Challenging a Deportation Order in Turkey: Seven Days, Court and Suspension

A deportation order (sınır dışı etme kararı) issued by a provincial governor’s office under Article 53 of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection is challenged by an action for annulment within seven days of service. The action is filed before the administrative court whose jurisdiction covers the place where that governor’s office is located. If the action is filed in time, the foreign national cannot be deported until the proceedings are concluded; this follows directly from the statute, and no separate stay-of-execution order is needed. The court decides within fifteen days of the file becoming complete, and its decision is final.

What Is a Deportation Order and Who Issues It?

A deportation order is an administrative act issued where a foreign national’s stay in Turkey is considered unacceptable on grounds listed in the statute, and it results in the person being sent out of the country. It is issued by provincial governors’ offices (valilik), either on the instruction of the Directorate General of Migration Management (now the Presidency of Migration Management) or ex officio (Article 53(1) of Law No. 6458). Because the power lies with the governor’s office, in practice the act is issued on its behalf by the Provincial Directorate of Migration Management (İl Göç İdaresi Müdürlüğü); the action is also brought against the governor’s office that issued the order.

The grounds for the order are listed in Article 54. Under that article, a deportation order is issued against: leaders, members or supporters of a terrorist organization or a profit-oriented criminal organization; persons who use untrue information or forged documents in entry, visa or residence procedures; persons who earn their living by illegitimate means; persons who pose a threat to public order, public security or public health; persons who overstay their visa or visa exemption by more than ten days, or whose visa is canceled; persons whose residence permit is canceled; persons who exceed the duration of their residence permit by more than ten days without an acceptable reason; persons found to be working without a work permit; persons who breach, or attempt to breach, the rules on legal entry or exit; persons who come to Turkey despite an entry ban; persons without a right to stay in Turkey whose international protection application has been rejected, found inadmissible, withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, who have been excluded from international protection, or whose status has ended or been revoked; and persons whose application to extend their residence permit is rejected and who do not leave within ten days. The list is set out in subparagraphs (a) to (k) of Article 54(1). Subparagraph (a) covers persons whose deportation is considered necessary under Article 59 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237, and subparagraph (k) covers persons considered to be linked to terrorist organizations designated by international institutions and organizations. Under Article 54(2), a deportation order may also be issued against international protection applicants or status holders who fall within subparagraphs (b), (d) and (k).

The situations that prevent an order from being issued are set out separately in Article 55. Even where a ground under Article 54 exists, no deportation order is issued against: persons for whom there are serious indications that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, or inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment in the country of removal; persons for whom travel is considered risky because of serious health problems, age or pregnancy; persons whose treatment for a life-threatening illness is ongoing and for whom no treatment is available in the country of removal; victims of human trafficking who benefit from the victim support process; and victims of psychological, physical or sexual violence, until their treatment is completed. This provision is one of the strongest arguments available in an action against a deportation order, because it is not a matter of the administration’s discretion: it is a prohibition on issuing the order. Article 55(2) requires these assessments to be made separately for each person and allows obligations, such as residing at a specified address, to be imposed on these persons. For protective measures available to foreign nationals who are victims of violence, see our article on protection and restraining orders under Law No. 6284 (in Turkish).

A deportation order is independent of other measures that may appear in the same file. When the order is served, a foreign national who is not represented by a lawyer, or their legal representative, must be informed of the consequences of the order, the remedies and the time limits (Article 53(2) of Law No. 6458). This information matters because it tells the person how they can seek redress. Article 40(2) of the Constitution requires the State, in its acts, to indicate the legal remedies and authorities available to the persons concerned and the time limits. However, the absence of this information from the served document does not mean that the time limit for bringing an action never starts to run. The Board of Unification of Decisions of the Council of State (Danıştay İçtihatları Birleştirme Kurulu) has held that, where an act notified in writing is subject to a special time limit but the notification does not state the time limit, the general time limit applies instead of the special one; before the administrative courts, that period is 60 days (decision of 15 March 2022, Case No. 2021/2, Decision No. 2022/1). Administrative courts and the administration are also bound by that decision (Article 40(4) of the Council of State Law No. 2575). No higher court decision applying the rule to a deportation order has been found, because the administrative court’s decision in these cases is final and the files do not, as a rule, reach the Council of State. Whether the protection against deportation is then extended to 60 days has not been settled by the courts either. To be sure of the statutory suspension, the action must therefore be filed within seven days of service or, where there was no service or the service is disputed, within seven days of the date on which the order became known. If an order was served without stating the time limit and seven days have passed, the route to court should not be treated as closed; the action should be filed without delay and at the latest within 60 days of service. Until it is filed, the order may be enforced. The failure to inform may also be raised as a separate ground of unlawfulness, but irregular service has consequences only when it is shown by concrete facts. The Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) did not find a violation in the dismissal, as out of time, of an action filed late against an order that had been served in the person’s own language, bore their signature and stated the seven-day period (Application No. 2021/30079, 18 December 2024, §§ 23–25). By contrast, it found a violation of the right to an effective remedy where the order was served on an illiterate applicant without an interpreter, without obtaining their signature and without any record that they had been informed (Application No. 2022/33712, 17 July 2025, §§ 25–26).

