An objection to the decision and a request to lift an ongoing ban are different routes of application. The current general objection period is two weeks from the date the decision is learned. Even if this period has been missed, a request may still be made to lift or modify a measure that is still in force; however, the new request does not restart the objection period for the earlier decision. First, it must be established from which file and on what legal ground the restriction arises. 1
Under what conditions is a travel ban imposed?
CMK Art. 109/3-a regulates being prohibited from leaving the country as a judicial control obligation. Judicial control is not a sentence of conviction; it is a temporary protective measure that serves the conduct of the criminal proceedings. CMK Art. 109/1 refers to the grounds for detention in Art. 100. At the same time, Art. 109/2 allows judicial control even in cases where the law prohibits detention. For this reason, it cannot be said that a ban cannot be imposed, or must necessarily be imposed, merely by looking at the penalty for the alleged offense.
The relationship between the measure and the risk in the file must be explained. In assessing the suspicion of flight, the likelihood of evading the proceedings and other concrete circumstances, the burden the ban places on the person's life is also taken into account. Constitution Art. 23 states that a citizen's freedom to leave the country may be restricted only on the basis of a judge's decision and only because of a criminal investigation or prosecution. The proportionality guarantee in Constitution Art. 13 also applies. 1, 2
How are family or work abroad assessed?
Working, studying or living with family abroad are important facts that make the effect of the ban concrete. However, their existence does not automatically lead to a lifting. The judicial authority may also assess the same international ties, according to the circumstances of the file, from the standpoint of flight risk.
For this reason, an application should not only explain the need abroad. Residence in Türkiye, regular income, family responsibilities, compliance with earlier summonses, attendance at hearings and a return plan should also be set out. When the concrete need to travel and the conditions that secure the continuation of the proceedings are explained together, a proportionality assessment can be made.
Are judicial control and a passport restriction the same thing?
This article deals with a judicial control decision issued in criminal procedure. The validity of a passport, an administrative measure, a restriction arising from another investigation or a decision under aliens law may require a separate legal review. The legal basis of the decision and the authority that issued it matter as much as the name of the restriction.
Holding a valid passport does not remove a travel ban that arises from ongoing judicial control. Likewise, lifting the ban in one file does not end decisions in other files. The application procedure for administrative measures is not the same as the objection route under the CMK. First the copy of the decision, the file number, the decision date and the current enforcement record should be established; the application should be prepared only after that.
How can you find out whether a ban exists?
The starting points are the UYAP file records that the person is authorized to access, the lawyer's review of the file and a copy of the decision obtained from the relevant judicial authority. One should not conclude that no exit barrier exists in any file merely because no record appears on an e-Devlet screen.
When investigating whether an old decision has been lifted, later interim decisions, the appeal file and the notification of the decision to the enforcing units should also be checked. A ban discovered at the border gate just before travel is no substitute for a legal application that could have been made earlier.
What is the difference between an objection, a lifting request and a temporary exemption?
| Application | Issue examined | Time limit and result |
|---|---|---|
| Objection to the decision | Whether the decision issued complies with the law | Generally two weeks from learning of it; an objection does not by itself stop enforcement. |
| Request to lift or modify | Whether the ongoing measure is still necessary | May be raised while the measure continues; complete lifting or a lighter obligation may be requested. |
| Temporary exemption request | Granting an exception to the obligation for specific dates | Must be decided before the trip takes place; the permission is limited to the scope of the decision. |
Under CMK Art. 111/1, on the request of the suspect or defendant the opinion of the public prosecutor is obtained; the judge or court may decide within five days on the options under Art. 110/2. This provision is not an objection period. The lapse of five days also does not mean that the request has been granted or that the person may travel. 1
The current two-week objection period applies to decisions issued on or after June 1, 2024. For earlier decisions, the transitional provision must be taken into account. It is not enough to call the application merely a "permission petition"; it must be clearly stated which decision is sought to be changed, for what reason and to what extent.
To which judge or court is the application made?
During the investigation stage, the judicial control decision is issued by the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) on the request of the public prosecutor. The suspect or the defense counsel may request lifting, modification or exemption under CMK Art. 111. Obtaining the prosecutor's opinion does not mean that the application can be granted only if the prosecutor's opinion is favorable.
