Freedom of Residence and Travel: Restrictions, Passport Procedures and Legal Remedies

An important distinction: Although Article 23 of the Constitution provides a guarantee, freedom of travel does not, on its own, fall within the common sphere of protection for AYM individual applications in every case. Türkiye has not ratified Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, where an interference affects a person's private or family life with sufficient weight, it may be examined under Article 20 of the Constitution. This link must be built on concrete facts, not merely by changing the name of the right. 2 3

Which freedoms does the Constitution protect?

The grounds for restricting residence and travel differ

Article 23 of the Constitution regulates freedom of residence and freedom of travel together, but the grounds for restriction are not the same. Freedom of residence may be restricted by law for the purposes of preventing crime, achieving social and economic development, ensuring sound and orderly urbanization and protecting public property. For freedom of travel, the grounds stated are criminal investigation and prosecution and the prevention of crime. 1

That an administrative act serves the public interest does not remove the question of which constitutional power and which statute it rests on. For example, a zoning decision regulating the use of a region cannot be treated like a criminal procedure measure directed at a person. Not touching the essence of the right, foreseeability, the requirements of a democratic society and proportionality are examined separately under Article 13 of the Constitution.

Freedom of residence does not guarantee, without limit, staying on another person's real property without a right of ownership or a lease. Conversely, a lawful power of eviction is not a power to disregard people's living conditions and the relevant procedural safeguards. Different claims concerning ownership, housing, family life and residence may rest on separate grounds in the same case.

A citizen's departure from and entry into the country

Under Article 23 of the Constitution, a citizen's freedom to leave the country may be restricted only by a judge's decision on account of a criminal investigation or prosecution. A citizen cannot be deported and cannot be deprived of the right to enter the country. These constitutional rules must be taken into account in all administrative practices concerning passports. 1

The form, period of validity and conditions for issuance of a passport document must be distinguished from the prohibition of a person's departure from the country. A transaction that cannot be completed because of a missing document is not the same as a security restriction applied to a person. The existence of a tax debt or a private-law debt cannot, on its own, be accepted as a power to impose a general administrative exit ban on a citizen.

The position of foreign nationals is assessed separately. The entry, residence, international protection and deportation regimes under Article 16 of the Constitution and Law No. 6458 may apply. The guarantee of entry that is specific to citizens cannot be extended to mean that a foreign national has an unconditional right of entry into every country. Nevertheless, the guarantees arising with respect to life, the prohibition of ill-treatment and family life retain their importance for foreign nationals as well. 1 4

How are a passport procedure and a judicial exit ban distinguished?

The administrative passport procedure

Refusing to issue a passport, cancelling it or not processing a passport request may be an administrative act. The written reasons and legal basis of the act should be requested from the relevant authority. The type of passport, the status of the previous document, the date of application and the date of the reply should be in the file. Settling for an oral statement that "there is a block in the system" makes it harder to identify the correct defendant and the subject of the action. 5

When taking an administrative act to judicial review, it is not only the request for the issuance of the document that should be set out, but also why the act is unlawful. Claims regarding competence, reason, subject, form and purpose should be tied to the concrete situation and to the effects on private life. The administration's strongest defense may be a security or statutory document requirement. The applicant should discuss the connection of the obstacle with himself or herself, its currency and its proportionality.

Annulment decision on passport restriction based on general security

In its decision AYM, E. 2024/112, K. 2024/160, September 24, 2024, the AYM annulled the part of Article 22 of the Passport Law providing that passports are not issued to persons whom the Ministry of the Interior has determined to pose an objection in terms of general security to their leaving the country. The decision was published in the Official Gazette dated November 21, 2024, No. 32729. The majority relied on the uncertainty of the scope and limits of the administration's power and on the guarantee of a judge's decision for an exit restriction directed at specific persons. This wording in the former statutory text cannot be presented as a current administrative power of prohibition. 13, §§ 10–18

The annulment does not mean that every passport problem is resolved automatically. An ongoing judicial control, the validity of the document or the legal basis of another act is examined separately. When applying against an earlier refusal, the effect of the decision on entry into force, the date of the act and the current stage of the proceedings should be assessed. An annulment in abstract review and a person-specific violation and redress decision in an individual application are not the same outcome.

In the same decision, the AYM separated out the review of rules that regulate departure from the country in general from the restriction directed at specific persons. For this reason, general regulations relating to situations such as war or epidemic do not automatically constitute a basis for an individual passport restriction. A single conclusion cannot be drawn about all restrictions without establishing which rule the act actually rests on. 13, §§ 15–17

Judicial control within criminal procedure

CMK 109/3-a regulates not being able to leave the country as one of the obligations of judicial control. This measure serves the purposes of criminal procedure; it cannot be applied as an advance penalty. In continuation decisions, as in the first decision, the person's current situation and the necessity of the measure must be assessed. That an investigation or case is ongoing does not, on its own, justify continuing the same measure for an unlimited period. 6

Obtaining a passport does not automatically lift a judicial exit ban in force. Conversely, lifting the judicial ban does not mean that another administrative passport block has been automatically erased. For this reason, before traveling, it should be checked both that the decision has been lifted and that the relevant records have been updated in practice. Merely buying a plane ticket or obtaining a visa does not remove the legal obstacle.