Deportation order: issued by the provincial governor’s office; challenged by an action for annulment before the administrative court; seven days from service; a timely action suspends deportation.

Administrative detention order: issued by the provincial governor’s office; challenged before the Criminal Judgeship of Peace (Sulh Ceza Hâkimliği); no separate time limit in the statute; the application does not suspend detention.

Entry ban: imposed by the Directorate General of Migration Management or a governor’s office; challenged by an action for annulment before the administrative court; sixty days under the general rule; the measure is not suspended automatically without a stay-of-execution order.

Invitation to leave Turkey: the period is stated in the deportation order; it is assessed together with the action for annulment of the order; no separate remedy is provided for the invitation to leave.

What Is the Prohibition of Refoulement?

The prohibition of refoulement (non-refoulement) means that a foreign national may not be sent to a place where they would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment, or where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

Article 4 of Law No. 6458 (unofficial translation):
“No one within the scope of this Law shall be sent to a place where they would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment, or where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

This prohibition is a separate principle that complements the cases in Article 55 in which no deportation order is issued, and it applies to any country of removal, not only the country of origin. Under Article 52, the person may be deported to the country of origin, a transit country or a third country. In the annulment case, the court therefore reviews not only whether a ground under Article 54 exists but also whether there is a real risk in the country of removal. Article 17 of the Constitution and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights support the same protection. The risk must be shown by concrete facts; an abstract allegation is not enough. The risk is assessed together with the prohibitions in Article 55.

How Long Is the Challenge Period and When Does It Start?

The period is seven days from service of the order. The rule is set out in Article 53(3) of Law No. 6458:

Article 53(3) of Law No. 6458 (unofficial translation):
“The foreign national, or their legal representative or lawyer, may apply to the administrative court against the deportation order within seven days of service of the order. The person who applies to the court shall also notify the authority that issued the deportation order of the application. In applications to the court, the file is deemed complete when the defense is submitted or the period for submitting the defense expires. Where service cannot be made at the address given by the claimant, the period provided in Article 26(3) of Law No. 2577 shall be applied as two months. Whether to hold a hearing is at the discretion of the court. Applications shall be concluded within fifteen days of the completion of the file or, where an interim decision or a hearing is required, of their completion. The decision of the court on this matter is final. Subject to the consent of the foreign national, the foreign national shall not be deported during the period for bringing an action or, where judicial remedies are pursued, until the proceedings are concluded.”

The seven-day period has been in force since 2019. The 2013 text provided for fifteen days; Article 75 of Law No. 7196, published in Official Gazette No. 30988 of 24 December 2019, reduced the period to seven days. Article 36 of Law No. 7533, published in Official Gazette No. 32738 of 30 November 2024, rewrote the paragraph: it kept the seven-day period and added the rules on completion of the file, the two-month period for reinstating a file removed from the docket when service at the claimant’s address fails and the court’s discretion to hold a hearing. Under provisional Article 3, added to Law No. 6458 by Article 38 of Law No. 7533, these amendments apply to actions filed after 30 November 2024. The sixty-day period belongs to the entry ban, a measure separate from the deportation order; the two periods must not be confused.

The period starts on the day after service (Article 8(1) of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577). For example, if an order is served on 3 November 2026, the period starts on 4 November and ends on 10 November. Holidays falling within the period are counted, but if the last day falls on a holiday, the period is extended to the end of the next working day (Article 8(2)). This calculation makes it essential to document the date of service; if that date is uncertain, the start of the period also becomes disputable. In a decision of 4 May 2023, the 13th Chamber of the Council of State stated that, for individual administrative acts that were not served, the date on which the act became known may be taken as the starting point, but only if it is proven that the act was learned with all its elements. That decision was upheld by majority by the Plenary Session of the Administrative Law Chambers of the Council of State (İdari Dava Daireleri Kurulu) in its decision of 4 December 2023, Case No. 2023/2454, Decision No. 2023/2956.

