Deportation order based on public order grounds, cannot be issued solely on the basis of judicial proceedings having been conducted against the foreigner. The Istanbul 1st Administrative Court annulled a deportation order in a dispute where, although a criminal case regarding the charges of insult and resisting a public officer was pending, there were no findings sufficiently demonstrating the alleged acts and that the foreigner posed a threat to public order or public security.

The decision does not mean that no foreigner against whom there is no final criminal conviction can be deported. The administration may make a legal assessment different from that of the criminal proceedings. However, an administrative act such as deportation, which directly affects an individual's private and family life and their status of staying in Turkey, must be based on information and documents connected to the specific case and the individual.

The lawsuit examined in this article was filed and pursued in the capacity of plaintiff's counsel by Atty. Batın Yılmaz was filed and pursued by. While preserving the legal content of the decision, the applicant's name, nationality, unnecessary details regarding their family, criminal case file number, administrative action number, and electronic notification information have been redacted from the text.

Brief Summary of the Decision

Court	Istanbul 1st Administrative Court
Case file number	2024/4543
Decision number	2025/1836
Decision date	April 30, 2025
Defendant administration	Istanbul Governorate
The legal basis of the action	Article 54/1-d of Law No. 6458
Core dispute	Whether the available data regarding the judicial incident is sufficient to demonstrate that the foreigner poses a threat to public order or public security
Conclusion	Annulment of the deportation order
Legal remedy	The judgment is final.

The Court examined together the statements concerning the judicial incident, the interview report between the judicial law enforcement and the Public Prosecutor, the applicant's defense, and other documents submitted by the administration. It concluded that there were no sufficient findings regarding the imputed acts, nor was there any information indicating another act by the foreigner that threatened public order during their stay in Turkey.

How Was the Deportation Procedure Imposed?

The Istanbul Governorate Provincial Directorate of Migration Management issued a deportation decision concerning the applicant on December 4, 2024. As the basis for the transaction, it was cited that judicial proceedings were initiated against the foreigner within the scope of the offenses of "insult" and "resisting to prevent the performance of a duty," and that this situation constituted a threat to public order or public security.

The applicant asserted that the incident report did not reflect the truth, that they did not participate in the argument, did not resist the police, and did not commit insult. Furthermore, stating that they had a family life with their spouse and child in Turkey and that their situation within the scope of the prohibition of refoulement should be examined, they requested the annulment of the deportation decision.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, a public case regarding the imputed acts was pending in the criminal court. The administrative court did not merely wait for the finalization of the criminal proceedings; it additionally evaluated whether the information and documents available at the date the deportation decision was established were sufficient for the administrative action.

What Does Article 54/1-d of Law No. 6458 Regulate?

Of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection No. 6458, Article 54, paragraph 1, subparagraph (d) stipulates that a deportation decision shall be taken in respect of foreigners who pose a threat to public order, public security, or public health.

This provision is not an automatic regulation that explicitly deems the mere existence of a complaint, denunciation, or judicial proceeding concerning a foreigner sufficient. The administration must evaluate the situation of the foreigner and the nature of the incident to reach a conclusion of a threat to public order or security. The basis of this evaluation must be clear enough for the court to review upon the filing of a lawsuit.

For general information regarding deportation grounds, the decision-making process, filing a lawsuit, and procedures at the removal center deportation decision and annulment lawsuit our guide may be reviewed.

Is Initiation of Judicial Proceedings Alone Sufficient for Deportation?

The initiation of judicial proceedings against a foreigner is a fact that can be taken into account in the evaluation of public order. However, "the initiation of judicial proceedings" and "demonstrating that the person poses a threat in terms of public order" are not the same thing. A complaint, apprehension, taking of a statement, or the filing of a public case indicates the existence of a process, but does not solely prove that the imputed act definitively occurred.

The converse of this is also not absolutely true. It cannot be said that the administration must await a finalized criminal conviction in every case in order to issue a deportation decision. The purpose and evaluation criteria of an administrative measure and a criminal sanction are different. If concrete and reliable evidence exists, an administrative assessment may also be made while a criminal case is pending. What is important is that the conclusion of a threat to public order is based on personalized material facts rather than assumptions.

