The role of Turkish administrative courts in developing jurisprudence on refugee rights: review of the judgments of the administrative courts from 2014 to 2021

ABSTRACT

Turkish administrative courts have a unique role in developing jurisprudence after the adoption of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection in 2014. This article analyses Turkish administrative courts' judgements from 2014 to January 2021 and examines whether there is consistency in the case law of the administrative courts. This article concludes that the decision-making of the administrative courts is still too much of a lottery. There are three main reasons that lead to inconsistencies in the jurisprudence of the administrative courts. The first reason is that court decisions explaining the reasons for their adjudication are not published. Second, some articles in the asylum law give large discretion to the administrative authorities under public security and public order. The third reason is deficiencies in the training of administrative judges and a lack of case law.

KEYWORDS:

• Turkish administrative jurisprudence
• consistency of case law
• legal certainty
• issuance of security codes and entry bans
• withdrawal of international protection

I. Introduction

Turkish administrative courts have started to play an active role in developing jurisprudence on asylum law in the first instance or appeal courts after the adoption of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection (LFIP) (No. 6458),¹ which came into force on 11 April 2014. An asylum seeker can file a case against a decision by the Presidency of Migration Management (PMM) or governorates in the administrative courts claiming that s/he fears imprisonment, torture or death if forced to return to her/his country of origin. In this situation, the administrative courts may approve or annul a decision of the PMM or governorates. To question the decision of an administrative court, an asylum seeker may apply to a regional administrative court to appeal the decision of a first instance court. The decision of the regional administrative court is the final.

This article seeks to make a contribution to the literature by collecting sample asylum cases from each administrative and regional administrative court and analysing their judgments to determine whether Turkish administrative courts are successful in safeguarding refugee rights in their jurisprudence. This article is very important for two main reasons. First, this subject has not been studied before in Turkey. Even though scholars from different countries have discussed this subject widely so far,² the jurisprudence of the Turkish administrative courts on refugees could not be studied before due to the difficulties in accessing sample cases. Second, Turkey hosts the largest refugee community, with 3,6 million Syrians under temporary protection and a conditional refugee population of 297,000 in accordance with statistics from 2023.³ Turkey started to function as a safe third country or first country of asylum after the EU-Turkey Statement⁴ which was signed between the EU heads of state and Turkey in March 2016. The EU-Turkey Statement aimed to resolve the refugee protection crisis by offering financial support to Turkey.⁵ According to the Statement, Syrian refugees who have crossed the border will be returned to Turkey because they have already found temporary protection or could have asked for protection in Turkey. Even though EU Member States insist that Turkey is a safe third country or first country of asylum under the Asylum Procedures Directive,⁶ the real conditions of refugees will determine whether Turkey fully meets the legal requirement of being a safe third country for refugees.⁷ The jurisprudence of the administrative courts plays quite an important role in asssessing the safety status of Turkey.⁸ The judgments of the administrative courts on international protection applications and deportation orders have become an important indicator for the effective implementation of the principle of non-refoulement.⁹

This article has three main sections. The first section explains the methodolgy. It explains how sample cases were collected from each administrative or regional administrative court and the methodolgy used while analysing these sample cases. The second section gives background information about Turkish asylum law and how its works in practice. The last section categorises and analyses sample cases under four main headings: withdrawal of international protection, rejection of international protection, the issuance of security codes/ entry bans and deportation orders. This section aims to illustrate how administrative and regional administrative courts’ judgments differ from each other. This article concludes with observations on whether the administrative courts establish consistency in their jurisprudence.

II. Methodology

This article examines sample asylum cases selected from administrative and regional administrative courts in Turkey. There are 56 administrative and nine regional administrative courts. I had to collect sample cases from each administrative and regional administrative court’s judges by e-mail or phone because administrative courts do not publish their decisions online.¹⁰ I collected ten sample cases from each adminsitrative and regional adminstrative court. Ten sample cases corresponds to nearly 5 per cent of the workload of each administrative court, except in Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir. These three administrative and regional administrative courts have a much greater workload compared to others. Thus, I collected 20 sample cases from each of these administrative and regional administrative courts.

I categorised sample cases into four main areas in accordance with appellants’ requests from the courts. Appellants mainly apply to administrative courts to appeal against the decisions of PMM or governorates concerning the rejection of their international protection applications; withdrawal of their international protection applications;¹¹ entry bans and security codes due to security reasons;¹² and deportation orders.¹³ I used a qualitative method to analyse sample cases.