If the period (or, where the served document did not state the time limit, the 60-day general period described above) is missed, the action is dismissed as out of time, and the deportation order becomes final, meaning that it can no longer be challenged by an action before the courts. Writing to the administration, asking it to withdraw the order or making a new application therefore does not replace filing an action within the period. Whether an application to the administration stops the period under Article 11 of Law No. 2577 is assessed in the specific case; such an application does not relieve the person of the obligation to file an action within the period. Given how short the seven-day period is, obtaining the proof of service and filing the action in time come before the merits.

Which Court Hears the Case?

The action against a deportation order is filed before the administrative court (İdare Mahkemesi), as provided in Article 53(3) of Law No. 6458. The court with territorial jurisdiction is determined under Article 32(1) of Law No. 2577: subject to the rules on subject-matter jurisdiction, and unless a law or special law designates the court with territorial jurisdiction, it is the administrative court of the place where the administrative authority that issued the contested act is located.

Because the deportation order is issued by the provincial governor’s office, the court with territorial jurisdiction is the administrative court whose jurisdiction covers the place where that governor’s office is located. The 10th Chamber of the Council of State applied this rule to a deportation order in its decision of 6 March 2025 (Case No. 2025/682, Decision No. 2025/1436):

Decision of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State, 6 March 2025 (unofficial translation):
“In that case, under Article 32(1) of Law No. 2577, it is concluded that the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide the action for annulment of the contested deportation order, as of the date on which the action was filed, is the Erzurum Administrative Court, whose administrative jurisdiction covers the place where the Ağrı Governor’s Office that issued that act is located.”

The action is brought against the governor’s office that issued the order. Where there is more than one administrative court in the same place, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (Hâkimler ve Savcılar Kurulu) determines which court hears these cases (Article 101 of Law No. 6458). Under the rule on territorial jurisdiction, the province where the person is held in a removal center (geri gönderme merkezi) does not by itself determine the court; the test is the place of the authority that issued the act. The petition must therefore name the governor’s office, that is, the administration that issued the act, as the defendant.

A person held in a removal center in another province may submit the petition where they are, so as not to miss the seven-day period. For transmission to the court with territorial jurisdiction, the petition may be submitted to any administrative or tax court; where there is no administrative or tax court, to the Civil Court of First Instance (Asliye Hukuk Hâkimliği); and abroad, to a Turkish consulate (Article 4 of Law No. 2577). The action is deemed filed on the date on which the petition is entered in the register after the court fee and postal charge are collected (Article 6(1)). An action filed before an administrative court without territorial jurisdiction is dismissed on that ground, and the file is sent to the court with territorial jurisdiction (Article 15(1)(a)).

Each administrative act is in principle challenged in a separate action; acts that are materially or legally connected, or linked as cause and effect, may be challenged in a single petition (Article 5 of Law No. 2577). In its decision of 24 April 2025 (Case No. 2025/894, Decision No. 2025/2247), the 10th Chamber of the Council of State held that a deportation order and a regulatory act that the claimant argued was its basis cannot be challenged in a single petition. According to the Chamber, the Council of State hears the action for annulment of the regulatory act as a court of first instance, the administrative court hears the action against the deportation order, and the two actions follow different procedures: “it is not possible to bring an action against the acts in question by a single petition” (unofficial translation). The Chamber also stated that the deportation order had not been based on the contested regulatory acts, so there was no material or legal connection between the two acts. For the deportation order, administrative detention and the entry ban, preparing a separate petition for each act is the safest course, because the time limits and the authorities differ.

Does Filing a Case Stop Deportation?

Yes. The last sentence of Article 53(3) of Law No. 6458 provides that, subject to the foreign national’s consent, the foreign national is not deported during the period for bringing an action or, if judicial remedies are pursued, until the proceedings are concluded. This is not a consequence that depends on the administration’s discretion or on a separate court decision; it is a suspensive effect arising from the statute.

A foreign national who files in time therefore does not need a separate stay-of-execution order (yürütmeyi durdurma kararı). Stay of execution under Article 27 of Law No. 2577 is a general protection and, as a rule, is examined after the administration’s defense has been received; in a deportation case, the protection arises directly from the statute, so a separate request for a stay of execution does not need to be granted. In practice, a request for a stay of execution may also be included in the petition, but rejection of that request does not eliminate the statutory suspensive effect.

