The Ankara 26th Administrative Court annulled the entry ban to Turkey under the Ç-149 restriction code, which was imposed without presenting concrete information and documents demonstrating that the foreigner posed a threat to public order or public security. The records submitted to the case file indicated that there was a negative assessment regarding the foreigner; however, it could not be demonstrated upon which personal fact, act, or verifiable data this assessment was based.

Short answer: The administration's use of the expression "public order" or "public security" is not sufficient on its own for an entry ban. The administrative act must be based on concrete information or documents that are connected to the relevant foreigner and subject to judicial review. The Ankara 26th Administrative Court found the Ç-149 restriction code action unlawful, as no such basis was provided.

The lawsuit examined in this article was filed and pursued in the capacity of plaintiff's counsel by Filed and managed by Atty. Batın Yılmaz. The judgment is reviewed with the redaction of the party's name, contact information, electronic notification details, and other personal data that would allow identification. The judgment is binding only with respect to the specific dispute and does not guarantee results for similar cases.

Judgment Summary

Court	Ankara 26th Administrative Court
Case file number	2023/2678
Decision number	2024/2185
Decision date	July 2, 2024
The administrative act subject to the lawsuit	The entry ban to Turkey under the Ç-149 restriction code dated September 26, 2022
Grounds of the administrative act	Negative assessment regarding public order and public security
Core legal issue	Whether the negative assessment is supported by concrete information and documents
Ruling	Annulment of the subject administrative act
Legal remedy	Appeal before the Ankara Regional Administrative Court within 30 days as of service

How Did the Dispute Arise?

The plaintiff foreigner was subjected to border control while attempting to enter Turkey via Istanbul Airport. As a result of the examination and evaluation, inadmissible passenger procedures were applied, and a Ç-149 restriction record was created on the grounds of public order and public security. Based on this record, the foreigner's entry into Turkey was prevented.

In the annulment action filed by the plaintiff, it was asserted that the administrative act was established without demonstrating any crime, investigation, public safety threat, or concrete adverse action. The defendant administration, on the other hand, defended that the act based on security evaluations was lawful.

The decisive question of the dispute was not whether the foreigner had an absolute right to enter Turkey. The core issue was whether the administration, while exercising its statutory authority to impose an entry ban, an individualized and reviewable material ground had put forward or not.

Chronology of the Litigation Process

Date	Proceeding	Legal Significance
September 26, 2022	The entry ban act with the Ç-149 restriction code was established.	The administrative act subject to the annulment lawsuit arose.
Trial stage	The court requested the underlying information and documents from the relevant administrations and security units.	The element of cause (grounds) of the act was investigated.
June 28, 2024	The hearing was held.	The statements of the counsels for the parties were heard.
July 2, 2024	The transaction subject to the lawsuit has been annulled.	It was accepted that there was no concrete basis demonstrating a negative impact in terms of public order or security.

What is the Ç-149 Restriction Code?

Ç-149 is one of the restriction codes utilized by administrative authorities regarding foreigners. In the examined court file, this code was applied as an entry ban record based on the assessment that the foreigner's entry into Turkey poses an impediment in terms of public order or public security.

Restriction codes are not independent sanction names individually defined directly in the law. They are records that ensure the administrative tracking of entry bans, deportation, visa, or residence procedures established concerning foreigners for specific grounds within the administrative system. Therefore, not only the name of the code but also the underlying actual transaction, date, duration, competent authority, and concrete grounds must be examined together.

Are a restriction code, an entry ban, and a deportation decision the same procedure?

No. Although these concepts may be interconnected in practice, they are not legally the same:

Concept	Primary function	Possible outcome
Restriction code	Classifies the administrative grounds or restriction regarding the foreigner in the system.	May produce consequences at border gates, visa, or residence procedures.
entry ban to Turkey	Prevents the foreigner from entering the country for a certain period or within the framework of legal conditions.	Denial of entry at the border gate
Inadmissible passenger procedure	It pertains to the refusal of admission to the country of an individual assessed as not meeting the entry conditions at border control.	The process of denial of entry to Turkey and deportation
Deportation Decision	It is directed toward the removal from the country of a foreigner located within Turkey.	Process of leaving Turkey and, where necessary, readmission

This distinction determines which administrative act will be subject to litigation and whether the annulment of one act will automatically affect other records. For detailed information regarding the conditions of the deportation decision, the litigation period, and its relationship with the restriction code, annulment of deportation order you may review our guide.

