Rejection of Citizenship Application and Annulment Action: General Procedure, Marriage, and Exceptional Citizenship

The subject under review is the rejection of a foreigner's application to subsequently acquire Turkish citizenship, along with the administrative and judicial remedies available against such rejection. The scope covers applications for citizenship through the general procedure, marriage, and exceptional circumstances.

The principal regulation is the Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901. Pursuant to the Law, citizenship is acquired either by birth or subsequently. Subsequent acquisition, as a rule, takes place by decision of the competent authority.

The fundamental distinction is as follows:

Application procedure: Citizenship through the general procedure. Main legal framework: Articles 10-11 of Law No. 5901. Critical feature: The requirements include five years of uninterrupted residence, intent to settle, income/profession, proficiency in Turkish, good moral character, and compliance with public order and national security conditions.

Application procedure: Citizenship by marriage. Main legal framework: Article 16 of Law No. 5901. Critical feature: Marriage to a Turkish citizen does not grant citizenship by itself; at least three years of marriage, maintaining a marital union, and fulfilling public order and security conditions are required.

Application procedure: Exceptional citizenship. Main legal framework: Article 12 of Law No. 5901. Critical feature: It applies in cases such as investment, extraordinary service, Turquoise Card, necessity, or immigration; a review of national security and public order is conducted here as well.

Article 10 of Law No. 5901 explicitly states that meeting the statutory requirements does not grant an individual an absolute and automatic right to be naturalized. However, this rule does not mean that the administration has unlimited discretionary power. Administrative rejection acts are subject to judicial review in terms of authority, form, reason, subject matter, and objective.

If the rejection of the application is based, in particular, on the grounds of an "obstacle in terms of national security and public order," the main legal question of the article is:

Has the administration relied on concrete, current, individualized, and judicially reviewable facts when rejecting the citizenship application?

The burden of proof and explanation in this regard is twofold:

The applicant must document that they meet the positive conditions regarding the application procedure.

The administration, on the other hand, must set forth the legal basis for the rejection act and, in particular, the security/public order assessment to an extent that allows for judicial review.

---

PROCEDURAL LAW ANALYSIS

1. Type of lawsuit to be filed

The primary lawsuit to be filed against the rejection of a citizenship application is an annulment action.

Pursuant to Article 2 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, persons whose interests have been violated may file an annulment action on the grounds that administrative acts are unlawful in terms of authority, form, reason, subject matter, or objective.

This lawsuit is not an action for performance, but an annulment action aimed at eliminating the unlawfulness of the rejection act. Therefore, as a rule, the prayer for relief is formulated as:

"Deciding on the annulment of the rejection act"

in the form of.

The court shall not substitute itself for the administration and directly render a decision granting citizenship. Following the annulment decision, the administration is required to re-evaluate the application in accordance with the reasoning of the judgment.

2. Competent court

The rejection of a citizenship application constitutes an administrative act. Therefore, the competent judicial branch for the dispute is the administrative judiciary.

As a rule, the court of first instance is the administrative court.

Legal bases:

Constitution Art. 125: Judicial review is available against all kinds of acts and actions of the administration.

IYUK Art. 2: An annulment action may be filed with the request for the annulment of unlawful administrative acts.

3. Competent Court

Jurisdiction must be determined carefully based on the type of action and the organizational structure of the authority executing the act. Although citizenship applications are often received through the provincial civil registry and citizenship directorate, the final act may be executed by the Ministry of Interior or, in exceptional citizenship cases, by the decision of the President.

Therefore, in the specific rejection decision:

the authority executing the act,

the date and number of the decision,

the authority making the notification,

on behalf of which authority the rejection decision was executed,

must be examined separately.

In practice, the jurisdiction of the Ankara Administrative Courts frequently comes into question in lawsuits filed against citizenship transactions executed by central administration authorities. However, the definitive jurisdictional assessment must be made according to the content of the rejection decision. Citizenship law attorney It should be particularly emphasized that working with an advisor and having the applicant's rejection letter and its attachments reviewed by an administrative law expert is of great importance.