The suspensive effect covers two stages. The first is the seven-day period for bringing an action, which runs from service; the foreign national cannot be deported during this period either. The second is the time from the filing of the action until the proceedings are concluded. These two stages mean that the person is also protected during the short period in which they are considering whether to file an action.

The protection does not apply where the foreign national consents: the statute reserves the foreign national’s consent. In situations such as voluntary return, the person may leave the country of their own will, but that consent must be conscious and informed. A statement obtained through pressure or misleading information, or without explaining its legal consequences, does not set aside the protection provided by the statute.

Judicial review of deportation did not provide the same protection, particularly while the exception introduced by Decree-Law No. 676 was in force. In its decision of 3 December 2020 (Application No. 2017/29420), the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to an effective remedy in conjunction with the prohibition of ill-treatment, because the applicant had been deported while the proceedings were pending, even though they had brought an action against the deportation order and requested a stay of execution. The decision shows that enforcing a deportation order while the proceedings are pending leads to a loss of rights. It concerns the period in which Decree-Law No. 676 had abolished the automatic suspension for subparagraphs (b), (d) and (k) of Article 54; that exception was repealed by Law No. 7196. It is therefore important, once the action is filed, to notify the issuing authority of the application and to correspond with the administration so that the order is not enforced. A person deported while the action is pending should not wait for the administrative court’s decision before applying to the Constitutional Court: in that situation, the thirty-day period for an individual application runs, as a rule, from the date on which the person’s exit from the country was effected (Constitutional Court, Application No. 2024/29600, 26 February 2025, § 22).

Why Is It Important to Notify the Issuing Authority of the Application?

Article 53(3) of Law No. 6458 requires a person who applies to the court also to notify the authority that issued the deportation order of the application. This is a step separate from filing the petition with the court. The court serves the petition on the defendant administration (Article 16(1) of Law No. 2577); the statute nevertheless requires the application to be notified separately to the authority that issued the order.

The notification should be made in writing and its date should be documented. A letter addressed to the governor’s office that issued the order, or to its Provincial Directorate of Migration Management, should state the court in which and the date on which the action was filed, as well as the date and number of the contested order; a copy of the letter should also be placed on file. If the person is held in a removal center, the notification should also be sent separately to the center’s management.

If the notification is not made, the administration may continue to enforce the order on the ground that it is unaware of the action. Although the statutory protection continues, a practical risk of enforcement arises. The notification should therefore be planned as the last of the steps to be taken within the period for bringing the action.

How Long Does the Court Take and Is the Decision Final?

As a rule, the action is decided after the file is complete; decisions rejecting the action at the initial examination stage are an exception (Articles 14 and 15 of Law No. 2577). Under Article 53(3) of Law No. 6458, the file is deemed complete (tekemmül) when the defense is submitted or the period for submitting it expires; the application is concluded within fifteen days of the completion of the file or, where an interim decision or a hearing is required, of their completion. The administration’s defense period is thirty days under Article 16 of Law No. 2577; for a justified reason, it may be extended once by up to thirty days (Article 16(3)).

Whether to hold a hearing is at the court’s discretion. In a deportation case, therefore, a hearing is not a right that a party obtains simply by requesting it; the court may decide the case on the file without a hearing.

The court’s decision in this case is final. In its decision of 18 April 2024 (Case No. 2024/1989, Decision No. 2024/1450), the 10th Chamber of the Council of State stated that the administrative court’s decision on a deportation order is final; that an appeal (istinaf) against it therefore cannot be examined; and that the decision of the Regional Administrative Court (Bölge İdare Mahkemesi) cannot be appealed on points of law (temyiz):

Decision of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State, 18 April 2024 (unofficial translation):
“In that case, since the decision given by the ... Administrative Court is final, there is no legal possibility of examining the appeal on points of law lodged against the decision of the Regional Administrative Court rejecting, without examination, the appeal against that decision.”

