In its decision numbered E. 2022/1053 and K. 2023/3928, the Istanbul 15th Administrative Court found the cancellation of the short-term residence permit based on real estate and the ensuing entry ban to be unlawful, as the allegation that the foreigner leased their residence to someone else could not be proven with concrete evidence. The Court annulled both administrative acts, stating that no lease agreement, bank transaction, witness testimony, or other concrete document was submitted.

Short answer: Allowing someone else to use or rent out the residence under a property-based residence permit may affect the purpose for which the permit was granted. However, the administration must substantiate the occurrence of this act with concrete information and documents. In the reviewed casefile, since the allegation of leasing was not proven, the cancellation of the residence permit and the associated entry ban were annulled.

Case Citation

Court	Istanbul 15th Administrative Court
Case file number	2022/1053
Decision number	2023/3928
Decision date	19.07.2023
Subject of the lawsuit	Annulment of the cancellation of the short-term residence permit based on real estate and the entry ban
The administration's justification	The allegation that the residence underlying the residence permit was rented out to someone else
The travel restriction specified in the casefile	V-69 restriction code
Counsel for the plaintiff	Atty. Batın Yılmaz
Defendant administration	Istanbul Governorate
Outcome of the Decision	Annulment of the residence permit cancellation and entry ban acts
Legal remedy	Open to appeal at the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court within 30 days following the notification

The decision of the Istanbul 15th Administrative Court, case no. E. 2022/1053, K. 2023/3928, which is the subject of this review, by the plaintiff's counsel Atty. Batın Yılmaz . The decision is discussed solely for the purpose of examining its legal grounds and practical importance, without sharing information that could reveal the identity of the relevant person.

How Did the Dispute Arise?

The plaintiff entered Turkey legally in 2020 and became the sole owner of an independent residential unit located in Istanbul on 20.08.2021. Based on their real estate ownership, the plaintiff obtained a short-term residence permit; however, administrative action was subsequently taken against the plaintiff on the grounds that they had leased the residence to another person and were not occupying it themselves.

The Istanbul Provincial Directorate of Migration Management revoked the real estate-based residence permit by its transaction dated 22.02.2022, and additionally imposed an entry ban on the plaintiff due to the cancellation of the residence permit. Case file details indicate this record as a V-69 restriction code.

The plaintiff's counsel claimed that the residence had not been rented to anyone else, that the use of the property continued, and that there was no concrete document proving the administration's allegation, thereby requesting the annulment of both the residence permit cancellation and the entry ban. The defendant administration argued that the property was rented to another party and was not used for residential purposes.

How Was the Contradiction of Dates in the Text Resolved?

In the initial summary text of the decision, the date of the residence permit cancellation action was written as 15.11.2023. However, in the "Summary of the Case" section of the court decision, the transaction date is explicitly stated as 22.02.2022, and the case file's principal number also belongs to the year 2022. Therefore, in this review, the date contained within the court decision's own text 22.02.2022 has been taken as the basis.

In case reviews, if there is a discrepancy between the summary text and the main text of the judgment, the citation and transaction dates must be additionally verified through the anonymized copy of the decision prior to publication.

Legal Basis of the Short-Term Residence Permit Based on Real Estate

The short-term residence permit that may be granted to foreign real estate owners is regulated under Articles 31, 32, and 33 of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection No. 6458. The current text of the Law can be accessed Legislation Information System via. The institutional explanations of the Presidency of Migration Management regarding the implementation are also Types of Residence Permits is located on the page.

Law No. 6458 Art. 31: Owning Immovable Property

Pursuant to Article 31/1-(b) of the Law, short-term residence permits may be granted to foreigners who own immovable property in Turkey. This provision does not grant an unconditional and immutable right of residence to every real estate owner. The residential nature of the property, the purpose of the application, and other conditions required in current practice are evaluated together.

For detailed information regarding the value of the property, the single property requirement, the residential nature, and application documents real estate residence permit conditions you may review our guide.

