Citizenship by Investment Withdrawn: Council of State Ruling 2026/361

Turkish citizenship through real estate investment is, for foreign investors, often a multi-stage process involving an intermediary, a contractor and a series of bank documents. The investor pays the price, a title deed conformity certificate is issued, and citizenship is acquired by a Presidential decision. But what happens if, months later, it emerges that the foreign currency purchase documents underlying the investment were drawn up contrary to the facts? Is acquired citizenship protected, or does it fall away retroactively?

In its decision of 05.02.2026 (Docket No. E.2024/405, Decision No. K.2026/361), the Tenth Chamber of the Council of State found lawful the withdrawal, under Article 40 of the Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901, of the citizenship of an investor whose title deed conformity certificate had been cancelled after the foreign currency purchase documents were found to have been drawn up contrary to the facts, and unanimously dismissed the case.

🗓️ From Application to Withdrawal: Timeline

The process that can be traced from the text of the decision is as follows:

Because annulment actions against Presidential decisions are heard by the Council of State at first instance, the dispute came directly before the Tenth Chamber.

🗣️ The Investor's Objections and the Administration's Defence

The claimant stated that he had agreed with a contractor on carrying out the procedures needed for citizenship by investment and had handed over USD 250,000. He argued that the authority that examined the application had found no deficiency, that there was no ground for withdrawing citizenship, that an acquired right had arisen, and that the act was unlawful as regards its cause element.

The defendant administrations argued that the conformity certificate had been cancelled because the foreign currency purchase documents were drawn up contrary to the facts, that Turkish citizenship can only be acquired by meeting the conditions required by the Law, and that citizenship rules are a consequence of the State's sovereign power. The Council of State's reporting judge and the Council of State prosecutor also gave opinions in favour of dismissing the case.

🧩 What Does "Before the Legal Conditions Were Met" Mean?

Under Article 40 of Law No. 5901, decisions on the acquisition or loss of Turkish citizenship are withdrawn if it is later understood that they were given before the legal conditions were met or in duplicate. Article 66 of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Turkish Citizenship Law provides that a withdrawn decision becomes void from the date of the original decision.

The Chamber set out an important criterion that limits this concept:

This criterion shows that the power of withdrawal is not unlimited; but where the investment condition was not met from the start, it can be exercised however far back the date lies.

🏛️ The Chamber's Assessment and Ruling

The Chamber recalled that Article 12(1)(b) of Law No. 5901 refers to Article 31(1)(j) of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection No. 6458. Under that provision, a short-term residence permit may be granted to foreigners who do not work in Türkiye but will make an investment of a scope and amount to be determined by the President. The scope and amount of the investment are regulated by Article 20 of the Regulation, and the details of investment through real estate by circulars of the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre. According to the Regulation provision quoted in the prosecutor's opinion, this route requires purchasing real estate worth at least USD 250,000 or the equivalent in foreign currency, with an annotation on the title deed that it will not be sold for three years.

According to the Chamber, the precondition for acquiring citizenship by this route is that an investment that is genuine and lawful has been made in the amounts and conditions set by the legislation. In this case, although a conformity certificate had been issued, it was later found that the foreign currency purchase documents underlying the investment had been drawn up contrary to the facts, and the certificate was cancelled. This rests on a factual circumstance that existed before the citizenship decision.

As a result, the Chamber stated that the claimant had not met the precondition for acquiring citizenship by investment and that the withdrawal decision was not unlawful; it dismissed the case, left the litigation costs with the claimant and awarded lawyer's fees in favour of the defendant administrations. The decision was given unanimously on 05.02.2026; an appeal to the Council of State Plenary Session of Administrative Chambers was left open within thirty days of notification.

📑 The Cancellation of the Conformity Certificate That Was Not Challenged

The decision has a procedurally notable detail: the Chamber specifically noted that it was undisputed that the real estate investment determination (title deed conformity) certificate had been cancelled by the Land Registry and Cadastre Regional Directorate and that the claimant had not brought an action against this act.

The withdrawal of citizenship is a consequential act tied to the cancellation of the conformity certificate. When the cancellation of the certificate is not taken to judicial review, the discussion in the withdrawal case of whether the foreign currency purchase documents were contrary to the facts remains limited. In this case the claimant's argument that "I handed USD 250,000 to the contractor" was not seen as affecting the outcome in view of the cancellation of the conformity certificate.

🧭 Risk Map from the Investor's Perspective

The decision shows that in citizenship-by-investment processes the risk is not limited to the application stage:

• Document chain: The foreign currency purchase documents are the basis of the conformity certificate and therefore of the citizenship decision; if one link in this chain proves contrary to the facts, all later acts may be affected.
• Retroactive effect: Under Article 66 of the Regulation, a withdrawn decision becomes void from the date of the original decision.
• Acquired-right defence: Where the legal conditions were not met at the outset, the fact that the administration found no deficiency in its earlier review was not accepted as an acquired right in this decision.
• Intermediary relationship: The payment relationship between the investor and the contractor or intermediary was not made the subject of the citizenship dispute in the administrative court; claims arising from that relationship are the subject of separate legal processes.

The criminal-law dimension of the same field, namely the treatment as fraud of taking money from investors with a promise of citizenship, is examined in the article in the series on a promise of citizenship in return for investmentTR. Another decision concerning unauthorised payment and money transfer activities is discussed in the article on unauthorised payment institution activityTR.

❔ Common Questions

For detailed information and legal support, you can contact Savun Law & Consultancy. Contact details are available on the contact page, and other articles in the series in the Precedent DecisionsTR archive.