4. Limitation Period for Filing a Lawsuit

Pursuant to Article 7 of the İYUK, unless a different period is prescribed in a special law, the limitation period for filing a lawsuit in administrative courts is 60 days starting from the day following the written notification.

Critical considerations in calculating the limitation period:

The period begins on the day following the service of the rejection decision, not the day it was served.

The service envelope of the rejection letter, the electronic notification record, or the applicant's signed delivery receipt must be retained.

In the event that the limitation period expires, the lawsuit may be dismissed on procedural grounds due to expiration of the time limit, without examining the merits.

The decision of the Council of State 10th Chamber regarding exceptional citizenship applications, dated 22.06.2023, E. 2023/2015, K. 2023/4055, serves as a concrete example of this risk. In the decision, without proceeding to the examination of the merits, it was evaluated that the applicant had learned of the grounds for rejection earlier and failed to file the lawsuit within the statutory period.

5. Administrative Application pursuant to Article 11 of the İYUK

Before filing a lawsuit against the administrative act, pursuant to Article 11 of the İYUK:

annulment of the act,

withdrawal of the act,

modification of the act,

establishment of a new transaction

it may be requested from the superior authority, or if there is no superior authority, from the authority that performed the administrative act.

If this application is made within the statutory filing period, it suspends the running of the limitation period for filing a lawsuit. Failure of the administration to respond within 30 days shall mean that the request has been rejected. Following the rejection or implied rejection, the limitation period for filing a lawsuit begins to run anew, taking into account the time that had already elapsed prior to the application date.

This remedy may be useful in clarifying the grounds for rejection and completing missing documents. However, in order not to miss the 60-day period for filing a lawsuit, the time calculation must be performed meticulously.

6. Stay of execution

Pursuant to Article 27 of İYUK, the filing of a lawsuit does not automatically stay the execution of the rejection act. The court may rule for a stay of execution only if the following two conditions are met cumulatively:

The administrative act being clearly unlawful,

The execution of the act causing damages that are difficult or impossible to compensate.

The rejection of a citizenship application may not directly and urgently constitute damages that are difficult to remedy in every case. Conversely, if the rejection act produces effects in conjunction with residence, family reunification, employment opportunities, long-term status, education, or other related administrative procedures, the request for a stay of execution must be substantiated.

7. Mediation

There is no mandatory mediation requirement as a condition precedent for filing an annulment lawsuit against the rejection of a citizenship application.

8. Fees and litigation value

Since an annulment action is filed against an administrative act whose subject matter cannot be measured in monetary terms, it is, as a rule, subject to a fixed fee. If a claim for damages is additionally asserted in the specific dispute, the fee and claim structure must be reassessed.

9. Legal remedy

Pursuant to Article 45 of the İYUK, an appeal against an administrative court decision may, as a rule, be filed within 30 days from the service of the decision. The appellate review is conducted by the relevant Regional Administrative Court.

Since the finality thresholds set forth in Article 45 of the İYUK may vary depending on the date of the decision, the assessment of appealability must be made by also taking into account the monetary thresholds in effect at the time the decision was rendered.

---

CLAIM ITEM ANALYSIS

The primary claim under this subject heading is the annulment of the rejection procedure. In the web article, the material conditions must be evaluated separately for each remedy.

A. Rejection of the application for Turkish citizenship through the general procedure

Legal bases: Articles 10 and 11 of Law No. 5901.

The basic conditions required for an application through the general procedure are as follows:

To be of legal age and have legal capacity,

To have resided uninterruptedly in Turkey for five years retrospectively from the application date,

Demonstrating the intention to settle in Turkey through actions,

Not having a disease that constitutes a danger to public health,

Having good moral character,

Being able to speak Turkish sufficiently,

Having an income or profession to ensure livelihood,

Not having an impediment in terms of national security and public order.