The public prosecutor's authority, during the investigation stage, where the prosecutor concludes that judicial control is no longer necessary is regulated separately in CMK Art. 103/2. However, the mere fact that a petition has been submitted to the prosecutor's office does not show that the measure has ended; the decision issued and the enforcement records must be monitored.
During the prosecution stage, the competent court hearing the case is the relevant authority. If the file is at the regional court of appeal or the Court of Cassation, the stage of the file and the authority of the relevant body must be determined separately. It cannot be accepted that every application must be made to the criminal judgeship of peace that issued the first decision, even if the stage has changed.
An objection to a criminal judgeship of peace decision on judicial control is submitted to the authority that issued the decision; as a rule the review belongs to the judge of the criminal court of first instance (asliye ceza mahkemesi) within the judicial district. For decisions of the criminal courts of first instance and the high criminal courts (ağır ceza mahkemesi), the different authority arrangement in CMK Art. 268/3 applies. The detailed application procedure is covered in this series' article titled "Objection to a Judicial Control Decision and Request for Lifting." 1
With which documents should a temporary exemption request be prepared?
In practice, temporary exemption is also described as "temporary lifting" or "travel permission." Under CMK Art. 110/2, the central question is whether the person is exempted from complying with the obligation for a specified period. The request should state the country of destination, the departure and return dates, the purpose of the trip and the connection between the purpose and those dates.
| Reason for travel | Documents that may help | Point to be explained |
|---|---|---|
| Health and treatment | Appointment, physician's assessment, admission or treatment plan | The place and dates of treatment and the effect of postponing it |
| Family life | Records of kinship and residence, documents showing the need for care | The nature of the family bond and the concrete consequence of the separation |
| Business and profession | Employment contract, assignment, meeting invitation | The need to attend in person and the length of the trip |
| Education | Admission letter, enrollment or exam schedule | The effect on the person's education of missing the procedure |
| Urgent family event | Death, hospitalization or emergency documents | The relationship, the urgency and the travel plan |
The documents must be consistent with the requested dates. Instead of a general work letter, a document explaining why the person needs to be abroad on specific days is more useful. A document in a foreign language must be submitted in an understandable and verifiable form; whether translation or certification is needed is determined by the nature of the document and the assessment of the relevant authority.
Sensitive health and family information should be kept to the extent the application requires. Inventing an untrue excuse or altering the contents of a document does not strengthen the application; it may also give rise to legal liability.
How is the guarantee of return explained?
A return ticket or reservation alone does not eliminate the possibility of flight. Work that continues in Türkiye, residence, dependents, compliance with earlier obligations and a plan to attend the upcoming hearing are assessed together.
An alternative solution can also be put forward in the application: if lifting the ban entirely is not considered appropriate, an exemption for specific dates or another obligation suited to the purpose may be requested. This is not a guarantee of acceptance; it gives the judicial authority a concrete and proportionate option.
If permission to travel abroad is granted, does the signing obligation continue?
A travel ban and a regular reporting obligation are different obligations. Granting an exemption only from the travel ban does not automatically remove the signing obligation for the same period. If the travel days overlap with the signing schedule, a clear modification or temporary exemption should also be requested for the signing.
Likewise, there may be other obligations, such as not leaving one's residence or a specific area of residence. Whether the trip is legally possible is determined by reviewing all valid decisions together. It should not be assumed that a favorable decision in one file also covers an obligation in another file.
If an exemption decision is given only for specific dates, the original obligation applies again at the end of those dates according to the content of the decision. If a delay in returning becomes likely, the new situation should be documented and the competent authority should be applied to before the period expires; the person cannot extend the permitted period on his or her own decision.
How are duration and proportionality examined while the ban continues?
CMK Art. 110/4 provides that the need for continuation is to be reviewed at intervals of no more than four months. Four months is not a period at the end of which all judicial controls expire. In addition, the maximum period and the extension conditions in Art. 110/A apply separately.