How are the presumption of innocence and administrative risk assessment distinguished?

The principles regarding the rule of law and judicial review enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey Pursuant to Article 38, no one may be considered guilty until their guilt is proven by a final judicial ruling. The administration cannot characterize an unadjudicated allegation as established guilt. However, forward-looking risk assessments concerning public order conducted by administrative authorities differ from a criminal court's conviction. This distinction does not empower the administration to conduct assessments without evidence; the information utilized must be reliable, current, personally attributable, and proportionate to the measure taken.

The Effect of a Pending Criminal Case on the Decision

In the reviewed dispute, the criminal case initiated for the offenses of defamation and resisting a public officer had not yet concluded. The court did not deem the mere pendency of the proceedings sufficient for the annulment of the deportation order. By examining the existing statements in the criminal file and the judicial law enforcement-prosecutor interview minutes, it determined that there were no sufficient findings regarding the alleged acts.

Does a pending criminal case provide automatic protection?

No. The continuation of criminal proceedings does not mean that a foreign national cannot be deported under any circumstances. The administrative court reviews the factual basis underlying the deportation order within its own jurisdiction. Strong evidence in the criminal file, the gravity of the incident, and the conduct of the foreign national may be significant in the assessment of public order. The decision of annulment in this case was based on the insufficiency of the existing evidence within the specific file.

What Evidence Did the Court Evaluate?

Law enforcement statements concerning the alleged incident,
The interview minutes between the judicial law enforcement and the Public Prosecutor,
The applicant's defense that they did not obstruct or insult the police,
Case file information regarding the ongoing criminal proceedings,
Records submitted by the administration concerning the conduct of the foreign national during their stay in Turkey,
Whether there is any other information or document supporting a threat to public order or public security.

Based on the statements within the scope of the case file and the interview minutes, the court accepted that there were no sufficient findings regarding the acts of defamation and resisting a public officer. Furthermore, it determined that no other information or document indicating that the applicant posed a threat to public order or security during their stay in Turkey had been submitted to the case file.

The Court's Grounds for Annulment

The Istanbul 1st Administrative Court determined that the acts serving as the basis for the deportation order were denied by the foreign national, and that the existing reports and statements in the case file did not sufficiently substantiate the allegations. Since the administration failed to submit any other conduct or record supporting the conclusion of a threat to public order, it was not established that the applicant constitutes a threat to public order and security.

Based on this reasoning, it was concluded that the deportation procedure established pursuant to Article 54/1-d of Law No. 6458 lacked compliance with the law, and the procedure was annulled. At the core of the decision is not a general acceptance that "deportation cannot be carried out in the absence of a criminal conviction," but rather the lack of sufficient and concrete findings supporting the administrative action in this specific case file.

Can a New Deportation Decision Be Issued Once Criminal Proceedings Are Concluded?

The court's decision explicitly states that the administration may conduct a reassessment depending on the outcome of the criminal proceedings. This expression indicates that the annulment of the initial action does not preemptively preclude all future administrative actions based on new and concrete data that may emerge.

However, conducting a reassessment does not mean reiterating the same grounds without any new elements. The outcome of the criminal proceedings, the reasoned judgment, the status of finality, and the current personal circumstances of the foreign national must be evaluated. If a new procedure is established, the conditions regarding Articles 54 and 55 of Law No. 6458, as well as proportionality, family life, and the prohibition of refoulement, shall be re-examined within the scope of the specific case.

The Principle of Non-Refoulement and the Grounds for the Administrative Act Are Distinct Matters

The assessment of whether a foreign national must be deported within the scope of Article 54 and the examination of whether the person falls among those who cannot be deported pursuant to Article 55 constitute distinct analyses. First, it is determined whether grounds for deportation have materialized; furthermore, conditions pertaining to the prohibition of refoulement, such as the risk of the death penalty, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment in the country to which the person will be sent, are investigated.

Although claims regarding the prohibition of refoulement were asserted in the petition of lawsuit in the reviewed decision, the primary ground for the annulment ruling is that the threat to public order and security was not established in the concrete case file. Therefore, it is inaccurate to present the decision as though the court established a detailed and general principle regarding the risks of the country of destination. Regarding the conditions for a humanitarian residence permit humanitarian residence permit our article can also be reviewed.

