Annulment of G-87 Restriction Code Extended for 15 Years: Ankara 26th Administrative Court Ruling

The Ankara 26th Administrative Court annulled the administrative act imposed on a foreign national, against whom a five-year G-87 restriction code was established in 2012 and whose entry ban to Turkey was subsequently extended by 15 years. The decisive rationale of the decision dated September 29, 2026, was the absence in the case file of any concrete information or document—or even information of an intelligence nature—supporting the alleged threat to public order and public security.

Key finding of the decision: By means of its interim decision dated 02.04.2026, the Court inquired into the grounds of the restriction code from the Presidency of Migration Management, the National Intelligence Organization, and law enforcement units. According to the text of the decision, no concrete documents supporting this record nor any intelligence-based information could be submitted by the relevant institutions. A judgment of annulment was rendered in the lawsuit concerning the restriction that began in 2012 and was extended by an additional 15-year period.

In the lawsuit filed and pursued by Atty. Batın Yılmaz acting as counsel for the plaintiff, the Ankara 26th Administrative Court did not merely suffice to evaluate the administration's defense; it also requested the records regarding the basis of the restriction code from the Presidency of Migration Management and relevant security units. The picture that emerged following the interim decision is significant regarding the conditions under which a long-standing entry ban can withstand judicial review.

Important distinction: The decision states that the initial five-year entry ban imposed in 2012 was extended for an additional 15 years The term "15 years" here does not refer to the period elapsed definitively from the initial ban decision to the present, but rather to the additional extension period mentioned in the decision. This article is based on this distinction made in the decision.

Brief Summary of the Decision

Scroll horizontally to view the full table

Origin of the Dispute: The G-87 Restriction Code Imposed in 2012

According to the information in the case file, a five-year G-87 restriction code was imposed against the foreigner in 2012. Subsequently, the duration of this ban was extended by another 15 years. Thus, the effects of the administrative restriction starting in 2012 were spread over a very long period.

In the case under review, the dispute was not limited solely to the presence of a code in the database. The initial administrative act resulting in the entry ban against the plaintiff into Turkey and the administrative disposition concerning the extension of this ban were brought before the court. The plaintiff party asserted that neither the initial measure nor the extension act was based on a personalized, verifiable justification.

The crucial point at this juncture is not that the ground of public security was asserted by the administration, but rather whether this ground was explained in a legally reviewable manner by correlating it with the personal situation of the plaintiff.

Chronology of the Litigation Process

Scroll horizontally to view the full table

Note: Since the exact enactment date of the extension act is not separately specified in the reviewed reasoned judgment text, no hypothetical date has been used in the chronology.

What Administrative Action Was Based on the G-87 Restriction Code in This Case?

The G-87 code is among the administrative records used in immigration administration practice in connection with public order and public safety assessments. However, the subject of this review is not to explain the code in all its aspects, but rather how the initial G-87 act dated 2012 and the subsequently enacted extension were reviewed by the Ankara 26th Administrative Court. The existence of a G-87 record does not, by itself, mean that a specific crime has been committed or that there is a criminal conviction.

For the meaning of the code, administrative inquiry procedures, conditions for filing a lawsuit, and its relationship with other types of restrictions, you can check our main G-87 restriction code guide. We explain the common legal framework of all codes in our restriction codes guide. Rather than being repetitive here, we focus on the distinctive aspects of the dispute.

Why Was the 15-Year Extension Also Significant?

Not only the existence of the entry ban, but also its duration and the grounds for extension are subject to legal review. In this file, the extension of a G-87 record, initially established for five years in 2012, by an additional 15 years meant that the ban had much harsher consequences in terms of duration than ordinary administrative measures.

According to the third paragraph of Article 9 of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection No. 6458, the duration of an entry ban is, as a rule, a maximum of five years. In the event of a serious threat to public order or public security, this period may be extended by a maximum of ten more years. Therefore, the legislation limits the extension in terms of duration and justification.

Two points must be distinguished here. First, the temporal application of the legislation in force when the initial transaction was established in 2012 and the subsequently enacted Law No. 6458 must be evaluated separately. Secondly, in this case, the explicit grounds for annulment by the court are not solely the duration or the exceeding of the statutory maximum time limit. The court emphasized the absence of concrete information, documents, and intelligence data that would justify the travel ban record and reached the conclusion of annulment based on this.