The 10th Chamber of the Council of State has given decisions by majority, pointing in different directions, on whether dismissals on procedural grounds, such as dismissal as out of time, are also final. In its decision of 20 December 2023 (Case No. 2023/6543, Decision No. 2023/8591), the Chamber upheld a regional administrative court decision that had rejected without examination an appeal (istinaf) against a dismissal as out of time and had also rejected the request for an appeal on points of law on the ground of finality; the view that procedural decisions are not final remained in a dissenting opinion. In its decision of 20 February 2024 (Case No. 2024/693, Decision No. 2024/236), by contrast, the Chamber examined whether an appeal (istinaf) against a dismissal as out of time had been lodged in time; this time, the view that the administrative court’s decision is final remained in a dissenting opinion. An individual application to the Constitutional Court remains available; it must be made within thirty days of learning of the final decision (Article 47(5) of Law No. 6216, which governs proceedings before the Constitutional Court). The Constitutional Court treats an administrative court decision dismissing an action as out of time as the final decision and calculates the application period from the date on which that decision became known (Application No. 2022/33712, § 13; Application No. 2021/30079, § 11). Therefore, after a dismissal on procedural grounds, an application to the Constitutional Court should also be made within thirty days of service of the decision, even if an appeal (istinaf) is lodged. For a person deported while the action is pending, however, the thirty-day period runs, as a rule, from the date on which the person’s exit from the country was effected; the administrative court’s decision is not awaited. The Constitutional Court declared inadmissible as out of time the application of an applicant who knew that they had been deported but waited for the administrative court’s final decision; referring to its earlier decision, it stated that such a complaint must, as a rule, be raised within the application period running from the date on which the exit from the country was effected (Application No. 2024/29600, §§ 22–23). A relative or lawyer who learns of the exit later must also calculate the period from that date. An individual application does not by itself suspend deportation; the Constitutional Court may order an interim measure if the conditions are met. The Constitutional Court requires an effective remedy against deportation to exist and to work in practice. An application to the European Court of Human Rights becomes relevant once domestic remedies have been exhausted; it must be made within four months of their exhaustion, and an interim measure may be requested under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

If service cannot be made at the address given in the petition, the file is removed from the docket. In that case, a two-month period applies instead of the one-year period in Article 26(3) of Law No. 2577 (Article 53(3) of Law No. 6458). This period starts on the date on which the file is removed from the docket. If no new address is provided within two months, the court rules that the action is deemed not to have been filed. The address in the petition must therefore be stated clearly and be suitable for service, and any change must be notified to the court.

What Should the Petition Contain?

The action is brought by a signed petition addressed to the president of the court (Article 3(1) of Law No. 2577). The petition states the names, surnames and addresses of the parties and of any representatives; the subject matter and grounds of the action and the evidence relied on; and the date of written notification of the contested act (Article 3(2)). The originals or copies of the contested order and of the supporting documents are attached to the petition (Article 3(3)).

In practice, the following documents are attached to the petition:

• a copy of the deportation order;
• the proof of service of the order or a document showing the date of service;
• an identity document or a copy of the passport;
• a power of attorney if the action is filed through a lawyer;
• other documents supporting the action, such as a residence permit, work permit, medical report or documents showing family ties.

A power of attorney issued abroad is submitted with an apostille or consular legalization and a sworn translation. Stating the date of service clearly in the petition is important for the review of the time limit, because that date is the starting point of the period for bringing the action.

A fixed court fee and a postal charge are collected when the action is filed (Article 6 of Law No. 2577). If the payment is incomplete, the claimant is asked to complete it within thirty days; if it is not completed despite service of that notice, the notice is served once more, and if that period also expires, the court rules that the action is deemed not to have been filed (Article 6(4)). Persons unable to pay may request legal aid; under Article 31 of Law No. 2577, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to legal aid. The statute additionally makes legal aid for foreign nationals subject to a reciprocity condition (Article 334(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100). However, holders of international protection status and holders of a Stateless Person Identification Document are exempt from this condition (Article 88(1) and Article 51(1)(c) of Law No. 6458). In a decision concerning an action for compensation, the Plenary of the Constitutional Court also held that applying the reciprocity condition categorically, without regard to the person’s status and ability to pay, violated the right of access to a court; because the violation stemmed from the law itself, it notified the Office of the Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (Application No. 2019/26339, 17 May 2023). A person who applies for judicial review of an administrative detention order and cannot afford a lawyer’s fee is provided with legal services on request under Article 57(7) of Law No. 6458.

On What Grounds Can the Order Be Annulled?

