In its decision numbered E. 2024/2102 and K. 2025/427, the Istanbul 15th Administrative Court annulled the deportation order on the grounds that, although it found the administrative assessment that the foreigner posed a threat to public order and security to be legally justified, the safe third country to which the foreigner would be sent was not concretely designated. The distinctive aspect of the decision is that it does not deem the existence of grounds of public order sufficient on its own and requires the destination country to be specified in order to ensure effective judicial review regarding the prohibition of refoulement.

Short answer: If the administration deems it inappropriate to send the foreigner to their country of origin and issues a deportation order to a safe third country, it must concretely designate this country. If the country of destination is not specified, the judiciary cannot review whether the individual will be subjected to torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment in that country.

Case Citation

Court	Istanbul 15th Administrative Court
Case file number	2024/2102
Decision number	2025/427
Decision date	29.01.2025
Subject of the lawsuit	Annulment of the deportation order issued pursuant to Article 54/1-(d) of Law No. 6458
Counsel for the plaintiff	Atty. Batın Yılmaz
Defendant administration	Istanbul Governorate
Outcome of the Decision	Annulment of the deportation order

The decision of the Istanbul 15th Administrative Court, numbered E. 2024/2102 and K. 2025/427, which is the subject of this review, was rendered in the annulment action filed and prosecuted by Atty. Batın Yılmaz the counsel for the plaintiff. The decision is shared with personal data anonymized solely for the purpose of examining its legal reasoning and its significance in practice.

What is the Subject Matter of the Dispute?

In the case file, a deportation order was issued against the foreign national plaintiff due to judicial proceedings initiated on the allegation of injury arising from a dispute that started in a minibus and turned into a fight. The defendant administration evaluated this incident as a threat posed by the plaintiff to public order and public safety, and based the action on Article 54/1-(d) of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection No. 6458.

It was also acknowledged in the administrative act that sending the plaintiff to their country of origin would pose impediments within the scope of Article 4 and Article 55/1-(a) of Law No. 6458. Therefore, it was decided to deport the plaintiff not to their country of origin, but to a "safe third country." However, the administration failed to indicate in the deportation order which country it considered to be the safe third country.

For general information regarding the grounds for deportation orders, service of the decision, and legal consequences, deportation order and annulment lawsuit you may review our guide.

Key Legal Questions to Be Addressed in the Dispute

Can an ongoing criminal investigation be sufficient to conclude that a foreigner poses a threat to public order or public security?
If the administration acknowledges that a foreigner cannot be removed to their country of origin, must the third country to which they will be removed be specified in the deportation order?
Can an effective judicial review regarding the prohibition of refoulement be conducted without knowing the country to which the individual will be sent?
Even if one of the grounds underlying the administrative act is lawful, can the deportation order be annulled in its entirety?

Legal Bases of the Deportation Procedure

Deportation proceedings must be examined by evaluating national and international law rules together, particularly Articles 4, 52, 53, 54, and 55 of Law No. 6458. The current text of the Law can be accessed Legislation Information System via. The institutional statements of the Presidency of Migration Management regarding the subject are also Deportation is located on the page.

Article 54/1-(d) of Law No. 6458: Public order and public security

Article 54, paragraph 1, subparagraph (d) of Law No. 6458 regulates the issuance of deportation decisions against foreigners who pose a threat to public order, public security, or public health. However, the concept of "threat" does not grant the administration unlimited authority exempt from judicial review. The ground element of the administrative act must be based on concrete and credible facts associated with the individual situation of the foreigner.

The absence of a criminal conviction does not automatically render the public order assessment unlawful in every case. Conversely, abstract suspicions, general security assessments, or records not shown to be connected to the individual should not be deemed sufficient. The nature of the incident, existing evidence, stage of the investigation, and the justification of the administrative act must be examined collectively.

Article 4 of Law No. 6458: Prohibition of refoulement

Pursuant to the prohibition of refoulement, no person shall be sent to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or that their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. This protection requires a real and personal risk assessment regarding the country where the deportation order is to be enforced.

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights also prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The official Turkish text of the Convention on the website of the European Court of Human Rights, and the case law regarding the matter in the HUDOC case-law database may be examined.

Law No. 6458, Article 55/1-(a): Persons against whom a deportation decision shall not be taken

Article 55/1-(a) of the Law stipulates that no deportation decision shall be taken in respect of foreigners who, there are serious grounds to believe, would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment in the country to which they will be deported. This assessment must encompass not only the foreigner's country of origin, but also the country to which they are actually planned to be sent.

How Did the Court Evaluate the Grounds of Public Order?

The Court did not find the public order aspect of the deportation decision to be entirely unlawful. Evaluating the plaintiff's statement given during the criminal investigation together with the indictment prepared by the public prosecutor's office, it concluded that the administrative assessment regarding the plaintiff posing a threat to public order and security was based on legal grounds in the specific case file.