In matters outside the jurisdiction of the high criminal court, the basic period is two years, and an extension in a case of reasoned necessity is at most one year. In matters before the high criminal court, the basic period is three years; the extension is, as a rule, three years in total, and four years for certain offenses specified in the law. The upper limits may thus be three, six or seven years depending on the relevant category. For children, these periods are applied at half. The fact that the longest period has not yet expired does not mean that the measure may be maintained without justification until then. 1
Legal scholarship also emphasizes the temporary nature of judicial control and the need to assess its effect on fundamental rights in the concrete case. This approach requires discussing not only the name of the measure but also its actual weight on the person. The 2016 academic explanations should not be used as a source for the current period rules, which have since changed. 6
What did the Veysel Kuşçu decision clarify in the calculation of the period?
In its Plenary Assembly decision of December 16, 2025, Application No. 2023/95649, Veysel Kuşçu, the AYM stated that the maximum period for a travel ban must be calculated from the date of the first measure. It accepted that the time spent in the appeal process after the judgment would also be counted. In the specific case, it held that the detention ordered for violating a ban whose seven-year period had expired had no legal basis (§§37–43). 3
The decision should not be read as meaning that a person should disregard judicial records on the basis of his or her own calculation. If the period has expired, its determination and the correction of the relevant records should be requested without delay. The dissenting opinion in the decision assessed the general detention provisions differently in light of concrete facts of flight. The majority's result should be understood together with the fact that the file was at the appeal stage and with the authority of the body that ordered the detention.
Why is the Ömer Midyatlı decision important for the effect on family life?
In its Second Section decision of December 23, 2025, Application No. 2022/109474, Ömer Midyatlı, the AYM examined a long-running travel ban with regard to the person's relationships with his wife and children in Germany. Assessing the judicial authorities' failure to adequately discuss personal circumstances and lighter alternatives, the Court held that the right to respect for private and family life had been violated (§§16–23). 4
This decision does not say that the ban must be lifted for everyone who has relatives abroad. It requires that a reasoned balance be struck between the risk in the file, the duration of the measure and its concrete effect on family life. For this reason, it is important that an application not merely state family ties but explain the length and consequences of the separation with documents.
The AYM does not examine every complaint about freedom of travel directly under the individual application. Because Türkiye is not a party to Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR, there is a problem of a shared area of protection. Serious effects on private or family life, however, may be assessed under Constitution Art. 20 within their own conditions (§§11–13).
What should be done after an acquittal, a decision not to prosecute or finalization?
CMK Art. 103/2 provides that the suspect will be released when a decision not to prosecute (kovuşturmaya yer olmadığı kararı) is issued. Where the legal basis of the measure has ended, the enforcement records must also be brought into line. Whether a ban arising from another file exists must be investigated separately.
In the decision of the 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation of February 10, 2025, E. 2024/9285, K. 2025/2304, it was accepted that, in the specific case where the conviction had become final and the enforcement stage had begun, the travel ban imposed during the proceedings had ended. The rejection of the request to lift a measure for which there was no continuing legal interest was reversed in the interest of the law. 5
An acquittal that has not yet become final is not the same as the definitive end of the prosecution. In the Ömer Midyatlı decision as well, the grounds of a ban maintained after an acquittal while the appeal was still pending were examined. Therefore, travel should not be planned on the assumption that "an acquittal was issued and all records were erased at the same time."
How should one act after a rejection and when a favorable decision is obtained?
The date on which the rejection decision was learned should be recorded and the available remedy should be used. In the First Section decision of the AYM of February 17, 2026, Application No. 2022/44541, Neşe Gençer Gurbanov, it was concluded that the remedies had not been exhausted because no objection was filed against the rejection of the request to lift judicial control (§§10–13). The existence of family grounds did not remove the obligation to use the ordinary remedies. 7
When a favorable decision is obtained, the full text and scope of the decision should be reviewed. It should be clearly established whether lifting or a limited exemption was granted, the start and end dates and any other obligations. Whether the decision is sent to the relevant enforcing units and the records are updated should be followed up. One should rely on the decision and the notification records, not on the unit's oral statement.
While an application or objection is pending, the ban may remain in force. Under CMK Art. 269, an objection has no automatic suspensive effect. Unless there is a separate decision to postpone or a valid exemption, one should not leave the country in reliance on a petition having been filed.