Law No. 6458 Art. 32: Purpose of stay and address information

A foreigner applying for a short-term residence permit must submit information and documents supporting their purpose of stay in Türkiye and declare the address where they will reside. While title deed records demonstrate ownership in property-based applications, it is also crucial that the residence is used in a manner compatible with the purpose of the application.

Law No. 6458 Art. 33: Use inconsistent with the purpose

Article 33 of the Law provides that the determination of the short-term residence permit being used outside the scope of its issuance purpose constitutes grounds for refusal, revocation, or non-extension. The condition of "determination" implies that the administration cannot rely solely on suspicion or assumption, but must set forth concrete facts regarding the misuse.

Implementing Regulation Arts. 28 and 29

Pursuant to Article 28 of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection, property-based residence permits require the property to be a dwelling and to be used for this purpose. Article 29 of the Regulation lists the determination of the permit being used outside its purpose among the grounds for the revocation of a short-term residence permit. To the official text where the Regulation was published, Official Gazette can be accessed via.

Does Renting Out the Residence Affect the Residence Permit?

The legal basis of a property-based residence permit relies on the foreigner using their dwelling located in Türkiye for this purpose. Renting out the dwelling entirely to a third party and the foreign owner not residing there may lead to the assessment that the basis of the permit has ceased to exist or that the permit is being used outside its purpose, depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

However, for such a conclusion to be legally valid, the allegation that "the dwelling has been rented out" must be proven. The fact that the title deed holder foreigner temporarily accommodates a friend or relative in their home is not the same legal phenomenon as renting out the property to generate income. The mode of use, actual residency, the relationship between the parties, and material evidence must be evaluated together.

What Evidence Was the Administration's Allegation of Leasing Based Upon?

The court has determined that the defendant administration failed to present sufficient material basis to support the claim that the property was rented out to someone else. The decision specifically noted the absence of the following evidence:

A lease agreement executed between the plaintiff and a third party,
Bank account statements demonstrating that rental payments were made to the plaintiff,
Witness testimony confirming the tenancy relationship,
Other concrete information or documents demonstrating that the immovable property is not being used by the plaintiff.

The meaning of the enumeration in the decision is not that all four of these pieces of evidence must necessarily be present in every residence permit revocation file. It is possible to prove the rental relationship or the assignment of use to a third party through different lawful evidence. In the specific case, however, no sufficient evidence has been put forward to substantiate the administration's claim.

Why Was the Commitment Not Considered Proof of the Rental Relationship?

The case file contains a commitment dated 14.02.2022 stating that a friend of the plaintiff will cover expenses such as accommodation, food, and beverages during their stay in Turkey. The content of this document has been further examined regarding the administration's claim of leasing.

The court determined that the commitment does not contain any information indicating that the plaintiff rented out their home. A person undertaking to cover a friend's accommodation and basic expenses does not, in itself, constitute proof of a lease agreement or rental income. The legal nature of a document must be evaluated based on its content and the true relationship of the parties, rather than its title.

The court stated that there was no concrete information or document indicating that the immovable property was used by someone else, and concluded that the residence permit could not be revoked due to an "unsubstantiated act".

The Relationship Between Residence Permit Cancellation and V-69 Restrictive Code

According to the information in the file, following the revocation of the residence permit, an entry ban with a V-69 restriction code was imposed on the plaintiff. In the court decision, this secondary measure was characterized as an entry ban imposed as a result of the revocation of the residence permit.

The entry ban is an administrative act that produces legal consequences distinct from the revocation of a residence permit. Article 9 of the Law No. 6458 regulates the principles regarding the entry ban to Turkey. The official access page of the Law, published by the Presidency of Migration Management, Law on Foreigners and International Protection can be accessed via the link.

The revocation of a residence permit does not automatically render all entry ban measures unlawful in every case and circumstance. Nevertheless, if the sole factual basis for the entry ban is the revocation of the residence permit—which has been found unlawful—the annulment of the underlying act may also affect the legal status of the consequential act. In the examined decision, the court concluded that neither the revocation of the residence permit nor the entry ban imposed on that basis was lawful.

For the nature of restriction codes, our restriction code guide; for the procedures to lift the entry ban, How to Lift the Entry Ban to Turkey? you may review our article.