Therefore, the ruling cannot be interpreted to mean that "long-term entry bans are automatically invalid in every case." However, it is notable in terms of demonstrating that severe administrative measures persisting for years cannot be sustained without sufficient legal basis.

Why Did the Defense of the Administration and the Claims of the Plaintiff Diverge?

There was a fundamental disagreement between the parties to the lawsuit. The plaintiff party asserted that the initial five-year entry ban was extended for an additional 15 years without justification and without being based on concrete evidence. The objection here was not limited solely to the length of the duration. The plaintiff argued that it was not demonstrated upon which conduct, event, or security information the G-87 record, which entails severe consequences for them, was maintained.

The Presidency of Migration Management, on the other hand, stated that the plaintiff posed a threat to public order and public security, and requested the dismissal of the lawsuit by asserting that the administrative act complied with the legislation. The Directorate General of Security expressed the opinion that the competent authority regarding the subject matter of the lawsuit was the Presidency of Migration Management; furthermore, it defended that the act complied with the law and procedure. Thus, the legal debate before the court centered, on the one hand, on the authority to ensure public security, and on the other hand, on with which personal information and documents this authority was justified focused on the point of.

The point to be noted here is this: An administration's defense of a "threat to public security" does not mean that the events supporting this assessment are present in the adjudication. The exercise of discretion by the administrative authority and the judicial investigation into the factual basis of that discretion are two separate stages. To reveal this distinction, the Ankara 26th Administrative Court did not content itself merely with the defense petitions; it also investigated the factual basis of the case through an interim decision.

Two Separate Actions Discussed in the Petition

According to the "Summary of the Case" section of the court's decision, the actions requested to be annulled are, the G-87 action dated 29.11.2012 and numbered 217335, and the extension action related thereto. This statement is important because the initial imposition of an entry ban and its subsequent extension, even if interrelated for the same individual, may require separate examinations in terms of justification, authority, duration, and the date of the action.

The fact that the initial action dates back to 2012 adds a temporal dimension to the case. Since Law No. 6458 was enacted in 2013, the legislation applied in the establishment of the 2012 action must be distinguished from the legal framework of the subsequent extension decision. However, in the reviewed decision, the court "annulled the decision on the grounds that the 15-year extension exceeded the upper limit stipulated in the law," did not establish a separate reasoning in such a form. It based the conclusion of annulment on the absence of concrete information, documents, and intelligence information supporting it.

From Which Institutions Did the Court Request Information and Documents?

The most crucial stage of the adjudication is the Ankara 26th Administrative Court's interim decision dated April 2, 2026. To clarify why the G-87 code was generated and upon which data it was based, the court requested information and documents from the following institutions:

• Presidency of Migration Management,
• Presidency of the National Intelligence Organization,
• General Directorate of Security Intelligence Department,
• General Directorate of Security.

The court did not merely ask these institutions for a general opinion; it investigated the concrete findings underlying the restriction code applied to the plaintiff. However, the responses from the relevant administration failed to submit any concrete information or documents that would justify the restriction code.

The findings in the judgment go even further. The court states that there is also no intelligence-type information that would necessitate the creation of a restriction record against the plaintiff. Thus, the distinction between a generalized security defense and the existence of a personalized legal basis determined the outcome of the dispute.

Legal Significance of the Interim Decision Dated April 2, 2026: The Principle of Ex Officio Investigation

In administrative proceedings, the court is not restricted to evaluating the dispute solely on the basis of limited documents submitted by the parties. Article 20 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 pursuant to, courts may conduct ex officio necessary examinations regarding the cases pending before them and request the information and documents they need from relevant institutions. This is of particular importance in disputes where the basis of the transaction lies predominantly in the records of the administration.

In the specific case, the foundational documents of the security assessment alleged to have caused the G-87 code may not be of a nature that the plaintiff can directly access. Therefore, adopting an approach merely stating that “the plaintiff failed to prove that the threat asserted by the administration does not exist” does not eliminate the need to investigate the accuracy of the information held by the administration. With the court's interim decision dated 02.04.2026, requesting concrete findings from the defendant administration and relevant security institutions, has been the stage that revealed the merits of the dispute.

Why Is It Important to Request Information from Which Institution?