Because a deportation order is an administrative act, the court reviews its legality in terms of competence, form, grounds, subject matter and purpose. The grounds for annulment most often seen in practice are the following.

a) Competence

The order must be issued by the provincial governor’s office under Article 53. An order issued by an authority without competence is a ground for annulment.

b) Form

The order must be reasoned and duly served. A foreign national who is not represented by a lawyer must be informed of the consequences of the order, the remedies and the time limits (Article 53(2)). Failure to give this information is unlawful to the extent that it affects the right of defense.

c) Grounds

The facts on which the order is based must fall within one of the grounds listed in Article 54. For example, Article 54(1)(e) cannot be applied to a person who overstayed a visa or visa exemption by only a few days; that subparagraph requires an overstay of more than ten days or the cancellation of the visa. Subparagraph (g) cannot be applied to a person who has an acceptable reason, even if their residence permit has expired.

d) Prohibitions in Article 55

If one of the situations that bar an order exists, no order may be issued even where a ground under Article 54 is present. For a person at risk of ill-treatment in their country, this is required both by national law and by Article 17 of the Constitution.

e) Disproportionate Exercise of Discretion

Where the order relies on public order or public security, the administration has discretion, but it must exercise that discretion proportionately. Factors such as established family life, long residence, the best interests of the child and health should be addressed in the order. Failing to consider them at all results in inadequate reasoning.

f) Consequences of Annulment

An annulment decision establishes that the deportation order was unlawful; it does not by itself grant the foreign national a residence permit. A separate application for a residence permit is required. Because the entry ban is a separate act, it remains in force unless it is annulled or lifted by the administration. The administration may issue a new act after the annulment, but the new act is also subject to review of its legality.

The petition must connect these grounds to the facts of the case. It is not enough to say that “the order is unlawful”; the petition should show, with documents, which fact does not fall within which subparagraph of Article 54, which bar in Article 55 applies, or which error of discretion was made. All claims and evidence, including the risk of ill-treatment, family life, health and the bars in Article 55, must be raised in the petition to the administrative court; because the court’s decision is final, that petition is the only opportunity. The Constitutional Court declared inadmissible, for non-exhaustion of remedies, the family-life complaint of an applicant who had raised only the risk of ill-treatment before the administrative court and had not complained about family life there (Application No. 2022/33712, §§ 31–33).

What If the Person Is in Administrative Detention?

Administrative detention (idari gözetim) is a measure separate from the deportation order. Under Article 57 of Law No. 6458, the provincial governor’s office orders administrative detention, or imposes alternatives to administrative detention under Article 57/A, in respect of persons subject to a deportation order who pose a risk of absconding or disappearing, who breached entry or exit rules, who used forged or unfounded documents, who did not leave within the period granted for exit, or who pose a threat to public order, public security or public health (Article 57(2)). Where the law enforcement authorities apprehend a foreign national, the assessment of whether to issue a deportation order and the decision on it may not take longer than forty-eight hours (Article 57(1)). A foreign national placed in administrative detention is taken to a removal center within forty-eight hours by the law enforcement unit that apprehended them (Article 57(2)); the detention order is served together with its reasons (Article 57(5)).

Detention in removal centers may not exceed six months; if deportation cannot be completed because the person does not cooperate or does not provide accurate information or documents about their country, this period may be extended by up to six more months (Article 57(3)). The governor’s office reviews every month whether continued detention is necessary; where needed, it does not wait for the thirty-day period to expire (Article 57(4)).

The remedy against the detention order is an application to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace. The statute provides that the application does not suspend administrative detention, that the criminal judge of peace concludes the examination within five days and that the decision is final (Article 57(6)):

Article 57(6) of Law No. 6458 (unofficial translation):
“The person placed in administrative detention, or their legal representative or lawyer, may apply to the criminal judge of peace against the administrative detention order. The application shall not suspend administrative detention. Where the petition is submitted to the administration, it shall be forwarded immediately to the competent criminal judge of peace. The criminal judge of peace shall conclude the examination within five days. The decision of the criminal judge of peace is final. The person placed in administrative detention, or their legal representative or lawyer, may apply again to the criminal judge of peace, claiming that the conditions for administrative detention no longer exist or have changed.”

The statute sets no separate time limit for this application; the person may apply while in detention and may apply again if the conditions change. The application against the detention order is independent of the action against the deportation order before the administrative court; one does not replace the other. Instead of administrative detention, alternative obligations may also be imposed under Article 57/A: residence at a specified address, reporting, family-based return, return counseling, voluntary work in public-benefit services, the provision of security and electronic monitoring. These obligations may not last longer than twenty-four months. For persons who fall within Article 57(2) but are not placed in administrative detention, imposing one or more of these obligations is mandatory. An electronic monitoring decision may be challenged before the criminal judge of peace; the application does not suspend the obligation, and the judge gives a final decision within five days. Failure to comply with the obligations may lead to administrative detention.