The Ç-149 entry ban should also not be confused with the premature termination of a valid residence permit. Regarding proceedings concerning residence status, annulment of residence permit and annulment action our detailed guide on the subject can be reviewed.

Legal Basis of the Entry Ban to Turkey

The primary legal basis for the entry ban to Turkey is Article 9 of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection No. 6458. Pursuant to this regulation, the Presidency of Migration Management may, by obtaining the opinions of relevant public institutions and organizations when necessary, prohibit the entry into the country of foreigners who are outside Turkey and whose entry is deemed inconvenient in terms of public order, public security, or public health.

The Law grants discretionary power to the administration. However, the expression "deemed inconvenient" does not imply an unreasoned and unlimited authority. Since the administrative act is established regarding a specific individual, the assessment of public order or public security must also be based on facts connected to that individual and must be capable of being explained before a court when necessary. From the legislation page of the Presidency of Migration Management The official link to the law can be accessed.

Maximum duration of the entry ban

Article 9 of Law No. 6458 contains general and special provisions regarding the duration of the entry ban. Under the general rule, the duration cannot exceed five years; the duration may be extended in the event of a serious threat to public order or public security. In the specific case, the duration of the ban, the notification, and the supplementary decisions regarding the ban must be examined separately.

Legal Limitation on a Foreigner's Right to Enter Turkey

Of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey Article 23 stipulates that a citizen cannot be deprived of the right to enter the country. This guarantee does not mean that foreigners have an unconditional or absolute right of entry into Turkey. The State may regulate the entry of foreigners into the country by law and may impose an entry ban when legal conditions are met.

Similarly in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the guarantee of "the right to enter one's own country" does not grant everyone the right to enter any foreign country they wish. Therefore, the focal point of the legal review in the Ç-149 dispute is not the foreigner's absolute right of entry, but whether the administration exercised its statutory authority based on concrete, relevant, and sufficient grounds.

This distinction is important: The mere existence of the administration's authority to impose an entry ban does not automatically render every imposed entry ban lawful. Whether the authority was exercised in accordance with the law in the specific case is subject to judicial review by administrative courts.

Which Information and Documents Did the Court Investigate?

The Ankara 26th Administrative Court did not resolve the dispute solely based on the general statements of the parties. Through interim injunctions, it requested that the records forming the basis for considering the foreigner objectionable in terms of public order or public security be transmitted by the relevant administrations.

The risk assessment and the underlying records in the administrative file from the Presidency of Migration Management and the relevant governorship,
Security determinations and information-documents concerning the foreigner from the relevant law enforcement unit,
Records that could serve as the basis for the assessment of public order or public security were requested from the relevant intelligence unit.

Certain documents in the field of security may possess a confidential character. However, the confidentiality of a document is not the same as presenting no concrete basis whatsoever for the administrative action. The court may examine confidential documents under necessary procedural safeguards. In the case under review, although it was stated that the information and documents in the case file contained an adverse assessment regarding the foreigner, it was determined that the concrete information or document forming the basis of this assessment was not submitted.

The Court's Grounds for Annulment

The decisive point in the court's decision is not the presence in the file of an assessment in the form of "adverse impact in terms of public order and public security," but rather the fact that this assessment is not supported by a verifiable factual basis. The Administration failed to demonstrate, in a manner amenable to judicial review, due to which act, relationship, record, or personal status of the foreigner they were deemed objectionable.

The reasoning of the decision can be summarized in the following stages:

The administrative justification was established: The Ç-149 code was based on an adverse assessment regarding public order and public security.
The underlying records were requested: The court investigated the concrete information and documents in the possession of the relevant institutions through an interim decision.
The content submitted to the file was examined: Although it was stated that an adverse assessment existed, the factual basis for this assessment could not be demonstrated.
The element of cause was reviewed: It could not be proven that the entry ban was based on a concrete fact associated with the individual.
The administrative act has been annulled: It was concluded that the entry ban with the Ç-149 restriction code lacks compliance with the law.

Why was the statement “there is negative information” not deemed sufficient?