This finding is significant. The decision does not contain a general conclusion in the form of "a deportation decision can under no circumstances be issued against a foreigner who does not have a final conviction." Likewise, it cannot be said that the mere existence of a criminal investigation will automatically be sufficient for deportation in every file. The Court's assessment is based on the joint consideration of the statement and the indictment in this file.

Why Was the Deportation Order Annulled?

The decisive reason for the annulment is that the country to which the plaintiff will be sent was not indicated in the deportation procedure. The administration acknowledged that there was an obstacle under the principle of non-refoulement to sending the plaintiff to their country of origin; however, it failed to disclose which state was designated as a "safe third country."

The Court concluded that the procedure established "without a safe third country determination being made" lacked compliance with the law.

When the country of destination is not specified, it is not possible for the court to examine the general conditions in that country, the personal risks of the plaintiff, and the possibility of chain deportation to another country. Such uncertainty renders the judicial review that must be conducted regarding the principle of non-refoulement ineffective.

Therefore, although the Court accepted that the public order justification had a legal basis, it annulled the entire procedure. In other words, not only the grounds for the deportation procedure, but also the country where it will be implemented and the impact of the implementation on fundamental rights must be lawful and reviewable.

Two-Tiered Judicial Review Established by the Decision

Review stage	Question to be answered	The outcome in this file
Grounds for deportation	Are the threats to public order or public security based on concrete facts?	Evaluating the plaintiff's statement and the indictment together, the court found the justification to be based on legal grounds.
Destination country	Is the country to which the foreigner will be removed specified, and is it reviewable with respect to the principle of non-refoulement?	Since a safe third country was not designated, an effective review could not be conducted and the administrative act was annulled.

These two stages are not alternatives to each other. The finding of a substantiated ground of public order does not eliminate the obligation to examine the risk in the country of destination. Similarly, conducting a non-refoulement review does not render the requirement that the deportation ground be based on concrete facts unnecessary.

How Should a Safe Third Country Be Designated in a Deportation Order?

This decision does not mean that a "safe third country" must necessarily be designated in every deportation proceeding. The principle established by the decision is more limited: if the administration acknowledges that the foreigner cannot be removed to their country of origin and exercises the option of removal to a third country, it must designate the selected country in a specific manner amenable to judicial review.

Without designating a specific third country, the following questions cannot be answered:

Does the foreigner have the legal opportunity to be admitted to this country?
Could the foreigner face the risk of torture or ill-treatment in that country?
Can the third country subsequently send the foreigner back to their country of origin where the risk exists?
Have the plaintiff's personal situation and the asserted risks been compared with the concrete conditions in the country?
Could the execution of the administrative act cause irreparable consequences regarding fundamental rights?

Individual application decisions of the AYM concerning the deportation of foreigners Decisions Information Bank can be searched through. In the specific case, country of origin information, personal risk claims, and the conditions of the country to which the deportation is planned must be evaluated together.

Key Elements That Must Be Included in a Deportation Order

Element	Matter to be examined
Competent authority	Whether the act was enacted by the legally authorized administrative authority
Legal ground	Which provision of Law No. 6458 is relied upon
Concrete facts	Which events and documents the claim of public order or security is based upon
Destination country	Whether it is specified to which country the foreigner will actually be sent
Risk assessment	Whether the claims within the scope of the prohibition of refoulement have been individually examined
Justification and notification	Whether the grounds for the decision and the remedies have been duly notified to the foreigner

Are the Revocation of Residence Permit and the Deportation Order the Same Administrative Act?

No. The rejection or revocation of a residence permit and a deportation order are separate administrative acts producing different legal consequences. The revocation of a foreigner's residence permit does not automatically render the deportation order issued against them lawful. Likewise, the annulment of a deportation order does not mean that a new residence permit is automatically granted to the foreigner.

For separate disputes regarding permit status annulment of residence permit and annulment action to our article; and for residence types in Turkey to our Turkey residence permit guide you can refer.

The Ruling of the Court

The Istanbul 15th Administrative Court, unanimously on January 29, 2025, has:

Ordered the annulment of the subject deportation proceeding,
Ordered that the litigation costs, which were not initially collected due to the acceptance of the legal aid request, be assessed against the defendant administration,
Ordered the payment of 18,000 TL in attorney fees and the deposited power of attorney fee by the defendant administration to the plaintiff,
Ruled that the decision shall be final pursuant to Article 53/3 of Law No. 6458 in effect as of the date of the decision.

The evaluation of the legal remedy and litigation period must be conducted separately for each dispute based on the date of the administrative act and the judicial decision, and the legislation in force at that time.

Significance of the Decision in Terms of Enforcement

The decision demonstrates that in deportation disputes, focusing solely on the public order justification underlying the administrative act is not sufficient. Determining the country to which the foreigner will be sent and examining the prohibition of refoulement with respect to that country constitute an independent condition of lawfulness.