Calculation or evaluation method:

The applicant must substantiate all conditions with official documents. For example, entry-exit records can be used for the residency requirement; SGK (Social Security Institution) statements, employment contracts, tax records, or bank statements for income; and residency, family, education, property, or employment documents for the intention to settle.

Statute of Limitations:

In an annulment action, classical private law limitation periods do not apply; rather, the 60-day administrative litigation period is critical.

Interest:

There is no claim for interest in the annulment of a mere rejection action. In the event of filing a full remedy action for a separate pecuniary loss arising from an administrative act, interest shall be evaluated separately according to the nature of the loss and default.

Precedent: Council of State, 10th Chamber, E. 2021/3093, K. 2022/289, T. 20.01.2022.

B. Rejection of the application for Turkish citizenship through marriage

Legal basis: Article 16 of Law No. 5901.

Marriage to a Turkish citizen does not automatically confer citizenship. The application requires at least three years of marriage and the continuation of the marriage. In addition, the following conditions are examined:

Living within a family union,

Not engaging in activities incompatible with the marital union,

The absence of any impediment in terms of national security and public order

conditions are examined.

Evaluation method:

The authenticity of the marriage and whether the family union genuinely continues are evaluated through documents such as residence at the same address, children in common, joint economic life, statements of neighbors or the surrounding community, social security, and civil registry records.

Statute of limitations / litigation period:

60 days from the notification of the rejection decision.

Interest:

Not applicable in annulment actions.

Precedents:

Council of State, 10th Chamber, E. 2022/2304, K. 2022/4755, D. 26.10.2022.

Council of State, Assembly of Administrative Law Chambers, E. 2023/1055, K. 2023/2179, D. 01.11.2023.

Council of State, 10th Chamber, E. 2021/3093, K. 2022/289, T. 20.01.2022.

C. Rejection of exceptional citizenship application

Legal basis: Article 12 of Law No. 5901.

Exceptional citizenship does not mean that the applicant will be automatically naturalized. Falling under one of the categories enumerated in the law is also not sufficient on its own. Specifically, there must be no obstacles in terms of national security and public order.

Pursuant to Article 12/2 of Law No. 5901, the requests of those who pose an obstacle in terms of national security and public order shall be rejected by the Ministry.

Evaluation method:

In exceptional applications, investment certificates, title deed records regarding the acquisition of real estate, bank receipts, employment documents, proposals from relevant institutions, Turquoise Card, or residence permit documents are of significance. However, the security and public order investigation falls within the administration's scope of inquiry.

Statute of limitations / litigation period:

60 days from the notification of the rejection decision.

Interest:

Interest is not applicable in pure annulment claims.

Precedent: Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2021/279, K. 2025/3174, T. 23.06.2025. This decision does not directly concern the initial application rejection act, but rather the revocation of exceptional citizenship; nevertheless, it can be used cautiously in the article on the grounds that the administration must substantiate its security assessment with concrete and sufficient data.

---

PRECEDENT CASE LAW ANALYSIS

1. Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2022/2304, K. 2022/4755, T. 26.10.2022

Case: The applicant applied to acquire Turkish citizenship through marriage. The application was rejected based on the conviction and the verdict of the postponement of the announcement of the judgment (HAGB) regarding the offense of assault.

Legal issue: Does an assault act, which resulted in a verdict of the postponement of the announcement of the judgment and remained limited in nature, lead to the conclusion that the applicant constitutes an obstacle to citizenship in terms of national security and public order?

Approach of the Danıştay: The Danıştay did not consider the mere existence of a criminal record sufficient in citizenship applications; it evaluated the nature of the offense, its actual gravity in terms of public order, and the specific circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The individual rejection act was annulled in favor of the applicant.

Main principle to be used in the article: The concepts of public order and national security cannot be automatically equated with every judicial record or every criminal investigation. Administrative and judicial authorities must evaluate the nature of the concrete act and the personal situation of the applicant.