While the Presidency of Migration Management is related to the administrative dimension of the immigration law action subject to the lawsuit, the General Directorate of Security and the Intelligence Department are among the institutions that can explain the basis of the security assessment. The fact that information was also requested from the National Intelligence Organization indicates that the court opted for a multifaceted investigation into the source of the records. However, the inclusion of an institution's name in the interim decision does not necessarily mean that such institution has issued an adverse report regarding the plaintiff.

The conclusion in the court's judgment is clearly as follows: The relevant administrations have failed to submit concrete information or documents that could serve as the basis for the establishment of the restriction code. The court's additional note that there is no intelligence-type information moves this lawsuit beyond a mere debate over "missing documents." This determination is a court finding set forth in the text of the judgment and should not be read as a general and unlimited assertion that no records whatsoever exist in the archives of all security units.

Grounds for Annulment by the Ankara 26th Administrative Court

The court's reasoning was shaped around three fundamental findings:

1. It was evaluated that there is no judicial or administrative action supporting the restriction code concerning the plaintiff.
2. to constitute a basis for the imposition of the restriction code concrete information or document could not be established.
3. to justify the record concerning the plaintiff information of an intelligence nature was determined not to be present.

"It has been concluded that there is no compliance with the law in the subject transaction established against the plaintiff."

This statement is taken from the reasoning section of the decision of the Ankara 26th Administrative Court dated 29.09.2026, numbered E.2025/3244 and K.2026/2355.

Consequently, the court ruled that the subject transaction associated with the G-87 restriction code unanimously decided for its annulment ruled that trial expenses amounting to TRY 1,824.30 and attorney's fees amounting to TRY 40,000, determined in accordance with the tariff in effect as of the decision date, shall be collected from the defendant administrations and paid to the plaintiff.

How Did the Court's Three Separate Findings Lead to a Legal Conclusion?

When the text of the decision is read carefully, it is seen that the court's reasoning does not consist solely of a single-sentence assessment of "lack of evidence." The court noted that no judicial or administrative proceedings had been instituted against the plaintiff, the legal basis for the restriction code the absence of concrete documents and as well as the absence of intelligence-based information, evaluated these together. These three elements led to the conclusion that no connection could be established between the defense that the plaintiff posed a threat to public order or security and the material content presented in the administrative file.

The first determination here does not mean that every G-87 record must necessarily be based on a criminal investigation. The evaluation to be made by the administration regarding public security may, in some cases, be independent of a criminal conviction. The second determination focuses on whether there is any document related to the specific case. The third determination explains that the intelligence-based foundation that could be asserted regarding security restrictions could not be demonstrated in this dispute either. Consequently, the court annulled the subject G-87 administrative act.

What Should Be Understood by Concrete Information and Documents?

Depending on the nature of the case file, official correspondence, incident reports, judicial records, border crossing records, inter-agency information requests, security assessments containing date and source information, or other person-specific determinations may be subject to debate. However, which of these is sufficient cannot be determined without separately evaluating their content and whether they were obtained lawfully. The administration's statement that "there is negative intelligence" is a different matter from establishing a connection between this claim and the person, time, and event.

What is important in the reviewed case is not that the plaintiff party refuted a specific document, but rather that although the court conducted an investigation through the relevant sources, no document or intelligence information that could serve as the basis for the administrative act could be presented. Therefore, the true originality of the decision lies not merely in the annulment of the long-term ban, but in the fact that the grounds for annulment are explicitly linked to the investigative method.

Why Is the Term "Public Security" Alone Insufficient?

The State has the authority to protect public order and public security regarding the admission of foreigners into the country. However, the discretionary power granted to the administration does not mean that the enacted acts are exempt from judicial review.

In order for the element of cause of an administrative act to be subject to judicial review, it is necessary to demonstrate which material facts the act is connected to. While certain security information may be confidential by nature, such confidentiality does not automatically justify sustaining the act without presenting any grounds whatsoever.

The unique aspect of the case under review is not merely that the ground of public safety was insufficiently detailed. Although the Court requested explanations and documents from the relevant institutions, a void exists in terms of both tangible evidence and supporting intelligence-nature information, as it has determined.