The evaluation of public order alone is not sufficient: Even if the administration is justified in its public order grounds, the unlawfulness regarding the country of destination may lead to the annulment of the act.
The country of destination must be specified: An ambiguous reference to a "safe third country" may preclude the judicial review of the actual risk.
The prohibition of refoulement must be examined on a country-by-country basis: Instead of an abstract and general assessment, the personal situation of the foreign national must be compared with concrete country conditions.
A criminal investigation and an administrative proceeding are distinct: The absence of a final conviction does not invalidate the deportation proceeding in every case; however, the concreteness of the administrative justification remains subject to judicial review.
An annulment decision does not automatically create a right of residence: The foreign national's legal residence status in Turkey must be evaluated separately.

In certain cases where departure from Turkey is practically or legally impossible due to the prohibition of refoulement, a humanitarian residence permit may additionally come into question. However, the annulment of a deportation order and the granting of a humanitarian residence permit are distinct procedures. For the evaluation of the conditions humanitarian residence permit you may review our guide.

Legal Assessment by Plaintiff's Counsel

According to the evaluation of Atty. Batın Yılmaz the most crucial aspect of the decision is that it reviews the deportation proceeding on two independent legal axes. The court accepted the ground of public order with respect to the specific case file; nevertheless, it annulled the proceeding because there was no reviewable destination country regarding fundamental rights.

This approach demonstrates that the defense in deportation lawsuits should not be based solely on the assertion that "the plaintiff has not committed a crime." In the case file, the country of destination, the prohibition of refoulement, personal risks, the possibility of chain refoulement, the justification of the decision, and the right to an effective remedy must also be examined separately. Since the evidence and administrative justifications of each dispute differ, this decision cannot be interpreted as meaning that all deportation lawsuits will conclude with the same outcome.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a deportation order be issued without specifying a safe third country?

If the administration acknowledges that there are obstacles to sending the foreign national to their country of origin and decides to deport them to a safe third country, it must specify that destination country. In the reviewed decision, because the country was not specified, an effective judicial review regarding the prohibition of refoulement could not be conducted, and the proceeding was annulled.

Can a deportation order be issued without a final criminal conviction?

It cannot be said that a final criminal conviction is required under all circumstances pursuant to Article 54/1-(d) of Law No. 6458. However, the assessment of a threat to public order or public security must be based on concrete, individualized, and credible facts.

Why did the court annul the administrative act even though it acknowledged the threat to public order?

Because finding the justification of public order lawful does not automatically render the other elements of the deportation procedure lawful. Since the third country to which the deportation will take place was not designated, the risk of ill-treatment could not be reviewed.

Does the annulment of a deportation order grant the foreign national a residence permit?

No. The annulment decision eliminates the subject deportation act with all its legal consequences, but it does not automatically result in the issuance of a residence permit. The stay status of the foreign national is evaluated within the framework of separate legislation and administrative procedures.

Is this decision binding for all similar lawsuits?

The decision is not a general regulation producing automatic effects for all foreign nationals in the same situation. Nevertheless, it serves as an important precedent demonstrating that the destination country must be specified and the principle of non-refoulement must be effectively reviewed.

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

The reasoning of the annulment decision and the current circumstances of the specific case are decisive. The administration cannot repeat the same illegality in a manner that nullifies the judicial decision. However, whether a new administrative act can be established upon the fulfillment of statutory conditions and the rectification of the illegality specified in the judicial decision must be assessed separately based on the specific case.

Conclusion

The decision of the Istanbul 15th Administrative Court, numbered E. 2024/2102, K. 2025/427, demonstrates that even if the justification of public order has a legal basis, the deportation act must be additionally reviewed with respect to the destination country and the prohibition of refoulement. When it is accepted that the foreign national cannot be sent to their country of origin, a mere abstract reference to a "safe third country" is insufficient. The failure to concretely designate the country may prevent the effective examination of fundamental rights risks and lead to the annulment of the act.

Deportation, the prohibition of refoulement, residence status, and administrative litigation processes must be evaluated separately. For other practice areas concerning immigration and aliens law, our immigration law information page you may review.

Anonymized Court Decision

You can view or download the anonymized full text of the decision of the Istanbul 15th Administrative Court, numbered E. 2024/2102, K. 2025/427, analyzed in this article, via the link below.

Anonymized Decision of the Istanbul 15th Administrative Court (PDF)

The decision has been anonymized by taking into consideration the protection of personal data and the attorney's obligation of professional secrecy. The document is shared solely for the purpose of legal information and to serve as a resource for case review.

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 has been taken into consideration. The information contained in the article does not constitute legal advice or a definitive legal opinion regarding specific cases. The analyzed decision does not guarantee that every dispute will result in the same outcome.

Communication and Legal Information