Strengthening aspect: It is a strong precedent against the rejection of a citizenship application based on a single act of low severity or one that does not pose a direct risk regarding naturalization.

2. Plenary Session of the Administrative Law Chambers of the Council of State (Danıştay İdari Dava Daireleri Kurulu), E. 2023/1055, K. 2023/2179, D. 01.11.2023

Case: The citizenship application through marriage was rejected on the grounds of a record pertaining to the crime of assault.

Legal issue: Can the administration's assessment of public order be made in an abstract manner, without taking into account the personal circumstances of the applicant and the nature of the offense?

The approach of the Board: The Board upheld the approach of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State concerning the annulment of the rejection act. It acknowledged that when making an assessment in terms of public order and national security, the nature and gravity of the offense, as well as the specific circumstances of the case, must be taken into consideration.

Conclusion: The evaluation regarding the annulment of the rejection act in favor of the applicant has been upheld.

Strengthening aspect: Since this decision was rendered by the Plenary Session of the Administrative Law Chambers of the Council of State, it possesses high persuasive authority in practice. However, it should not be asserted that case law carries abstract and absolute binding force akin to statutory provisions.

3. 10th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 10. Daire), E. 2021/3093, K. 2022/289, D. 20.01.2022

Case: The citizenship application through marriage of the applicant, a Bulgarian citizen, was rejected on the grounds of a suspended prison sentence imposed for the crime of causing zoning pollution.

Legal issue: Does a suspended prison sentence and the crime of zoning pollution constitute a risk to public order that impedes citizenship in each specific case?

Approach of the Danıştay: The Council of State took into consideration that the applicant lives within a family unity and has not engaged in activities incompatible with the marital union. It concluded that the nature of the offense does not constitute a threat to national security or public order that would preclude naturalization.

Conclusion: A ruling was rendered in favor of the applicant on the grounds that the rejection act lacked lawfulness.

Strengthening aspect: While acknowledging that fulfilling the application conditions does not grant an absolute right to acceptance, this demonstrates that discretionary power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary or abstract manner.

4. Council of State, 10th Chamber, E. 2021/279, K. 2025/3174, D. 06.23.2025

Case: The Turkish citizenship acquired through exceptional channels by a Syrian national was revoked based on MİT and General Directorate of Security records on the grounds of national security and public order.

Legal issue: Is it permissible for the administration to rely on concrete and insufficient security evaluations in an administrative act resulting in severe consequences regarding citizenship status?

Approach of the Danıştay: The Council of State found the revocation act unlawful on the grounds that the information and documents relied upon by the administration were concrete and insufficient, and furthermore, certain information was already within the knowledge of the administration prior to naturalization.

Conclusion: The administrative act concerning the revocation of citizenship was annulled in favor of the plaintiff.

Usage limit in the article: The decision concerns the revocation of previously acquired citizenship rather than the rejection of the initial application for naturalization. Therefore, it should not be used directly for the same legal consequence, but rather regarding the general principle that the administration's security assessment must be based on reviewable, concrete, and sufficient facts.

5. Council of State, 10th Chamber, E. 2024/3477, K. 2024/4051, D. 10.15.2024 — Adverse precedent

Case: The applicant's, a Ukrainian citizen, application for citizenship through marriage was rejected on the grounds that there is intelligence information indicating that her Turkish citizen spouse has ties to the PKK/KCK.

Conclusion: The Council of State upheld the first-instance court's decision dismissing the action.

The balanced message that must be conveyed in the article: Not every lawsuit filed against citizenship rejection procedures is automatically won. Particularly when allegations of contact/affiliation with terrorist organizations, public safety, or serious security risks are supported by sufficient and verifiable facts in the case file, the administrative act may withstand judicial review.

This decision demonstrates that a rejection decision will not be deemed unlawful per se due to reasons such as family ties or long-term residence; rather, the security assessment will be evaluated based on the concrete contents of the case file.