I also respected ethical principles while analysing them. I have disguised the real names of appellants. I also never use any personal details of appellants in this article.

III. Background information

Turkey has always been a country of immigration, emigration and transit due to its strategic geopolitical position. Comprehensive structural and legal reforms were initiated in the management of its migration and asylum policy as part of the EU accession process from 2000 onwards. These reforms aimed to facilitate the harmonisation of Turkish migration and asylum law with the EU acquis.¹⁴ The LFIP was adopted in 2014 and aimed to replace an outdated legal framework with a new more comprehensive one. It is a clear outcome of the EU's demand for harmonisation¹⁵ that meets most of the requirements set out by the EU, except lifting the geographical limitation of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Turkey, mainly for national security reasons and threats of mass influxes to the region,¹⁶ made a declaration to the 1951 Refugee Convention in accordance with Article 1(B)(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention where the words ‘events occurring before 1 January 1951’ in Article 1(A) were to be understood as ‘events occurring in Europe’.¹⁷ It means that if a person comes to Turkey from outside Europe and seeks asylum, s/he cannot be granted refugee status in Turkey. Therefore, Turkey only grants de jure asylum to those who become refugees as a result of events occurring in Europe.

The LFIP recognises two distinct categories of protection: first, international protection status, which is available upon an individual assessment of asylum claims; and second, temporary protection status, which can be granted to a group in mass-arrival situations.

The first category of protection provides three different statuses for international protection seekers, namely, ‘refugee’, ‘conditional refugee’ and ‘subsidiary protection’. A refugee is defined in Article 61 of the LFIP in conformity with the 1951 Refugee Convention, and it is only available to a person who comes from a European country. Conditional refugee status is defined in Article 62 of the LFIP and it is only given to non-European refugees. Subsidiary protection is defined in Article 63 of the LFIP and extends international protection to those who are neither refugees nor conditional refugees. They cannot be returned to their home country where they might be faced with the death penalty, torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or a serious threat due to violence in international or nationwide armed conflicts.¹⁸ Subsidiary protection was first introduced by the Implementation Circular (No. 57)¹⁹ in 2006. This complementary protection aimed to incorporate the prohibition of refoulement under Article 3 of the ECHR into Turkish asylum law and in line with the European Common Asylum System (CEAS). This type of protection is still available under the new LFIP. It is very interesting to note that the EU adopted the same type of protection under the EU Qualification Directive only two years earlier, in 2004.

The second category of protection, temporary protection, is defined in Article 91 of the LFIP and gives ‘temporary protection’ status to individuals who are forced to leave their country of origin en masse to seek protection. Syrians in Turkey became the subject of a temporary protection system under the Temporary Protection Regulation (TPR) in 2014.²⁰ The termination of temporary protection may be proposed by the Ministry of Interior and approved by the President of Turkey. Along with the termination decision, the President may decide to ‘fully suspend the temporary protection and to return of persons benefitting from the temporary protection to their countries’, or ‘to collectively grant the status, the conditions of which are satisfied by persons benefitting from temporary protection, or to assess the applications of those who applied for international protection on an individual basis’.²¹ In accordance with the TPR, Syrians have been living under temporary protection for seven years, but they do not know what will happen if or when their temporary protection status ends. This great uncertainty puts temporary protection holders in a precarious situation and it is assessed as a push factor.²² When considering the prolonged stay of refugees with temporary protection status, it is vital to define a maximum time limit for temporary protection to eliminate uncertainty and provide dignified living conditions.²³

The LFIP grants a reduced set of rights to conditional refugees and temporary protection holders compared to holders of refugee status. The differences between these three statuses can be explained in two ways. First, although family unification has been permitted for refugee status holders, conditional refugees are not entitled to apply for family unification. Article 49 of the TPR allows temporary protection beneficiaries to apply for family reunification in Turkey with family members outside Turkey, but it is subject to the discretion of PMM. Second, conditional refugees and temporary protection status holders are required to reside in a particular province and to report to the authorities weekly due to public security and public order concerns, while refugees are not required to reside in any defined area. These restrictions on conditional refugees and temporary protection holders are very problematic in practice because this regulation obstructs their economic self-reliance. Residence in the satellite city system makes it difficult for them to find a job to support their life. This often causes them to leave the satellite city for another place, even risking losing their refugee in the process.²⁴

The LFIP provides two different types of asylum procedure: regular and accelerated. In the former case, the PMM is expected to interview the applicant within 30 days and issue a decision within six months.²⁵ As reported by a number of commentators, substantial delays have been observed in the registration and processing of international protection claims due to a lack of adequate interpreters, legal advisors and migration experts.²⁶ In the case of a negative decision, an appeal can be submitted to either the International Protection Assessment Commission within 10 days of notification²⁷ or the administrative court within 30 days following notification of an administrative decision and action. To question the decision of an administrative court, there is an onward appeal authority. The plaintiff may submit an appeal against the administrative court’s decision before the regional administrative court within 30 days after notification of the administrative court’s decision.