How Is Family Life Evaluated in Deportation Litigation?

The applicant asserted that they have a family life in Turkey with their spouse and child. Family ties may be significant in terms of the consequences of the measure on the individual, proportionality, and respect for private life. However, having a family does not mean that a deportation order cannot be issued under any circumstances. The genuineness of the family relationship, the legal status of the spouse and children, the cohabitation status, the best interests of the child, and the gravity of the alleged act are evaluated together.

The explicit ground for the annulment of this decision is not the violation of family life, but the lack of sufficient findings demonstrating a threat to public order. Therefore, when conveying the decision, one must not present a ground upon which the court did not rely as the main element of the decision. While family ties are among the claims put forward in the concrete lawsuit, the decisive ground of the judgment is different.

Consequences Established and Not Established by the Decision

Conclusion that can be drawn from the decision	Conclusion that should not be drawn from the decision
The threat to public order must be reviewed based on data connected to the individual and the incident.	No foreign national can be deported in the absence of a final conviction.
Judicial proceeding records must be evaluated together with the other evidence in the file.	The initiation of judicial proceedings against a foreign national is entirely inconsequential in terms of administrative law.
The existing documents in the pending criminal file may be examined by the administrative court.	The continuation of the criminal case alone provides automatic protection.
The administration may re-evaluate based on new data resulting from the adjudication.	No new administrative act may be established under any circumstances after the annulment decision.
The decision has been rendered definitively in the specific case.	The decision establishes a general jurisprudence that binds all courts and is unquestionable.

The fact that the decision of the court of first instance is definitive by law means that ordinary legal remedies cannot be pursued for that dispute. This characteristic does not imply that the decision constitutes a binding high court precedent in other files or that the same result is guaranteed in different material events.

What Does a Legal Aid Decision Mean?

The court has accepted the applicant's request for legal aid. Legal aid is a procedural institution that facilitates access to court for a person who lacks the financial means to pay litigation expenses. The acceptance decision alone is not an indication that the case is strong on the merits or that all claims of the applicant are correct.

Regarding legal aid in administrative jurisdiction, Abditory Procedure Law No. 2577 the provisions in civil procedure apply within the framework of the reference made with . The conditions of legal aid are separately evaluated based on the financial situation of the person and whether the request is manifestly unfounded.

The detailed conditions of legal aid of the Code of Civil Procedure numbered 6100 are regulated in Article 334 and the following articles. This procedural decision must be kept separate from the issues of the initial payment of litigation costs and who will bear these costs at the end of the proceedings, as well as the evaluation of public order on the merits of the case.

Litigation Period Against a Deportation Order

Pursuant to Article 53 of Law No. 6458, the foreigner, their legal representative, or attorney may file an appeal against the deportation decision, starting from the notification of the decision, within seven days to the administrative court. This period is a special and short limitation period for filing a lawsuit, distinct from the general 60-day period for annulment actions. Therefore, the date of service must be determined with utmost care.

Filing a lawsuit is also critical regarding the execution of the deportation procedure. Unless there are exceptions stipulated in the law and the foreigner consents, the foreigner shall not be deported within the statutory filing period and, if legal remedies are sought, until the proceedings are concluded. The current text of the law and the service information in the specific decision must be checked together.

What happens if the seven-day period is missed?

A lawsuit filed after the expiration of the period may be dismissed on procedural grounds due to being time-barred. In cases where service of process is invalid, the decision lacks information on legal remedies, or the date of service is disputed, the calculation of the time limit requires additional legal evaluation. Due to the short limitation period, it is essential to examine the decision and the service document without delay.

Which Documents Should Be Examined in a Similar Case File?

The full text of the deportation decision and the service document,
The article of Law No. 6458 indicated in the decision,
Judicial incident report, apprehension, and statement records,
Judicial law enforcement-prosecutor interview and instruction records,
The current stage of the criminal investigation or prosecution,
Witness statements and camera footage, if any,
Evidence demonstrating or refuting the foreigner's individual connection to the incident,
Prior judicial and administrative records in Turkey,
Family unity, the situation of children, and legal residence records,
Documents regarding the principle of non-refoulement concerning the country to which the deportation will take place.