A similar debate is also observed in the decisions of the Council of State regarding G-87 records. For example, in the G-87 dispute within the Council of State's decision archive, the underlying information and documents were requested, and an examination was conducted as to whether tangible data was submitted by the administration. Nevertheless, each decision must be evaluated in terms of its own parties and facts; the ruling of this case does not directly produce legal consequences for third parties.

How Can It Be Evaluated in Conjunction with the Decisions of the Council of State and the Constitutional Court?

Judicial decisions concerning G-87 are not identical to one another. While a concrete security assessment may exist in one dispute, the justification for the administrative act may not have been submitted to the court in another. Therefore, it is necessary to examine not only the common points of precedent decisions but also the material events that led to differing outcomes.

G-87 Decision of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State Dated 2024

In the decision of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State, numbered E.2020/4631, K.2024/5214 and dated 21.11.2024,, the information and documents forming the basis of the G-87 records subject to the dispute were investigated, and the fact that the records had been removed by the administration was also evaluated. The Council of State indicated that a re-decision must be rendered by investigating the grounds for the removal of the restrictive codes, thereby annulling the previous judgment of dismissal. This decision does not pertain to the same concrete case as the 2026 decision of the Ankara 26th Administrative Court; however, it is suitable for comparison regarding the necessity of investigating the basis of the restriction act.

Application of N.O. before the Constitutional Court

In the Constitutional Court's decision dated 17.11.2021 regarding the application of N.O., App. No: 2018/36798, however, the impact of the G-87 linked entry ban on the individual's family life was evaluated. The High Court emphasized that the administration's security justification was not substantiated and that the first-instance court contented itself merely with a formal review. The scope of the legal review in this decision is limited to the claim of the right to respect for family life; therefore, it cannot be presented as an identical precedent directly applicable to the case at hand.

The Outcome is Not Identical for Every Security Record

The presence of concrete, relevant, and legally reviewable information at the disposal of the administration during the judicial evaluation may lead to different outcomes. Other G-87 disputes in the Constitutional Court's decision archive also demonstrate the importance of the specific circumstances of the case, the content of the intelligence, family life ties, and the grounds for review. Therefore, the decision of the Ankara 26th Administrative Court should not be established as a general rule implying that all G-87 records must be annulled.

What Are the Legal Consequences of the Annulment of the G-87 Restriction Code?

The annulment of the subject transaction by a court decision indicates that the administrative action in question was found to be unlawful upon judicial review. The reflection of the annulment decision onto administrative records and border practices, on the other hand, is a separate implementation phase that requires the decision to be delivered to the relevant authorities and executed accordingly.

Pursuant to Article 28 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, administrations are obligated to comply with and execute court decisions without delay. As a rule, this period, starting from the service of the decision to the administration, cannot exceed 30 days.

However, since there is no separately verified information in the specific case file regarding the exact date the entry ban record was removed from the relevant systems or the date the individual actually entered through the border gate, "the restriction has been completely deleted from the system" or "entry into Turkey has been definitively secured" such a conclusion should not be drawn.

Does This Decision Automatically Allow the Foreigner to Enter Türkiye?

The annulment ruling aims to eliminate the legal basis of the entry ban subject to the lawsuit. However, visa and passport conditions, as well as whether there is any other entry ban or different administrative record concerning the individual, shall be examined separately. If there is a new or independent legal obstacle, this decision does not automatically produce effects regarding it.

Why is the Updating of Administrative Records Following a Court Decision a Separate Matter?

When an annulment ruling is issued regarding the G-87 restriction code and entry ban, an implementation process also comes into question in terms of reflecting the legal decision to the transactions and information systems of the relevant administrations. The date and number under which the transaction annulled by the court is registered, whether there are any other restriction records belonging to the same person, and the current status of the data at border gates are of importance at this stage.

Article 28 of Law No. 2577, regulates the administration's obligation to comply with and execute court decisions. However, since there is no verified information regarding the exact date on which the record was physically deleted in the specific dispute, an actual technical deletion date is not specified in this article. The annulment decision and the fulfillment of all conditions during passport control do not constitute the same factual event.

This distinction is particularly important for individuals who have faced entry bans for many years. Whether the person's passport is valid, whether they benefit from visa exemption, whether there is any other administrative obstacle, and the updating of administrative records are separate questions. The specific court decision targets the transaction subject to the lawsuit; it does not automatically rule on another administrative act.

