Type, duration and validity of the document |
Article 11 of Law No. 6458 expressly provides that a visa does not give an absolute right to enter Türkiye. The conditions in Articles 7 and 15 of the Law therefore retain their importance. A consultancy statement that “all codes are lifted once a visa is obtained” cannot remove the difference between legal transactions. Bans arising from visa or residence violations are examined separately in the article Entry Ban to Türkiye for Visa and Residence Violations. [K1]
A tourist e-Visa (Turistik e-Vize) does not resolve on its own a situation that requires special permission. The statements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Dışişleri Bakanlığı) call for a distinction between the e-Visa and the visa regime appropriate to the purpose of travel. A study or work purpose must not be presented as tourist travel without the relevant application and permissions. [K7]
How is an application from abroad prepared?
The application is prepared on the basis of the current procedures and document requirements of the relevant Turkish diplomatic mission. Because the place of application may vary according to the country of residence, nationality and purpose of travel, it would be incorrect to offer a single form or a fixed document list for all countries. In a visa application, a known restriction or ban must be stated accurately and consistently.
Matching identity and previous procedures
Current and previous passports, changes of name or surname, spellings in different alphabets and the foreign identity number are submitted together. Previous entries and exits, and any rejection, deportation, entry ban or court decision, are placed in chronological order. The aim is to prevent the person from appearing in the system as different people because of different documents, or from being confused with another person.
The operative part of a court decision alone may not be enough to explain the nature of the event. The reasoning of the decision and the current status of any appeal may also be needed. The translation and certification requirements for a document issued in a foreign country are checked according to the type of document and the place of application; not every document is automatically subjected to the same certification process.
Showing the purpose of travel with genuine documents
In a family-purpose application, not only a marriage certificate but also evidence of shared life and care may matter. The child's education, custody and actual care arrangements explain the personal effect of the application. Marriage does not by itself remove the prior permission requirement; it makes the assessment of family life more concrete. For procedure and documents, the article Settling in Türkiye with a Child from a Previous Marriage may also be consulted.
For a treatment application, the acceptance by the health institution, the treatment plan, the duration and the financial arrangements are important. For study, the admission or registration and the continuation of education are relevant; for work, the relevant work permit process. A genuine need and a link in time must be established for each purpose. Creating a false invitation, employment relationship or enrolment merely to strengthen an application may worsen the legal position.
Responding directly to the administrative reasoning
If the procedure is known to rest on a security assessment, explaining only the purpose of travel is not enough. The alleged incident, the current record, the outcome of a criminal file or an identity error must also be addressed. Where the prior permission requirement relates to debt, it must be established which assessment was paid and whether other debts exist. The application should link each allegation to the document that addresses it, rather than presenting an unconnected pile of documents.
Administrative application and lawsuit to remove the code
Where it is argued that the prior permission requirement is unlawful, that its basis has ceased to exist, or that the record belongs to the wrong person, the authority that made the decision and the legal nature of the request must be identified. An annulment action and a new entry permission request serve different purposes. The administrative application must state clearly which decision it seeks to have removed or changed.
For administrative acts without a special time limit, the general period for bringing an action is sixty days. An application made within the period under Article 11 of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) may suspend the running of the action period. After a rejection, or after the implied rejection (zımni ret) at the end of thirty days, the remaining period continues to run. Merely booking a visa appointment, requesting information or submitting a general petition to another authority does not in every case preserve the time limit for suing against a restriction decision. [K8]
The court and the defendant administration are determined by the authority that established the disputed act and by the rules on duties and jurisdiction. It should not be generalised that the same court in the same city has jurisdiction over all N codes. Where there is a visa refusal, a prior permission refusal and a separate restriction act, their dates and legal relationships are assessed separately.
Filing a lawsuit alone does not give authority to enter the country. If a stay of execution has been ordered, the effect of the decision on the specific act and its implementation by the administration should be checked. The request must demonstrate, with concrete documents, either a plain unlawfulness or harm that is difficult or impossible to repair. Facts such as the interruption of a child's care or of treatment should be documented in a way specific to the person.
What is the actual outcome of the Constitutional Court's decision on N-82?
The Constitutional Court's General Assembly decision in the case of Amanda Jolyn Krause and Others concerns different applicants affected by residence, visa and deportation procedures because of an N-82 record. The decision explained the prior permission mechanism. The majority found the freedom of religion claims inadmissible and held that there was no violation of the right to an effective application in connection with freedom of residence. The application of one applicant was found inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae. [K3]
The dissenting opinions criticise access to the reasons, the concrete facts and effective judicial review. A dissenting opinion cannot be presented as if it were the court's decision finding a violation or annulling an act. Nor does the decision mean that all N-82 procedures are automatically lawful; the facts and application claims of each new file are examined separately.