Accelerated asylum procedures apply in cases where it is clear that an application for international protection is manifestly unfounded or inadmissible, or the applicant is under administrative detention pending removal. In an accelerated procedure, an interview should be conducted within three days and the PMM should issue a decision within eight days.²⁸ In the case of a negative decision, an appeal can be submitted to the administrative court within 15 days of written notification of the decision, as opposed to 30 days in the regular procedure. The decision of the administrative court shall be final. It cannot be appealed before a regional administrative court.²⁹ For example, if the applicant is from a safe third country or first country of asylum, her/his application will be evaluated as an inadmissible application.³⁰ These applications are subjected to an accelerated procedure. Safe country and first country of asylum concepts were adapted from the EU’s common asylum policy during adoption of the LFIP, but access to legal assistance is exacerbated by the shorter deadline of 15 days to lodge an appeal before an administrative court. ³¹

IV. Jurisprudence of the administrative courts between 2014 and 2021

Judges play an important role in ensuring that all persons, including asylum seekers and refugees, are treated equally before the law and receive the protection of the law without discrimination.³² Turkish administrative courts have a unique role in gradually developing refugee jurisprudence and the interpretation of refugee law. Turkish administrative courts also represent a good example of the internalisation of public international law as they have gradually taken the guidance of the ECtHR into consideration in their rulings and adopted a human rights-based approach.³³ As a party to the ECHR, Turkey’s responsibility has been invoked in many cases before the ECtHR, and the ECtHR has made an important contribution to the development of Turkish asylum jurisprudence. A growing number of ECtHR judgments have highlighted violations of Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the ECHR in Turkey.³⁴ After these judgments, Turkish administrative courts had to change their rulings following the ECtHR’s judgments. These court rulings stand out as an outcome of the Europeanisation process.

When the LFIP fully came into force on 11 April 2014, two courts became fully competent in refugee and asylum matters.³⁵ First, asylum seekers and refugees can apply to the administrative courts to challenge the decision of administrative authorities. Turkey has 56 administrative courts in 81 provinces. Some small cities share one administrative court.³⁶ Then, in the second instance, they can apply to the regional administrative courts. The decision of a regional administrative court is final. Turkey has eight regional administrative courts.³⁷

Considering the judgments of the Administrative Courts from 2014 to 2021, applications to the administrative courts or regional administrative courts are categorised into four groups under these headings:

1. Rejection of an international protection application

2. Withdrawal of an international protection application

3. Issuance of security codes and entry bans

4. Deportation Orders.

1. Rejection of an international protection application

International protection applications have been evaluated and decided by the PMM or governorates individually, considering applicants’ special situations. If an applicant’s request is rejected by the PMM or a governorate, s/he can go to an administrative court to request annulment of the administrative decision. They also can apply to a regional administrative court for annulment of the decision of an administrative court. I analysed sample administrative and regional administrative cases related to the rejection of international protection application from 11 April 2014 until January 2021 using a qualitative research methodology. This analysis aims to understand the jurisprudence of administrative and regional administrative courts in this area. After comprehensive analyses of sample cases, it can be understood that nearly all of the rejections of international protection applications were explained with public security reasons or lack of credibility. I chose three cases to illustrate the jurisprudence of administrative and regional administrative courts on the refusal of refugee status.

The first case relates to an Iranian national who came to Turkey in fear of being persecuted for the crime of an adulterous relationship with a married woman. The plaintiff applied for international protection but the Sivas Provincial Directory for Migration Management (PDMM) rejected his application on the ground that it did not meet the required criteria for international protection. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant administration did not investigate his claim and fear of ill treatment, as required by the law. The Sivas Administrative Court annulled the decision of the Sivas PDMM and stated that the administrative authority should have investigated whether the plaintiff's spouse or other person complained to the Iranian authorities about the adultery incident, or whether a criminal case had been filed against the plaintiff.³⁸ It is very interesting that even though the Sivas Administrative Court referred to Article 93 of the LFIP and annulled the decision of the administrative authority, the Ankara 10th Regional Administrative Court annulled the decision of the Sivas Administrative Court and underlined that the plaintiff's allegations were not based on material grounds regarding previous acts or circumstances.³⁹