How is an exit ban objected to?

Requests for lifting, modification and temporary exemption

Under CMK 110 and 111, the lifting of the measure, the modification of the obligations or an assessment of exemption on certain conditions may be requested. The request is addressed to the competent judge or court according to the stage the file is at. The prosecutor's opinion and the court's power to decide should not be confused. 6

The petition should explain the purpose, date, duration and destination of the trip and the return plan. Conditions that have changed since the measure was imposed should be shown separately: the taking of a statement, the collection of evidence, regular attendance at hearings, a new health or family need and the like. Against the risk of flight, a fixed residence, work and family ties and compliance with earlier obligations may be presented. These are not grounds for automatic acceptance but elements of the proportionality assessment.

Instead of merely saying "I am a victim," it should be argued why a lighter measure would be sufficient. The applicability of options such as a signature obligation, a guarantee or a time-limited permit may be assessed according to the nature of the case. It cannot be said that the court is obliged to accept them; however, serious and concrete requests must be examined with relevant reasoning.

The objection period and the reviewing authority

Objection to decisions on judicial control is possible. Unless there is a special provision, the general period under CMK 268 is two weeks from learning of the decision. The objection is submitted to the authority that gave the decision; if that authority does not correct its decision, it sends it to the competent reviewing authority. For the authority that examines an objection to a judicial control decision of the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği), the special regulation in CMK 268/3-b must be taken into account. 6

The possibility of requesting the lifting of the measure again does not mean that the objection or individual application period missed for the earlier decision starts again in every case. A new request based on new facts should be distinguished from an application that repeats the same reasoning. The date of each rejection decision, the manner in which it was learned and the record of the application against it should be kept separately.

The maximum duration of judicial control

CMK 110/A provides for a maximum of two years in matters outside the jurisdiction of the heavy penal court, with a reasoned extension of one year in cases of necessity. In matters within the heavy penal court's jurisdiction, the basic period is three years; the extension cannot exceed three years in total, or four years for the state security and terrorism offenses specified in the article. For children, these periods are applied at half the rate. 6

That the maximum period has not yet expired does not mean that the measure is necessarily proportionate. The statutory ceiling and the period necessary in the concrete case are different. Even a ban of a few months may have a severe effect in the case of a particular treatment or family need. On the other hand, a definite end date should not be given without examining the characterization of the offense in the file, the course of the proceedings and the applicable special provisions when calculating the maximum period.

What routes can be used in administrative courts?

A definite administrative act relating to a passport that must be executed may be the subject of an annulment action before the competent administrative court. Unless there is a special period, the general period for filing an action in the administrative court is sixty days from the day following written notification. Cases where no reply is given to an application for an act to be taken are assessed under İYUK 10, while an application for the removal or modification of an existing act is assessed separately under İYUK 11. 7

An application made in time under İYUK 11 suspends the period for bringing an action; after a rejection or thirty days without a reply, the remaining time continues to run. Not every petition to every institution has this effect. Assuming that a CİMER application, a request for information or repeated petitions with the same content automatically renew the action period may lead to a serious loss of rights.

Bringing an action does not, on its own, stop the passport procedure or the ban. In a request for a stay of execution, manifest unlawfulness and the conditions of damage that is difficult or impossible to remedy must be explained together. Facts such as an upcoming surgery, a university enrollment date, personal contact with a child or the risk of an employment contract ending should be submitted with dated documents. A general wish to travel and a specific and imminent harm do not carry the same weight.

Where damage has occurred, a full remedy action may be assessed separately. Actual damage and causation must be established for a ticket price, lost wages or a lost contract opportunity. Hypothetical earnings are not counted as certain loss without documents. Annulment of an administrative act does not mean that all claims for compensation are automatically accepted; damage and the other conditions are examined separately. 7

Why does the common sphere of protection matter for an AYM application?

Citing only Article 23 of the Constitution may not be enough

Article 45 of Law No. 6216 takes as its basis the common protection between the Constitution and the ECHR and the additional protocols to which Türkiye is a party. Because Türkiye is not a party to Protocol No. 4, a complaint of freedom of travel alone may result in inadmissibility ratione materiae. This does not mean that Article 23 of the Constitution is unimportant or cannot be invoked before the ordinary courts. 2 8

For the AYM's examination of private and family life, strong personal, family or professional ties abroad and the manner in which they are affected must be shown. A spouse and children living abroad, ongoing work, a residence right, a concrete academic activity or a treatment relationship may carry weight in this assessment. The same result should not be expected from merely saying that a tourist trip is planned.