6. Council of State, 10th Chamber, E. 2023/2015, K. 2023/4055, D. 22.06.2023 — Adverse precedent regarding the statute of limitations

Case and outcome: The action filed against the rejection of the exceptional citizenship request was dismissed on procedural grounds due to expiration of the statute of limitations, on the grounds that the rejection act had been learned previously and the filing period had elapsed.

Purpose of use in the article: Rather than focusing on the grounds for rejection on the merits, this decision illustrates the vital importance of the 60-day limitation period.

---

EVIDENCE EVALUATION AND CORRELATION

When filing an administrative lawsuit against a citizenship rejection decision, the case file should not rely solely on a general claim stating “I meet the citizenship requirements.” Every condition must be documented.

ANNEX-1: Citizenship application form and application registration document. Proves the method and date of application.

ANNEX-2: Rejection decision and notification document. Proves the administrative act subject to the lawsuit and the commencement of the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit.

ANNEX-3: Passport, residence permit, and entry-exit records. Important for uninterrupted residence and de facto ties with Turkey.

ANNEX-4: Population registration copy, marriage certificate, spouse's citizenship record. Demonstrates marriage and family unity in applications through marriage.

ANNEX-5: Address registration records, lease agreement, title deed, utility bills. Supports the intention to settle in Turkey and living within a family unit.

ANNEX-6: SSI (SGK) service statement, employment contract, tax plate, company records. Used regarding income, profession, and the sustainability of economic life.

ANNEX-7: Criminal record, court decisions with finality annotations. If the grounds for refusal are based on a criminal record, the nature, outcome, and legal status of the offense shall be evaluated.

ANNEX-8: Interview or investigation-research form. Indicates the administration's favorable/unfavorable findings regarding the applicant.

ANNEX-9: Administrative application petition and responses. If the remedy under Article 11 of the İYUK has been pursued, it is significant in terms of time limits and the administrative process.

ANNEX-10: Documents concerning family, education, health, employment, and social ties. Contributes to the holistic evaluation of the specific case.

Particularly in files involving a criminal record, the following documents may be critical:

Criminal court decision with a finality annotation,

Decisions on the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment (HAGB), suspension of sentence, or acquittal,

Criminal record and archive record,

Documents demonstrating the nature of the offense, whether it was a single incident, and the applicant's subsequent life,

Records regarding reconciliation with the victim, compensation for damages, or completion of the execution of the sentence, if any.

---

OPPOSING PARTY'S PROBABLE DEFENSE

1. “Citizenship application does not confer an absolute right to the applicant”

The legal basis for this defense is Article 10 of Law No. 5901. The administration may argue that even the fulfillment of legal conditions does not make naturalization mandatory.

Counter-argument: This finding is correct; however, the discretionary power of the administration is not unlimited. Discretionary power must be exercised in accordance with the public interest and service requirements, based on concrete facts and lawful justification. The aforementioned decisions of the Council of State demonstrate that every criminal record cannot be deemed an obstacle to citizenship.

2. “Public order and national security assessment fall within the administration’s area of expertise”

The administration may argue that security assessments fall within the exclusive purview and specialized knowledge of public authorities.

Counter-argument: Even if the national security assessment falls within the discretionary scope of the administration, pursuant to Article 125 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Law (İYUK), the administrative act is not exempt from judicial review. Judicial review is not a review of expediency, but rather a review of whether the act is based on concrete grounds, law, and public interest.

3. “Criminal records or intelligence reports are sufficient for rejection”

This defense may be raised particularly in applications involving criminal investigations, convictions, postponement of the pronouncement of the judgment (HAGB), or intelligence records.

Counter-argument: The case law of the Council of State indicates that the type and severity of the record are decisive. The nature of the offense, the applicant's personal circumstances, the recency of the incident, whether it is recurrent, family and social ties, and its concrete impact on public order must be evaluated.

4. “The marriage does not constitute a genuine family union”

In citizenship applications through marriage, the administration may claim that the marriage was entered into formally or that a de facto family union does not exist.