A foreign national held in a removal center is given access to relatives, a notary, a legal representative and a lawyer, the opportunity to meet them, and access to telephone services (Article 59(1)(b)). A person who applies for judicial review of an administrative detention order and cannot afford a lawyer’s fee is provided with legal services on request under the Attorneyship Law No. 1136 (Article 57(7)).

What Can Be Done for a Relative Held in a Removal Center?

A relative of the person subject to the order can also follow the deportation process. A relative cannot bring the action in their own name; the action is brought by the foreign national, their legal representative or their lawyer (Article 53(3) of Law No. 6458). A relative can manage the process only through a lawyer holding a power of attorney or in the capacity of legal representative. The steps are as follows:

1. Obtain the order and the proof of service. The date and number of the order and the date of service determine the start of the seven-day period. If a copy of the order is not provided, request it in writing.
2. Note the date of service. The period starts on the day after service. If the last day falls on a holiday, the period is extended to the end of the next working day.
3. Arrange representation by a lawyer. If the power of attorney is to be issued abroad, an apostille or consular legalization and a sworn translation are required. Persons in the center have the right of access to a lawyer (Article 59(1)(b)).
4. File the action before the administrative court in time. Attach the order and the proof of service to the petition; do not miss the time limit. For transmission to the court with territorial jurisdiction, the petition may also be submitted to the administrative court where the person is, to the Civil Court of First Instance where there is no administrative court, or abroad to a Turkish consulate; the action is deemed filed on the date of registration (Articles 4 and 6 of Law No. 2577).
5. Notify the issuing authority. Send a written notification to the governor’s office or the Provincial Directorate of Migration Management and keep a copy.
6. Apply separately against administrative detention. An application to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace is separate from the deportation action and does not by itself suspend detention.
7. Follow the decision. The decision on the merits is final; the address given for service must remain valid. If the address changes, notify the new address to the court immediately; otherwise, documents served at the old address are deemed to have been served (Article 35 of the Notification Law No. 7201). If service cannot be made at the address given, the file is removed from the docket; if no new address is provided within two months, the court rules that the action is deemed not to have been filed (Article 53(3) of Law No. 6458; Article 26(3) of Law No. 2577).

How Does a Deportation Order Differ from an Entry Ban, an Invitation to Leave and Refusal of Entry?

Three measures are often confused with a deportation order. Their time limits, authorities and consequences differ.

Entry ban. A foreign national deported from Turkey is banned from entering the country by the Directorate General of Migration Management or by governors’ offices (Article 9(2) of Law No. 6458). The ban may last at most five years; where there is a serious threat to public order or public security, this period may be extended by up to ten more years (Article 9(3)). The statute does not recognize an “indefinite ban”. For persons whose visa or residence permit has expired and who applied to the governor’s office to leave before this was detected, the authorities may decide not to impose an entry ban if the administrative fines have been paid and the breach periods have not been exceeded (Article 9(4)). The authorities may also decide not to impose an entry ban on persons who were invited to leave and left within the period granted (Article 9(5)). The Directorate General of Migration Management may lift the entry ban or, while the ban remains in place, allow entry for a specific period (Article 9(6)). The entry ban is served, and the service document also states how the foreign national can exercise the right to object to it (Article 10). Because the entry ban is a separate act, its annulment must be sought in a separate action; the time limit is sixty days under the general rule. Even after the ban expires, the foreign national may be refused entry until the costs of deportation have been reimbursed (Article 60(3)(ç)); entry to the country may also be made subject to prior authorization on grounds of public order, public security or public health, or because of administrative fines and public receivables (Article 9(7)).

Invitation to leave Turkey. Persons subject to a deportation order are given, provided it is stated in the order, a period of not less than fifteen and up to thirty days to leave the country (Article 56(1)). This period is not granted to persons who pose a risk of absconding or disappearing, who breached legal entry or exit rules, who used forged documents, who attempted to obtain a residence permit with unfounded documents or are found to have obtained one, or who pose a threat to public order, public security or public health. The Exit Permit Document issued to a person granted the period is not subject to any fee; obligations relating to visa and residence fees and the related penalties remain (Article 56(2)). A foreign national invited to leave cannot apply for a residence permit or a work permit during the period granted; if they do not leave within that period without an acceptable excuse, the governor’s office orders administrative detention (Article 58(2) and (3) of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection; Article 57(2) of the Law).