The practical consequence is not to leave an application at the level of “I want to come to the country”. The reasoning of the procedure, personal ties, the effect on fundamental rights and the matters that could not be shown in judicial review must be made concrete. Reliance on confidential information does not place the procedure outside review either; the relevant procedural provisions and the means of defence are assessed together.
What route applies where there is a deportation order or administrative detention?
If a deportation decision has been separately issued against a person in Türkiye, applications for the removal of the N code or for the visa process may not be sufficient. Against a deportation decision, the seven-day period running from notification under Article 53/3 of Law No. 6458 applies. Without prejudice to the exception for consent, the guarantee of non-deportation applies within this period and while the proceedings continue. The details of the seven-day period are discussed in the article Objecting to a Deportation Decision: Notification and the Seven-Day Lawsuit Period. [K1]
Administrative detention decisions are subject to review by a criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği). Where a claim of non-refoulement is made, the risk in the country to which the person would be returned must be shown through person-specific and current documents. The fact that a prior permission or visa application has been made does not replace an objection to a detention decision. The objection route and the evidence are explained in the article Objection to an Administrative Detention Decision.
Where there is a judicial detention or extradition measure linked to INTERPOL, the authority and the procedure may differ. Examining only the immigration file may not explain all the grounds for the judicial restriction of liberty. The different legal routes and their effects on one another should be followed together.
What should be checked after a permit or annulment decision?
A favourable decision is checked for the person concerned, the period, the number of entries and any other conditions. A distinction is drawn between a limited permission given while the record continues and the complete removal of the record. It should also be verified that the decision is reflected correctly in the practice of the foreign mission and the border units.
In court decisions, the rule in Article 28 of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) on implementation without delay and a maximum period of thirty days is taken into account. After any record correction, other bans, public receivables, passport validity and the documents relating to the purpose of travel must be checked again. Previous rejections or code information should not be disregarded in a new application in a way that is contrary to the facts.
Conclusion
Resolving N-82 and N-99 files does not end with learning the code name. The reason for the prior permission requirement, the purpose of travel, linked bans and, where present, any INTERPOL or extradition process must each be determined. The distinction between a visa with explanatory notes and the removal of the code must be preserved; applications must be prepared with genuine documents, and the time limits of each decision must be followed separately.
Related articles: Does Acquittal or Non-Prosecution Remove the Restriction Code?; Ç-117 and Ç-119: Unauthorised Work, Penalty and Deportation; Is Conditional Entry Under V84 Lifted? Current Legal Guide; Restriction Code and Entry Ban: Guide to Removal; G-87 Restriction Code: Security Rationale.
Frequently Asked Questions
If there is an N-82 code, is entry to Türkiye completely impossible?
N-82 is linked to the prior permission mechanism. An entry route with the necessary permission may exist; however, the scope of the decision and other obstacles are assessed separately. It cannot be said that every application will be accepted.
If a visa with explanatory notes is obtained, is the restriction code deleted?
Not automatically. The Constitutional Court's decision on N-82 states that, in the practice it describes, entry could be permitted while the N code was retained. Removal is a separate legal consequence.
If I have a visa exemption, does the prior permission requirement apply?
Visa exemption does not remove the other conditions of admission to the country. The prior permission requirement and any separate entry barriers must be checked.
Does N-99 necessarily show that a Red Notice exists?
The code alone is not sufficient for that conclusion. The underlying record and its current status must be established. Even where a Red Notice exists, according to INTERPOL's explanation this document is not an international arrest warrant.
Does marriage to a Turkish citizen lift prior permission?
Marriage does not produce automatic removal. Actual family life and the child and care relationships matter for the personal effect of the application. For more detail, see How Does a Turkish Citizen Spouse and Child Affect a Deportation Decision?
If I file a visa or restriction lawsuit, can I come to Türkiye?
Filing a lawsuit alone does not grant authority to enter. Where there is a court decision, its scope, the necessary permits and the other admission conditions must be examined.
How many days does an application take to be concluded?
No reliable single period can be given for all foreign missions and prior permission files. The examination may vary according to the purpose of travel and any additional inquiries. Administrative lawsuit periods must not be postponed on the basis of predictions about when an application will be concluded.
Sources and legal bases
K5 — INTERPOL, Red Notices: the legal nature of Red Notices and the scope of publicly available records.