Conclusion
An effective application to lift a travel ban is one that discusses the current grounds of the decision and explains the need to travel with concrete documents. The duration of the measure, its effect on family and professional life, compliance with the proceedings and lighter alternatives should be assessed together.
If a temporary exemption is requested, the date range and scope should be clear, and all concurrent obligations, including signing, should be taken into account. After a favorable decision, notification and registration steps should also be monitored. The result comes not from the title of the application but from presenting the facts specific to the file, with legal reasoning, before the right authority.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the prosecutor lift a travel ban?
During the investigation stage, the public prosecutor has the authority under CMK Art. 103/2 where the prosecutor considers judicial control no longer necessary. In addition, lifting or an exemption may be requested from the judge under CMK Art. 111. Applying to the prosecutor's office is not the same as the measure ending.
What is the objection period for the ban?
For decisions issued on or after June 1, 2024, the general period is two weeks from learning of the decision. For older decisions, the transitional provision is assessed separately. The two weeks should not be confused with the five-day rule in a lifting request.
If the objection period has passed, can travel permission no longer be requested?
It can. Lifting or modifying an ongoing measure, or granting an exemption for a specific period, can be requested under CMK Art. 111. This application does not restart the objection period that was missed for the first decision.
Is buying a plane ticket enough for permission?
No. A ticket or reservation may show the travel plan; it does not take the place of a decision by the competent authority. The purpose of the trip, its length, the return plan and the risks in the file are assessed together.
Does working abroad make lifting of the ban mandatory?
No. Although the employment relationship and the professional effect of the ban are important, the decision is made according to the file as a whole. Work documents and ties for returning to Türkiye should be submitted together.
Does temporary permission allow travel to all countries and on all dates?
It depends on the content of the decision. An exemption granted for a specific date or trip does not go beyond its own scope. A freedom not found in the decision should not be assumed.
If I obtain permission to travel abroad, do I no longer need to sign at the police station?
The signing obligation may continue unless it is separately lifted, modified or exempted for that period. Signing days that overlap with the trip should be stated clearly in the application.
Does the ban lift automatically after four months?
No. Four months refers to the maximum interval at which the need for continuation is reviewed. The maximum periods of judicial control and the extension conditions are regulated separately in CMK Art. 110/A.
Can one travel abroad immediately after an acquittal?
The finalization of the decision, the decisions on judicial control and the restrictions in other files should be examined together. One should not assume that all exit barriers have ended merely by looking at the acquittal judgment.
If the lifting request is rejected, can one go directly to the AYM?
The clear and effective ordinary remedies must be exhausted. The Neşe Gençer Gurbanov decision shows that failing to object to a rejection decision can prevent admissibility. The other conditions and the time limit of the individual application must be assessed separately.
Sources
1. Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Arts. 100, 103/2, 109–112, 268–271 and transitional Art. 6. Ministry of Justice legislation record.
2. Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye No. 2709, Arts. 13, 20 and 23. Constitutional Court: text of the Constitution.
3. AYM Plenary Assembly, Veysel Kuşçu, Application No. 2023/95649, December 16, 2025, in particular §§37–43 and the dissenting opinion; Official Gazette, April 16, 2026, No. 33226. Decision record.
4. AYM Second Section, Ömer Midyatlı, Application No. 2022/109474, December 23, 2025, in particular §§11–23. Decision record.
5. Court of Cassation 4th Criminal Chamber, E.2024/9285, K.2025/2304, February 10, 2025, reasoning and judgment. Published decision text.
6. Kaya Göçmen, Özen, “Adli Kontrol Koruma Tedbirinin İnsan Hakları Işığında Değerlendirilmesi” (Assessment of the Judicial Control Protective Measure in Light of Human Rights), Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 65(4), 2016, pp. 1749–1814, in particular pp. 1771–1773. The work reflects the law as of June 1, 2016; it is used for the framework of rights and proportionality, not for current time limits. Full text.
7. AYM First Section, Neşe Gençer Gurbanov, Application No. 2022/44541, February 17, 2026, §§10–13. Decision record.