Entry Ban and Family Life: Constitutional Court 2021/14332

A foreigner who has lived in Türkiye on a work permit for almost five years goes to a village just across the border to see his family. On the way back, at the Pazarkule Land Border Gate, he is told that he cannot enter the country because of a record with the code "G-82". A few months later he marries his fiancée, a Turkish citizen, but because the entry ban continues, the couple cannot be together with his wife's family in Türkiye. The administrative court annuls the ban, while the regional administrative court dismisses the case, citing "reports of the security units". The question answered by the Constitutional Court is this: can an entry ban based on an intelligence letter be accepted as lawful without discussing its effect on family life?

By its judgment of 28 January 2026, application No. 2021/14332, the First Section of the Constitutional Court decided by a majority that the right to respect for family life, guaranteed by Article 20 of the Constitution, had been violated, and sent the case back to the administrative courts for a retrial.

🛂 The ban learned about at the border gate

According to the facts set out in the judgment, the applicant is a citizen of Greece who belongs to the Turkish minority of Western Thrace, and before the entry ban was imposed he had worked in Türkiye under a work permit for about five years. In March 2018 he went to a village on the Greek side to visit his family, and on 13 March 2018, when he wanted to return through the Pazarkule Land Border Gate, he was not allowed to enter because of the G-82 restriction code.

On 22 October 2018 the applicant married his fiancée, a Turkish citizen, in an official ceremony in Greece. In his statements to the Constitutional Court he claimed that, because of the ban, he had to leave his job in Türkiye without receiving his severance payments, that they could not register the marriage in Türkiye, and that they could not see the family of his wife, who lives in Türkiye. The applicant also stated that the ban was first imposed for five years and then extended for a further five years.

The record is based on a confidential letter dated 12 December 2017 from the Presidency of the National Intelligence Organisation. Throughout the judgment, the content of this letter is the axis of the debate.

⚖️ Annulment and dismissal: two different administrative court decisions

Two judicial bodies examining the same confidential letter reached different results. The first-instance court found no concrete finding of activity in the content of the letter; the appeal chamber considered the existence of the letter sufficient. The Constitutional Court's review focused precisely on how this difference was reflected in the reasoning.

💍 As of which date was family life assessed?

The Constitutional Court recalled that, in applications concerning deportation or an entry ban, it must first be shown whether family life existed in the country on the date the act was carried out. Family life under Article 20 of the Constitution covers unions in which existing, real, de facto close and personal ties have been formed.

In this case the order of events is disputed: the entry ban was applied on 13 March 2018, while the marriage took place on 22 October 2018. The majority stated that, as of 25 July 2019, the date on which the action was brought in the administrative courts, a family life formed with a Turkish citizen clearly existed, and concluded that the ban amounted to an interference with this family life.

It was accepted that the interference was based on the provisions of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection No. 6458, that it met the requirement of lawfulness, and that it had a legitimate aim, namely protecting national security. The decisive point is whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society.

🔐 The confidential letter, concrete information and the duty to give reasons

The Court summarised the criteria set out in its earlier judgments as follows: the State's power to control the entry of foreigners derives from sovereignty, and sanctions may be applied to foreigners found to be dangerous in terms of public order and national security. However, if the foreigner has strong family ties in the country, a fair balance must be struck between family life and the public interest. In this framework:

1. Public authorities must present to the judicial bodies sufficient and serious information showing that the person engaged in activities that would endanger national security.
2. Judicial bodies must examine the grounds put forward and show in their decisions why the statements were accepted or rejected.

In this case the Constitutional Court found that the regional administrative court's decision contained no assessment at all of the scope of the applicant's family life or of his claims about family life. No further examination was made of the suspicion against him, and whether sufficient and serious information existed was not discussed. Despite the first-instance court's finding that there was "no concrete finding", the appeal decision was content to say that the reports of the security units had been taken into account.

For this reason the Court held that the reasons in the appeal decision were not relevant and sufficient in the context of the right to respect for family life, and that no balance had been struck between the public interest and the applicant's right. The judgment does not say that the entry ban itself is unlawful; the shortcoming lies in the depth of judicial review. For another Constitutional Court judgment on procedural safeguards in the removal of foreigners, see the article on risk of ill-treatment and procedural safeguards in deportation on this site.

🗣️ The dissent: who bore the burden of substantiation?

The judgment appears to have been decided by a majority on both admissibility and merits. The dissenting opinion departs from the majority on three points:

The dissent also noted that the population registry extract of the applicant's wife shows that the marriage was entered in the Turkish records.

📜 Article 9 of Law No. 6458 and the time limit

Under the first paragraph of Article 9 of Law No. 6458, the Directorate General (as the Law's text puts it) may, where necessary after obtaining the views of the relevant public institutions, ban the entry of foreigners whose entry into Türkiye is considered undesirable in terms of public order, public security or public health. The third paragraph sets the duration of an entry ban at five years at most; however, where there is a serious threat to public order or public security, this period may be extended by the Directorate General by up to ten more years.

The sixth paragraph provides that the Directorate General may lift the entry ban or, with the ban kept in place, permit the foreigner to enter Türkiye for a specific period. The applicant's description of "five years plus five years" is consistent with the extension possibility in the third paragraph. The Constitutional Court's judgment, however, does not address the duration of the ban; it addresses whether family life was taken into account in the judicial review of the extension and of the information on which the ban rests.

🔁 What happens after the violation judgment?

The Constitutional Court stated that there was a legal interest in, and a necessity for, a retrial to remove the consequences of the violation, and ordered a copy of the judgment to be sent to the Ankara 1st Administrative Court for forwarding to the 10th Administrative Chamber of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court. Under Article 50 of Law No. 6216, the authority conducting the retrial is obliged to carry out an examination in line with the principles and reasons set out in the violation judgment.

The Court also expressly stressed that no position on the outcome of the case should be inferred from the violation judgment: the assessment of evidence in the retrial belongs to the courts concerned. Because the applicant requested only a finding of violation and a retrial, no compensation was awarded; it was decided that legal costs of TL 40,487.60, made up of a court fee of TL 487.60 and a legal representation fee of TL 40,000, be paid to the applicant.

The practical importance of the judgment is this: in entry ban cases based on a letter of an intelligence nature, it is not enough, in the Constitutional Court's view, for the administrative court to refer merely to the existence of the report. Where a family tie with Türkiye is put forward by the foreigner, the scope of that tie and the seriousness of the alleged security threat must be discussed together in the reasoning.

❓ Questions people ask

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