The termination of a previously issued and still valid residence permit is a distinct administrative act from the rejection of a new application and the denial of an extension request. For detailed information regarding the grounds for revocation, service of process, litigation period, stay of execution, and the effects of the revocation decision on the foreigner's legal stay, our guide on the revocation of residence permits and annulment lawsuits you may review.

What is the Court's Ground for Annulment?

The court determined that the plaintiff is the sole owner of the independent section in question and obtained a residence permit based on this real property. The grounds for the revocation are the allegation that the plaintiff does not use the property personally but has leased it to someone else. However, no lease agreement, payment record, witness statement, or other tangible document demonstrating the occurrence of this act has been submitted to the case file.

The commitment letter explained in the petition does not demonstrate a rental relationship either. Therefore, no link could be established between the material event asserted by the administration and the documents in the case file that would justify the conclusion that the residence permit was used for purposes other than its intended purpose.

Consequently, the court ruled that there was no compliance with the law in revoking the property-based residence permit relying on an unproven act. The entry ban imposed as a consequence of the residence permit revocation was also annulled since it was based on the same unlawful material ground.

What is the Difference from the Previous Address Audit Decision?

Ruling	Administrative allegation	Primary ground for revocation
E. 2024/2663, K. 2024/7206	That the foreigner does not actually reside at the registered address	Failure to supplement the inspection report with neighborhood and utility subscription investigations
E. 2022/1053, K. 2023/3928	That the foreigner leased their real property to another person	Lack of concrete evidence proving the rental relationship or allowing others to use the property

Although both decisions concern residence permits for real estate purposes, they do not resolve the same legal issue. The first decision examined the sufficiency of the address verification; whereas this decision examined whether the allegation of leasing was proven and the legal status of the entry ban based thereon. For the evidentiary and procedural aspects of address investigation residence permit address inspection you can review our article.

The Ruling of the Court

Istanbul 15th Administrative Court, unanimously on 19.07.2023:

Annulment of the act regarding the revocation of the residence permit for real estate purposes,
Annulment of the country entry ban imposed due to the revocation of the residence permit,
Payment of a total of 695.60 TL in litigation expenses by the defendant administration to the plaintiff,
Awarding the attorney's fee of 11,000 TL determined for hearings pursuant to the Minimum Attorney Fee Tariff in effect as of the decision date, to be collected from the defendant administration and given to the plaintiff,
Refund of the remaining postal fee to the plaintiff after the finalization of the decision,
Rendering the decision with the right of appeal at the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court within 30 days following the service of the decision

Significance of the Decision in Terms of Enforcement

The allegation of leasing must be substantiated: Abstract opinion alone does not demonstrate that the residence permit was used outside its purpose.
The content of the document must be taken as a basis: A housing commitment letter cannot be construed as a lease agreement unless it contains a tenancy relationship.
The grounds for an administrative act are subject to judicial review: The administration must be able to submit evidence of the act it claims to have taken before the court.
The connected transaction must be examined separately: The legal basis for an entry ban dependent on the revocation of a residence permit shall be evaluated separately when the primary act is annulled.
A title deed alone does not confer an unrestricted right of residence: The property must be used for residence purposes and other statutory conditions must continue to be met.
Each case is adjudicated based on its own evidence: A different decision may be rendered in another case involving a lease agreement, payment records, or consistent on-site findings.

What Conclusions Should Not Be Drawn from This Decision?

A broad private law conclusion cannot be drawn to the effect that a foreign property owner may under no circumstances lease out their residence.
It cannot be stated that a residence permit may under no circumstances be revoked even if the property is leased.
Every commitment letter issued for a friend does not conclusively prove that the property is actually used by the owner.
An entry ban does not automatically become void for everyone whose residence permit is revoked.
The reviewed first-instance court decision does not indicate that all similar cases will be concluded with the same outcome.

Which Documents Are Important in an Annulment Action?