The ground for an administrative act consists of the factual and legal circumstances that prompt the administration to issue that act. For the court to conduct an effective judicial review, it must be understood at least how the negative assessment relates to the individual. A general note whose source, content, and relation to the individual cannot be explained may not, by itself, demonstrate the lawfulness of an entry ban that entails severe consequences.

Distinction Between Intelligence Information and Concrete Evidence

Security procedures are at times initiated based on intelligence information. While intelligence information may be important for the administration to make preventive assessments, in the judicial review of administrative acts, the reliability, currency, and connection of the information to the individual, as well as whether it is supported by other data, gain significance.

Assessment criterion	The question that needs to be asked
Personalization	Does the information genuinely pertain to the foreign national subject to the lawsuit?
Specificity	Which action, connection, or event is deemed objectionable?
Up-to-dateness	Is the information valid and up to date as of the date of the processing?
Verifiability	Is there a record or fact supporting the assessment?
Nexus to the transaction	Does the provided information explain the entry ban based on public order or public security?
Judicial reviewability	Is the court able to understand the specific reason for the administration's decision?

The decision does not imply that every security piece of information must be openly published. The conclusion to be drawn is that the factual basis of the administrative act must be subject to judicial review, even if confidentiality measures are preserved.

What the Judgment Means and Does Not Mean

Conclusion that can be drawn from the decision	Conclusion that cannot be deduced from the decision
The justification of public order or security must be based on an individualized foundation.	Foreigners have an unlimited and unconditional right of entry into Turkey.
The grounds for the administrative act must be reviewable by the court.	Every Ç-149 restriction code is automatically unlawful.
Abstract negative assessments do not always demonstrate the lawfulness of a severe administrative consequence.	Confidential or intelligence information cannot be taken into account under any circumstances.
The interim decision may be effective in revealing the legal basis of the transaction.	This decision automatically removes the restriction records concerning other persons.
The annulment decision pertains to the administrative act Ç-149 subject to the lawsuit.	It grants a foreigner the direct right to a visa, residence permit, or citizenship.

Which Documents Are Important in the Lawsuit to Be Filed Against the Ç-149 Restriction Code?

The list of evidence must be determined according to the specifics of each case file. In entry ban and restriction code disputes, the following documents and records may be of particular importance:

The notification and administrative act document regarding the entry ban or restriction code,
The inadmissible passenger form and the minutes drawn up at the border crossing,
The pages of the passport showing entry and exit records,
Visa, residence permit, or work permit history,
Documents showing that there is no judicial or administrative investigation against the foreigner,
Decisions regarding non-prosecution, acquittal, lack of grounds for prosecution, or the closure of the file, if any,
records demonstrating family, educational, professional, or commercial ties in Turkey,
explanatory and corroborative documents directly related to the grounds of the transaction,
service documents determining the transaction date and the statutory period for filing a lawsuit.

Rather than merely stating in the statement of claim that "there is no evidence against me," the petition must specify which concrete facts were not addressed in the administrative action and which institutional records are requested to be obtained from the court.

Does the Annulment of the Restriction Code Automatically Allow Entry?

The annulment of a restriction code eliminates the legal basis of the administrative act subject to the lawsuit. However, in order for the foreigner to physically enter Turkey, a passport, visa or visa exemption, valid entry conditions, and other administrative records in the system are evaluated separately. There may be a different restriction code, a separate entry ban, or another administrative action concerning the same individual.

Therefore, the implementation of the final judgment by the administration, the updating of the restriction record, and the review of other records concerning the foreigner are distinct stages. Residence permits also constitute a legal status separate from entry into the country; regarding the types and general conditions of residence permits, residence permit in Turkey you can check our guide.

Time Limit in the Annulment Action Regarding the Ç-149 Restriction Code

The statutory period for filing an action against an entry ban must be determined based on the nature of the act and the method of service. Since restriction codes, deportation decisions, and inadmissible passenger proceedings may constitute separate legal actions, the special litigation period prescribed for deportation decisions should not be automatically applied to every entry ban dispute.

regarding the general limitation period and the commencement of the period in administrative actions Abditory Procedure Law No. 2577; and regarding whether there is a special regulation, Law No. 6458 must be examined. Calculating deadlines without reviewing the service document and without definitively characterizing the contested administrative act may result in a loss of rights.