The difference between a violation and no violation in passport decisions

In Onur Can Taştan [GC], Application No. 2018/32475, October 27, 2021, the AYM assessed the applicant's professional ties and the duration of the passport block. Continuing the measure for a long period, without applicant-specific reasons being set out and where there was no investigation or court decision preventing departure from the country, violated the right to respect for private life. The decision shows the problem of applying an indefinite and uncertain block based solely on dismissal from public service. 3, §§ 63–80

In Yağmur Erşan [GC], Application No. 2018/36451, October 27, 2021, by contrast, the conclusion reached was that there was no violation. While identifying a problem with regard to the safeguards of ordinary times, the AYM assessed the concrete criminal investigation, the state-of-emergency conditions and the scope of the application relating to the relevant period within the framework of Article 15 of the Constitution. It is not correct to remove this particular context and produce the conclusion "if there is an investigation, a passport can be cancelled indefinitely." 9, §§ 63–79

The two decisions show that the same name of a measure does not produce the same result. Person-specific reasons, the period, the duration, ties abroad and the scope of the file are decisive. If the applicant does not report later developments, the examination may also be limited to the incomplete account. The new consequences of an ongoing ban should be updated with their dates and documents.

The Latife Akyüz and Hakkı Gök decisions

In Latife Akyüz, Application No. 2016/50822, September 7, 2021, an exit ban affecting professional activity and research opportunities was examined. What mattered was that requests for lifting the measure were rejected with repetitive abstract reasoning and that changed conditions were not assessed. The AYM held that the right to respect for private life had been violated. 10, §§ 54–59

In Hakkı Gök, Application No. 2017/33469, November 3, 2022, judicial control that continued for a long time was assessed together with life and family ties abroad. The temporariness of the measure, its effects that grow heavier as it lengthens, and the requirement of effective reasoning were emphasized. The conclusion reached was that the right to respect for private and family life had been violated. These decisions reveal the importance of presenting developments in the criminal file together with the concrete consequences in the person's life. 11

What documents are needed for an effective application?

Documents should not be attached detached from the account of events. For example, which provision of an employment contract in a foreign language creates a need to travel should be explained. Necessary translation and legibility should be ensured; irrelevant health data or third-party data should not be loaded into the file disproportionately. Which claim each document supports should be shown in one sentence.

Common mistakes in individual applications

Making the wrong act the subject of the action, confusing an administrative refusal with a judicial ban, failing to document the effect on private life and relying solely on the result of another decision are the basic mistakes. The claim of violation should first be raised in substance before the ordinary authorities; the answers of those authorities should be shown in the application form. The AYM should not be expected to issue a new passport regulation or to review the criminal file in general. 8

An AYM application is, as a rule, made within thirty days from learning of the final decision. Electronic application is possible through the UYAP Attorney Portal. A system draft should not be regarded as a completed application; the sending and attachment records should be verified. It should not be assumed that a later notification will in every case render the earlier actual learning ineffective. 8 12

An individual application does not lift the ban automatically. Requests for interim measures are subject to exceptional conditions; merely having a travel plan does not create an automatic right to an interim measure. The possibilities of a stay of execution or a modification of judicial control before the ordinary authority should be assessed within their own conditions. If a violation decision is given, redress such as retrial and compensation is determined according to the nature of the violation.

How are a temporary permit and an administrative action thought of together in an example file?

Let us imagine a person who works abroad and whose family lives there, and who is subject to an exit ban because of a criminal file in Türkiye. Suppose the same person's passport has also been cancelled by an administrative act. In this hypothetical case, winning the administrative action alone does not lift the ban imposed by the judge. Conversely, lifting the judicial control alone does not prove that the passport has been made usable. The decisions and records for the two acts must be followed separately.

In the judicial file, a letter from the employer requiring return by a certain date, the family's residence records and the history of attendance at hearings may be submitted. The request may be framed as the lifting of the whole ban, or a limited exemption option suited to the nature of the file may also be explained. In the administrative action, the statutory reason for the passport act and its relationship with current conditions are discussed. Having the same documents in both files may be useful; however, the reasoning and the request must be written in a way that fits the competence of the relevant authority. 6 7

In the example, the fact that the person has work abroad may be interpreted differently in the flight-risk discussion. While the applicant puts this forward as a private-life tie, the other side may regard the possibility of settling abroad as a risk. An effective petition does not ignore this counter-argument; it explains, through earlier returns, compliance with the proceedings and the proposed safeguards, why a lighter measure is sufficient. In this way, the fact that the same fact can be used in two directions is discussed from the outset.