Depending on the nature of the dispute; title deed records, residence cards, the substantiated revocation act, records regarding the entry ban, notification documents, inspection reports, electricity, water, and natural gas subscriptions, consumption records, documents relied upon by the administration as the basis for the rental relationship, bank transactions, and other lawful evidence explaining the actual use of the immovable property may be examined together.

It is important not only that the document exists, but also that it pertains to the period when the revocation act was instituted and that its connection to the administrative reasoning can be established. Filing a lawsuit does not automatically stay the execution of the administrative act. The current legal status of stay, whether the entry ban has been enforced, and the conditions for a stay of execution must be evaluated separately.

For the general legal consequences of residence permit revocation and the litigation process our residence permit revocation guide you may review.

Legal Assessment by Plaintiff's Counsel

According to the evaluation of Atty. Batın Yılmaz the distinctive aspect of the decision is that it jointly reviews two separate administrative acts based on the same factual ground. The court first examined whether the allegation that the immovable property was rented out was proven; after determining that this act was not substantiated, it found both the revocation of the residence permit and the entry ban imposed due to this revocation to be unlawful.

In such case files, merely submitting a title deed record may not constitute a sufficient litigation strategy. The document or determination upon which the administration bases its allegation of rental, how the foreign national actually used the residence, the legal nature of the relationship with the third party, and whether there is an independent justification for the restriction record must be investigated separately. Since the transaction and evidentiary structure of each dispute differ, the decision cannot be interpreted as a guarantee of outcome.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the residence permit of a foreign national who rents out their immovable property be revoked?

In residence permits based on immovable property, the residence must be used by the foreign property owner for accommodation purposes. Renting out the residence in its entirety and the foreign national not residing there may affect the permit conditions. However, this situation must be demonstrated with concrete information and documents.

Is a commitment of accommodation provided for a friend considered a lease agreement?

No. If the content of the document lacks a rental fee, the intention to lease, or other elements indicating that the residence has been rented out, a commitment to cover accommodation and expenses cannot be considered a lease agreement on its own. In the reviewed decision, it was likewise accepted that the commitment does not demonstrate a rental relationship.

Can the allegation of leasing without a written lease agreement be proven?

Depending on the specifics of the case, bank transfers, party statements, inspection reports, and other lawfully obtained evidence may demonstrate the existence of a tenancy or occupancy relationship. The absence of a written lease agreement does not, in and of itself, mean that no tenancy exists; however, the administration must substantiate its claims with sufficient evidence.

What is the V-69 restriction code?

Does an entry ban automatically become lawful when a residence permit is cancelled?

Was the right of appeal (istinaf) available against this judgment?

Istanbul 15th Administrative Court, Case No. 2022/1053, Decision No. 2023/3928, establishes that a real estate-based short-term residence permit cannot be revoked based on unproven allegations that the property was rented out to someone else. The court concluded that the alleged act was not substantiated as there was no concrete information or document demonstrating a tenancy relationship or that the property was not being used by the plaintiff.

The second significant aspect of the judgment is that the entry ban imposed due to the cancellation of the residence permit was also reviewed based on the same factual grounds. Since the underlying act could not be proven, both the cancellation of the residence permit and the associated entry ban were found to be unlawful.

Regarding the judgment of the Istanbul 15th Administrative Court, Case No. 2022/1053, Decision No. 2023/3928

Conclusion

Review the Annulment Judgment Concerning Real Estate Residence Permit and Entry Ban as a PDF

The second important aspect of the decision is that the entry ban imposed due to the revocation of the residence permit was also examined based on the same material grounds. Since the underlying act could not be proven, both the revocation of the residence permit and the associated entry ban were found to be unlawful.

Full Anonymized Text of the Decision

Analyzed in this article İstanbul 15. İdare Mahkemesinin E. 2022/1053, K. 2023/3928 sayılı kararının, you can access the anonymized sample, with personal data and information that could identify the data subject redacted, in PDF format via the link below.

Review the Decision on the Annulment of the Real Estate Residence Permit and Entry Ban as a PDF

The decision is shared solely for informational purposes and for the review of judicial practice. Personal data and information that may directly or indirectly allow identification contained in the decision have been anonymized. In the event that the anonymization and editorial work performed on this page is 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