An Entry Ban and a Deportation Order Are Not the Same Thing

Preventing a foreigner from entering the country and deciding to deport them while they are present in Türkiye are legally distinct procedures. Both may coexist for the same person or may arise at different times. Our guide on the annulment of deportation, examines the separate litigation periods and legal nature of the deportation procedure. The subject of this article, however, is the G-87 restriction record and entry ban in the case file.

The Significance of the Decision Regarding Other Restriction Code Lawsuits

This case demonstrates how crucial the investigation of the legal basis of the administrative act can be in an annulment action filed against a long-standing entry ban. investigation of the legal basis of the administrative act A screenshot or institutional correspondence regarding the existence of the G-87 record may not, by itself, be sufficient to explain the material grounds upon which the act is based.

In administrative jurisdiction, the facts underlying the contested act and the legal sufficiency of these facts can be examined. Particularly in disputes where the initial record is very old and extension or update procedures have been carried out in subsequent periods, the dates and legal grounds of the different actions must be determined separately.

In another case handled by our office, the annulment decision rendered by the Ankara 26th Administrative Court concerning the Ç-149 restriction code also demonstrates the role of concrete justification in judicial review. However, Ç-149 and G-87 records are not the same administrative act; the legal grounds, transaction date, scope, and supporting documents of each restriction code must be examined individually.

Difference from Ç-149 and V-69 Decisions: The Same Evidence Issue, Different Procedures

The issue of establishing the concrete grounds of an administrative act arises not only in G-87 code cases but also in other immigration and aliens law matters. Nonetheless, in case reviews, different restriction codes should not be evaluated as a single legal transaction. In the examples handled by our office, the underlying transaction of the dispute and the asserted facts differ.

Scroll horizontally to view the full table

This table aims to illustrate the context of the decisions; one decision does not set a precedent or predetermine another. The evidentiary review in deportation proceedings based on public order grounds is separately annulment of the deportation decision based on public order grounds in our review, whereas the necessity of clearly indicating the third country to which the return will be made in the safe third country decision we have addressed.

What Issues Must Be Examined in a Similar Entry Ban Case File?

Based on this ruling, it is not possible to state that all G-87 records are unlawful. To properly determine the legal path to be followed in a case, the following matters in particular must be investigated:

• The entry ban and restriction record's initial establishment date and the authority that executed the procedure,
• The duration of the initial decision and, if any, extension or renewal procedures,,
• The grounds for the justification of public order or public security stated by the Administration,
• The scope of existing judicial, administrative, or intelligence-related records concerning the relevant person,
• The date of notification or awareness of the procedure and the applicable statutory limitation period for filing a lawsuit,
• Whether there is a separate deportation decision, visa barrier, or other restriction record distinct from the entry ban,
• The status of the implementation of the decision by the administration in the event of an annulment ruling, and current restriction records.

For a general evaluation immigration law benefiting from the relevant legal explanations available on our page is also possible.

Legal Assessment of the Plaintiff's Counsel: What Makes the Case Significant?

In this dispute filed and pursued by Atty. Batın Yılmaz in the capacity of counsel for the plaintiff, the core issue is whether an individualized material ground that would justify maintaining the G-87 restriction code years later can be demonstrated. Stating that the entry ban has been extended for another 15 years aggravates the consequences of the administrative act; however, the primary basis of the decision is not solely the duration of the period.

The court's request for records from the defendant administration, the National Intelligence Organization, and law enforcement units aimed to substantiate the allegations in the case file. Following the determination that no concrete supporting documents or intelligence-nature information were submitted by the relevant institutions, an annulment ruling was issued. The practical contribution of the decision is that, beyond the code and category carried by the administrative act, it points out that it must be investigated upon which specific facts each individual case is based.

In another case, the date the record was established, the relevant authority, the administrative justification, the actual status of the foreigner, existing reports, and the application period against the action may differ. Therefore, while this decision serves as a useful precedent for legal analysis, it does not guarantee direct results for other individuals. Our office's anonimleştirilmiş karar incelemeleri section also includes the factual and legal distinctions of various administrative disputes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which Administrative Action Was Annulled in the Case File No. G-87 of the Ankara 26th Administrative Court?

The Court ruled for the annulment of the act connected to the G-87 restriction code dated 29.11.2012 and numbered 217335, as well as the subject matter act concerning the extension of this ban for 15 years. The decision is numbered E.2025/3244, K.2026/2355.