Counter-argument: The same address, shared life, common children, economic partnership, statements regarding the social environment, travel documents, and documents concerning daily life must be presented systematically. In this regard, instead of abstract claims, the reality of the incident must be documented.

5. “The lawsuit has not been filed within the statutory period”

This defense is one of the defenses carrying the highest procedural risk.

Counter-argument: The date of proper notification of the rejection act must be documented; if applicable, the statute-of-limitations-suspending effect of the application under Article 11 of the İYUK must be clearly demonstrated. If it is claimed that the applicant actually learned of the act, this claim must be compared with the rejection letter, notification, and administrative records.

---

JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE

The decisive issue for the administrative court is not whether the naturalization is “earned”, but whether the rejection act subject to the lawsuit was established in accordance with the law.

The points upon which the judge will particularly focus are:

Content of the rejection act: Is there a concrete reason in the rejection letter, or has the administration merely repeated the statutory provision?

Conditions of the application path: Has the applicant been able to document the general, marital, or exceptional citizenship conditions?

Claim of security or public order: Does this allegation contain concrete data establishing a personal and current connection with the applicant?

Nature of the criminal record: Is this an isolated, minor, or dated incident of limited weight regarding naturalization, or does it point to a serious and current public security risk?

The administration's investigation process: Do the review and investigation form, interview, institutional opinions, and other documents support the decision?

Litigation period: Was the lawsuit filed within 60 days of service?

Scope of the claim: Does the plaintiff seek solely the annulment of the rejection procedure, in accordance with the nature of an annulment action?

Key vulnerabilities to be avoided:

Failing to include the rejection notice and the date of service in the file,

Putting forward unverified or incomplete claims such as “I have no criminal record”,

Forming a definitive opinion without ever reviewing the administration's security justification,

Requesting the court to directly grant citizenship in an annulment action,

Incorrectly calculating the 60-day statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit due to an application under Article 11 of the İYUK.

---

LITIGATION STRATEGY

The rejection of a Turkish citizenship application is not in every case a final and unreviewable outcome. However, the applicant must be able to document the statutory conditions, correctly understand the grounds for rejection, and without missing the 60-day limitation period for filing a lawsuit, annulment and restitution action of administrative acts by filing, contest the lawfulness of the act before the administrative judiciary.

Recommended roadmap in terms of practice:

Secure the rejection decision and the date of service. The rejection letter, electronic notification, signed delivery receipt, and application number must be preserved.

Determine the type of application. The required conditions vary depending on whether the application is made through the general pathway, marriage, or the exceptional pathway.

Document the grounds for rejection. The mere inclusion of the phrase "public order" or "national security" may not provide sufficient information for the legal evaluation of the file. Requesting clarification or a reassessment via an application under Article 11 of the İYUK (Administrative Procedure Law) may be considered.

Systematically gather favorable conditions. Documents concerning residence, income, family unity, language, social ties, employment, investment, and criminal records must be classified according to the application procedure.

Do not miss the litigation deadline. As a rule, the period for filing a lawsuit in the administrative court is 60 days starting from the day following service.

Examine the criminal or security allegation based on the concrete case file. Not every criminal record produces the same legal consequence. Conversely, if there are concrete facts posing a serious security risk, the litigation risk must be evaluated realistically.

Formulate the annulment request correctly. What is requested from the court is not to replace the administration and grant a naturalization decision, but rather the annulment of the unlawful rejection act.

Request a stay of execution if necessary. However, the elements of damages that are difficult to compensate and clear unlawfulness must be concretely demonstrated.

---

About Us – Contact Information

Atty. Batın YILMAZ

Bar Association Information:

• Istanbul Bar Association No. 1: 77008
• Union of Turkish Bar Associations: 187392

Address:
Yakuplu Mahallesi, Hürriyet Bulvarı Skyport Residence Kat:12 No:133
Beylikdüzü, İstanbul

Contact:
📞 Telephone: 0 532 669 34 90
📞 Alternative Phone: 0 532 732 34 90