Does filing a lawsuit automatically stay the enforcement of the ban?

As a rule, filing an action for annulment against an entry ban or restriction code does not automatically stay the enforcement of the contested act. A stay of execution may be requested if the conditions are met. In evaluating this request, the court examines whether the act is clearly unlawful and whether its enforcement would result in damages that are difficult or impossible to compensate.

Conclusion of the Court's Judgment

In its decision dated July 2, 2024, the Ankara 26th Administrative Court unanimously ruled for the annulment of the entry ban into Turkey associated with the Ç-149 restriction code. The court awarded attorney's fees in the amount of 20,900 TL in favor of the plaintiff and ruled that the relevant collection procedures be initiated regarding the litigation expenses of 1,301.20 TL, which were deferred due to legal aid. The right to appeal before the Ankara Regional Administrative Court within 30 days of the service of the decision was reserved.

These figures regarding litigation expenses and attorney's fees pertain to the specific case file and the tariff in effect at the date of the decision. It should not be concluded that the same amounts will apply in a current case.

Significance of the Decision in Terms of Enforcement

The significance of this decision in terms of application is that it demonstrates that administrative discretion in the field of security is not exempt from judicial review. The administration may restrict the entry of foreigners into the country for reasons of public order and public safety; however, this authority cannot be exercised in a manner that produces legal effects without showing any concrete basis regarding the individual.

The court's request for information and documents from various institutions is also important. A foreigner may not always have direct access to the contents of security records. In such cases, the interim decision mechanism can ensure that the records relied upon by the administration are brought before the court and that the grounds for the administrative act are reviewed.

For the general framework of entry bans, residence, and deportation procedures within the scope of immigration law immigration law you can review our page.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is the Ç-149 restriction code imposed?

In the examined court file, the Ç-149 code was applied based on the assessment that the foreigner's entry into Türkiye posed a risk in terms of public order or public safety. However, for the act to be lawful, there must be concrete grounds associated with the individual supporting this assessment.

How is the Ç-149 restriction code removed?

Depending on the basis and current status of the administrative act, an administrative application or an annulment action in the administrative court may be brought. Which legal remedy to pursue must be determined based on the entry ban document, the date the code was imposed, the duration of the ban, the service of process, and other records concerning the foreigner.

Is it sufficient for the record to state "It is deemed detrimental in terms of public safety"?

In the case reviewed by the Ankara 26th Administrative Court, this was not deemed sufficient. The court annulled the administrative act upon determining that no concrete information or document serving as the basis for this assessment had been submitted to the case file.

Can a classified document serve as the basis for a restriction code?

Classified information and documents may be examined by the court under the required procedural and security measures. However, merely stating that "classified information exists" is not the same as actually submitting a concrete document to the court. The court must be able to review the grounds for the administrative act.

Does a visa automatically get granted when the Ç-149 code is annulled?

No. The annulment decision pertains to the restriction action subject to the lawsuit. The visa, visa exemption, passport validity, other restriction records, and entry conditions are evaluated separately.

Does this decision yield the same outcome in all Ç-149 files?

No. Each lawsuit is examined based on its own material facts and evidence. This decision may serve as a legal precedent, particularly for disputes where the administration fails to submit specific, concrete information or documents supporting its negative assessment.

Conclusion

In the decision of the Ankara 26th Administrative Court, numbered E. 2023/2678 and K. 2024/2185, an entry ban with the Ç-149 restriction code, based on a negative assessment regarding public order and public security, was examined. The court investigated the grounds for the action through interim decisions; although the content submitted to the file mentioned a negative assessment, the court determined that there was no concrete information or document demonstrating why the foreigner was deemed objectionable.

Therefore, the entry ban action subject to the lawsuit has been annulled. The decision does not eliminate the administration's authority to restrict the entry of foreigners into the country, but rather indicates that this authority must be based on a material reason that is specific to the individual, relevant, and subject to judicial review.

Full Anonymized Text of the Decision

You can access the full text, with personal data redacted, of the Ankara 26th Administrative Court's decision numbered E. 2023/2678 and K. 2024/2185 analyzed in this article as a PDF via the link below.

Download Anonymized Court Decision (PDF)

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