What Was the Legal Basis for Lifting the 15-Year Ban in This Case File?

The Court evaluated together the failure to present concrete documents or intelligence information supporting the G-87 record regarding the plaintiff, as well as the absence of any judicial or administrative proceedings against the plaintiff, and concluded that the subject matter act was not in compliance with the law.

Was the Initial G-87 Entry Ban Imposed in 2012?

Yes. According to the decision, the initial administrative action is dated 29.11.2012 and numbered 217335. This initial action and the subsequent 15-year extension were evaluated together in the lawsuit.

From Which Institutions Did the Court Request Information and Documents?

By the interim decision dated 02.04.2026, concrete findings regarding the basis of the restriction code were requested from the defendant administration, the National Intelligence Organization (Millî İstihbarat Teşkilâtı Başkanlığı), the Directorate General of Security Intelligence Department, and the Directorate General of Security.

Did This Ruling State That a Criminal Conviction Is Strictly Required for a G-87 Code?

No. The court evaluated the absence of judicial or administrative proceedings against the specific plaintiff, together with the lack of concrete documents and intelligence information. It did not establish a general rule that every G-87 action must necessarily be based on a criminal conviction.

Are the 15-Year Extension of the Five-Year Entry Ban and the Ten-Year Additional Period Stipulated by Law the Same Thing?

No. The text of the decision states that the initial five-year ban dating from 2012 was extended by an additional 15 years. Meanwhile, Article 9, Paragraph 3 of Law No. 6458 regulates that a maximum of ten years may be added to the five-year general period in cases of serious threat. The court based its annulment ruling not solely on the time limit, but also on the lack of a concrete legal basis.

Does the Rendering of This Decision Prove That the Entry Ban Record Has Been Erased from the System?

The operative part of the decision rules for the annulment of the administrative action subject to the lawsuit. However, the exact date on which the record was updated in administrative systems or whether the individual actually crossed the border cannot be understood from the text of the decision; these are matters requiring separate verification.

Can This Decision Be Used in Other G-87 Entry Ban Lawsuits?

It can be used in comparative legal evaluations in terms of its reasoning. However, it does not produce automatic legal effects for other foreigners; each administrative act must be examined together with its date of enactment, underlying records, notification, and application conditions.

Conclusion: The Basis of the Long-Term Entry Ban Could Not Be Demonstrated in Judicial Review

The decision of the Ankara 26th Administrative Court dated September 29, 2026, constitutes an important judicial review regarding the G-87 restriction code entry ban, which began in 2012 and was subsequently extended for 15 years. In the lawsuit pursued by the plaintiff's counsel, Atty. Batın Yılmaz, the court investigated the grounds for the records from the relevant administration and security units pursuant to an interim decision dated April 2, 2026; however, determining that no concrete or intelligence-based supporting information could be reached, the court annulled the subject administrative action.

The fundamental legal message of the decision is not to abolish the administration's authority to protect public order and public security, but to demonstrate that this authority cannot be exercised independently of individualized, material grounds subject to judicial review. The issuance of an annulment ruling in the case should not be interpreted as automatically eliminating the existence of another immigration law measure or passport and visa conditions.

Legal Resources and Related Reviews

• Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection – Presidency of Migration Management (PDF), specifically Article 9.
• Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 – Official legislation text, specifically Articles 20, 28, 45, and 52.
• Constitution of the Republic of Turkey – Constitutional Court, specifically Articles 16 and 23.
• Council of State jurisprudence regarding the G-87 restriction code – Ministry of Justice jurisprudence archive.
• Constitutional Court application of N.O., App. No: 2018/36798.
• Another individual application concerning G-87 in the Constitutional Court decision archive.
• General information regarding the G-87 code and litigation processes.
• Sample court decisions and legal analyses.

Author and Legal Information

Atty. Batın YILMAZ
Istanbul Bar Association – Bar Registry No: 77008

This text is a legal case review based on the decision of the Ankara 26th Administrative Court dated 29.09.2026, numbered E.2025/3244 and K.2026/2355. Personal information of the parties has not been published. The review is limited to the facts established in the case file and the reasoning of the decision; it does not imply that the same outcome will be achieved in other cases.