The general subject map of deportation, residence permit, restriction code, and international protection processes in immigration law can be accessed. immigration law For the implications of residence status distinct from deportation proceedings, residence permit in Turkey the guide may be reviewed separately.

The Court's Judgment and Finality of the Decision

The Istanbul 1st Administrative Court unanimously ruled on April 30, 2025, to annul the deportation proceeding. Due to the acceptance of the legal aid request, it was ordered that a writ be issued to the relevant tax office for the collection of the litigation expenses amounting to 895.20 TL, which were not initially collected, from the defendant administration. It was decided that the power of attorney fee of 60.80 TL covered by the applicant and the attorney's fee of 18,000 TL determined in accordance with the tariff in effect on the date of the decision be collected from the defendant administration and awarded to the applicant.

Pursuant to Article 53 of Law No. 6458, the court decision was rendered as final. Finality here means that there is no ordinary legal remedy, such as appeal or cassation, against the decision. The amounts for litigation expenses and attorney's fees pertain to the tariff applicable on the decision date of this file and cannot be used as the cost of a current lawsuit.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a foreigner against whom a criminal case has been filed directly deported?

No. A criminal case may be taken into consideration in the assessment of public order; however, whether the foreigner constitutes a threat to public order or public security must be separately examined based on the nature of the incident and concrete evidence.

Can a deportation decision be made without a finalized conviction?

If concrete and reliable data exist, waiting for a finalized conviction is not mandatory in every case for administrative assessment. However, merely abstract allegations or judicial record entries may not be deemed sufficient.

Can a deportation lawsuit be heard while a criminal case is pending?

Yes. The administrative court may review the information and documents available at the time the deportation procedure was established while the criminal proceedings are ongoing. In this decision as well, the deportation procedure was reviewed while the criminal case was pending.

Within how many days must a lawsuit be filed against a deportation decision?

An application must be made to the administrative court within seven days from the notification of the decision. Because this specific timeframe is short, the notification document must be reviewed without delay.

Can the administration issue a new deportation decision after an annulment decision?

If new and concrete legal or factual grounds arise, the administration may perform a reassessment. Indeed, the reviewed decision states that a reassessment may be made based on the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

Does having a family automatically prevent a deportation decision?

No. Family life and the best interests of the child are important evaluation factors; however, they do not constitute an automatic barrier. The nature of the offense, public order risk, the authenticity of family ties, and proportionality are evaluated together.

Conclusion

The decision of the İstanbul 1. İdare Mahkemesi with Case No. 2024/4543 and Decision No. 2025/1836 demonstrates that in deportation proceedings based on public order grounds, the existence of judicial proceedings against a foreigner cannot be considered the same as the individual actually posing a threat to public order or safety. The court annulled the deportation procedure because there were insufficient findings and no other supporting documents regarding the imputed acts.

The decision should not be interpreted to mean that a criminal conviction is mandatory in every deportation procedure. The main conclusion is that the administration must demonstrate the connection between the individual, the act, and the threat to public order with concrete data, and the procedure must be effectively reviewed by the court. Each deportation file must be evaluated separately within the scope of its own refusal or procedural grounds, available evidence, family ties, the risk in the country of destination, and the seven-day litigation period.

Full Anonymized Text of the Decision

For the anonymized full text of the decision of the Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, E. 2024/4543, K. 2025/1836, examined in this article, download the anonymized court decision as a PDF link.

This decision is shared solely for informational purposes and the analysis of judicial practice. Personal data and any information that could directly or indirectly allow identification contained within the decision have been anonymized. In the event that the anonymization and editorial work performed on this page are used or shared on another website, publication, or digital medium, batinyilmaz.av.tr must be cited as the source.

Author Information

Attorney Batın YILMAZ
Istanbul Bar Association Bar Registry No: 77008

Compliance Statement with TBB Professional Rules and Advertising Prohibition

This content is for informational purposes only. It does not aim to advertise, secure business, acquire clients, solicit, claim professional superiority, or guarantee results for any person or institution.

While preparing the content the Professional Rules of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations and the provisions regarding the prohibition of advertising for the legal profession have been observed. The information in this article does not constitute legal counsel or a definitive legal opinion with respect to any specific case.

Communication and Legal Information