Refusal of entry at the border. Persons who are not allowed to enter Turkey and are treated as inadmissible passengers are turned back at the border gate (Article 7). This measure differs from the deportation of a foreign national who is already in the country: the person has not yet entered, and the measure is taken at the border gate. The measure is served together with information on how to exercise the right to object to it, and the person waits in the area designated for them at the border gate until the procedures are completed (Article 7(2) and (3)). The seven-day period and the statutory suspension that apply to a deportation order (Article 53(3)) are not provided for this measure; its annulment is sought in an action filed within the general sixty-day period in Article 7 of Law No. 2577. A person who faces a risk of persecution or ill-treatment in the place to which they would be sent may apply for international protection to the law enforcement unit at the border gate; the application is reported to the governor’s office immediately (Article 65(2)).

Frequently Asked Questions

How long do I have to challenge a deportation order? Seven days. The period runs from service of the order and starts on the day after service (Article 53(3) of Law No. 6458; Article 8 of Law No. 2577). Law No. 7196 reduced the period from fifteen to seven days in 2019; Law No. 7533 rewrote the paragraph on 30 November 2024 and kept the seven-day period.

Does filing a case automatically stop deportation? Yes. If the action is filed in time, the foreign national cannot be deported until the proceedings are concluded. This follows from the statute; no separate stay-of-execution order is required (Article 53(3)).

Which court hears the case? The administrative court whose jurisdiction covers the place where the governor’s office that issued the order is located. Under Article 32(1) of Law No. 2577, territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place where the authority that issued the act is located. To avoid missing the time limit, the petition may also be submitted, for transmission to the court with territorial jurisdiction, to the administrative court where the person is or, if there is none, to the Civil Court of First Instance (Article 4 of Law No. 2577).

Who is the defendant? The governor’s office that issued the order. Although the act is issued on behalf of the governor’s office by the Provincial Directorate of Migration Management, the defendant is the governor’s office, as the administrative authority that issued the order.

Can the deportation order and the entry ban be challenged in the same action? As a rule, a separate action is filed for each act; acts that are materially or legally connected may also be challenged in a single petition (Article 5 of Law No. 2577). The 10th Chamber of the Council of State has held that a deportation order and a regulatory act that the claimant argued was its basis cannot be challenged in a single petition. Its reasons were that the two actions have different first-instance courts and different procedures, and that there was no connection between the two acts. For an entry ban, a claim that the acts are connected is assessed in the specific case; because the time limits differ, a separate petition is the safest course.

How long does the court take? Fifteen days from the completion of the file. The file is deemed complete when the defense is submitted or the defense period expires. Whether to hold a hearing is at the court’s discretion.

Is the decision final? Can it be appealed? Under Article 53(3) of Law No. 6458, the decision in this case is final; in the practice of the Council of State, appeal (istinaf) and appeal on points of law (temyiz) are not available. The 10th Chamber of the Council of State has given decisions with dissenting opinions, pointing in different directions, on whether dismissals on procedural grounds, such as dismissal as out of time, are final; the Constitutional Court, however, treats these decisions as final decisions too. After a dismissal on procedural grounds, an individual application should therefore also be made to the Constitutional Court within thirty days of service of the decision.

What if I am in administrative detention? Apply separately to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace. This application does not by itself suspend detention; the judge gives a final decision within five days (Article 57(6)). A new application may be made if the conditions of detention change.

Can a relative in a removal center see a lawyer? Yes. The center provides access to relatives, a notary, a legal representative and a lawyer, the opportunity to meet them, and access to telephone services (Article 59(1)(b)). A person who applies for judicial review of an administrative detention order and cannot afford a lawyer’s fee is provided with legal services on request (Article 57(7)).

Can an entry ban be indefinite? No. An entry ban may last at most five years; in cases of serious threat, it may be extended by up to ten more years. The statute does not provide for an indefinite ban (Article 9(3)). However, even after the ban ends, entry may be refused until the costs of deportation are reimbursed, and entry may be made subject to prior authorization (Article 60(3)(ç); Article 9(7)).

What if the order was never served? As a rule, the period starts to run with service. Where there was no service, however, the Council of State may take the date on which the act became known as the start of the period, provided that it is proven that the act was learned with all its elements. The fact that the served document does not state the time limit also does not mean that the period never runs; under the decision of the Board of Unification of Decisions of the Council of State, the 60-day general period before the administrative court should then apply. However, no higher court decision applying the rule to a deportation order has been found, and it is not settled whether the protection against deportation is extended to 60 days. A copy of the order should therefore be requested, the date of service documented, and the action filed within seven days of service or, where there was no service, of the date on which the order became known. If the time limit was not stated and seven days have passed, the action should still be filed without delay and at the latest within 60 days.