After the decision is made, the implementation stage should also be monitored. If the entry of a decision lifting the ban into the relevant records is delayed, the copy of the decision and the notifications made are kept and its implementation is requested from the competent authority. The source of an obstacle learned at the last moment at the airport is, as far as possible, established through a written document. If compensation will later be sought, it must be shown that the trip was genuinely possible and necessary, that it did not take place because of the obstacle and that the expenses incurred cannot be recovered. A mere ticket price is not the final amount of damage that will be compensated in every case.

Representation, form of application and costs

In an administrative action, the defendant is determined by reference to the administrative authority that made the act; the official at the border gate is not in every case the owner of the passport refusal act. In judicial control, the investigation or prosecution file to which the decision belongs should be indicated. In an application made on behalf of a child or through a representative, the authority of representation is documented separately. For powers of attorney and documents issued abroad, the need for consular certification, approval and translation is checked according to the nature of the document; a single-form procedure should not be assumed for every foreign document.

An AYM individual application is prepared with the application form and the necessary attachments. The final decision, the learning record and the results of the ordinary applications should be presented in an orderly way; general references to long petitions in the attachments should not be made in place of the form. The application is subject to a fee; those without the means to pay may request legal aid if the conditions are met. Fees and expenses and the attorney's fee agreement are separate items. The amount on the date of application and the payment document should be checked; the previous year's tariff should not be used. Paying a fee or requesting legal aid does not, on its own, cure an incomplete form, an application out of time or an unexhausted route. 8

Conclusion

Effective legal recourse in disputes over residence and travel begins with correctly identifying the source of the obstacle. Different routes should be used for the administrative passport procedure and for judicial control; concrete effects on life, current justification and lighter-measure options should be shown. At the AYM stage, the common sphere of protection and the thirty-day period are particularly important. General explanations are not a substitute for an assessment made on the decisions and documents of the concrete file.

Frequently Asked Questions

If I have a passport, can I definitely leave the country?

No. Having a valid passport and having no judicial exit ban in force are different conditions. In addition, the entry conditions of the destination country are assessed separately.

Does lifting the ban automatically erase the passport block?

Not always. The lifting of the judicial decision and the updating of administrative records should be verified; whether another administrative act exists should be examined.

How many days is the objection period against an exit ban?

The general objection period under the CMK, unless there is a special regulation, is two weeks from learning of the decision. The date of the decision and the applicable transitional provisions should be checked file by file.

Can a temporary permit be requested for work or treatment?

If the conditions are met, a modification of the obligation or a request for exemption may be assessed. The date, purpose, necessity and return plan must be documented; there is no guarantee of acceptance.

Does bringing an administrative action stop the travel obstacle?

It does not stop it automatically. The request for a stay of execution and the two conditions in the statute are assessed separately.

Can one go directly to the AYM for freedom of travel?

A complaint of freedom of travel alone may raise a problem of the common sphere of protection. Where there is a concrete effect on private or family life, examination under the relevant right may be possible; ordinary remedies must also be exhausted.

Is every long-running ban automatically a violation?

No. The duration, current justification, the person's conduct, the need for the proceedings and the effects on life are assessed together. A lengthening duration increases the need for stronger and more current reasoning.

Does repeating the same application start all the periods again?

No. A repeated request does not automatically revive a period missed with respect to the earlier decision. A decision based on a new fact should be distinguished from the repetition of an old application.

Sources and legal bases

1. Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Articles 13, 16, 20, 23 and 148. Official text.

2. Council of Europe, Protocol No. 4, ETS No. 046, table of signatures and ratifications; Türkiye's ratification status, checked on October 13, 2026. Treaty record.

3. AYM, Onur Can Taştan [GC], Application No. 2018/32475, October 27, 2021, in particular §§ 47–51, 63–80. Official decision.

4. Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu). Official text.

5. Law No. 5682, Passport Law (Pasaport Kanunu). Official text.

6. Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), Articles 109–112 and 267–269. Official text.

7. Law No. 2577, Administrative Procedure Law (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), Articles 7, 10–13 and 27. Official text.

8. Law No. 6216, Articles 45–50. Official text.

9. AYM, Yağmur Erşan [GC], Application No. 2018/36451, October 27, 2021, in particular §§ 63–79. Official decision.

10. AYM, Latife Akyüz, Application No. 2016/50822, September 7, 2021, in particular §§ 54–59. Official decision.

11. AYM, Hakkı Gök, Application No. 2017/33469, November 3, 2022, in particular §§ 43–56. Official decision.

12. AYM, "Individual Applications Began to Be Accepted Through the UYAP Attorney Portal" (Bireysel Başvurular UYAP Avukat Portalı Üzerinden Alınmaya Başlandı), October 1, 2025. Official announcement.

13. AYM, E. 2024/112, K. 2024/160, September 24, 2024; Official Gazette November 21, 2024, No. 32729. Official decision.