The second case relates to an Iranian plaintiff who had to leave her/his country because of problems and pressures arising from being a Christian. S/he applied for international protection but the Ankara PDMM rejected her/his application. The plaintiff applied to the Ankara 1^st Administrative Court, alleging that s/he would be persecuted if she/he was sent back to her/his country. The Court annulled the decision of the Ankara PDMM and stated that the administration had not adequately completed the task of gathering information under Article 93 of the LFIP. There was no assessment of the state of the country of origin taking into account reports from intergovernmental organisations and non-governmental organisations.⁴⁰ Against the decision of the Ankara 1st Administrative Court, the defendant administration went to appeal, alleging that the concept of fear is subjective and the burden of proof lies with the international protection applicant, not the administration. The Ankara 10th Regional Administrative Court annulled the decision of the Ankara 1st Administrative Court and underlined that there was no concrete information or documents regarding the fact that the plaintiff would be subject to persecution in case of deportation. The plaintiff did not present any information or documents that could support her/his claim that s/he would be persecuted in her/his country of origin.⁴¹

The third case relates to an Afghan national who applied for asylum with his daughter and son, but his application was rejected by the PMM. He alleged that they received threats three times from the Taliban and feared for their lives, and so he came to Turkey with his daughter and son. His wife and two children were still living in Afghanistan. The Ankara 1st Administrative Court⁴² annulled the decision of the PMM because there was a risk that he and his daughter would be persecuted if they were sent back to their country. Against the decision of Ankara 1st Administrative Court, the PMM went to appeal at the Ankara 10th Regional Administrative Court. It annulled the decision of the Ankara 1st Administrative Court and underlined that: ‘There is no concrete information and documents about persecution if the plaintiff is sent back to Afghanistan’.⁴³

As can be seen in these three example cases and other cases that I collected from each administrative court,⁴⁴ there is no unified approach between the administrative and regional administrative courts. Although administrative courts annulled the decisions of administrative authorities, drawing attention to the principle of non-refoulement and not fulfilling their duty to collect necessary information about the plaintiffs, regional administrative courts annulled the decisions of administrative courts on the ground that the plaintiff’s allegations were not based on material grounds regarding past acts or circumstances. Even though the administrative courts suggested that the administrative authority should investigate whether the claims of plaintiffs were based on concrete information or documents, the regional courts did not request any information from the administrative authority and found the allegations of plaintiffs abstract. Thus, there is big gap in the consistency of court decisions.⁴⁵

The inconsistencies in administrative justification can be explained with two main problematic situations. First, Turkey adopted a new Law with good intentions but it does not work very well in practice. The problem is not the LFIP, rather it is related to Turkey’s institutional capacity. There are insufficient staff trained in this area. Even the judges have been looking at such cases for the first time in their professional lives.⁴⁶ The decision-making at first instance is not uniform across the PDMMs. The quality of interviews remains low in most PDMMs. The assessment of evidence, the lack of identification of vulnerable groups and the lack of training of migration experts negatively affect the quality of interviews. Quality gaps have also been observed by the Administrative Courts in certain cases.⁴⁷ In 2019, stakeholders reported that ‘refugee status determination (RSD) interviews were often not carried out under proper conditions, vulnerabilities were often not considered and Afghans’ applications for international protection seemed to be rejected by default’.⁴⁸ Interviews do not give weight to credible country of origin information and there are discriminatory practices against specific groups, such as Afghans, Pakistanis and Kurds from Iraq. There seems to be a general tendency to find a way to reject these applications.⁴⁹ In this situation, it is not surprising to see human rights infringements at both administrative and judicial levels.

Second, the judgments of the administrative courts are not published or accessible online. Citizens or academicians are not able to see judgments of the courts online. Thus, the judges may rule on similar cases differently even though they have facts in common. These inconsistencies in administrative judgments can only by prevented by opening up administrative judgments to the public with the names of relevant judges. The publication of judgments would allow lawyers, judges and legal scholars to scrutinise the actions of judges. Transparency in the judgments of administrative courts would also regularise the application of the law, improve the quality of justice and make judicial decisions more predictable and consistent.⁵⁰ The legal foundations of transparency of court procedures are based on the right to information and the right to a fair trial. There are many countries that regulate the transparency of judicial proceedings in their national law. Court proceedings and trial documents are made public unless provided otherwise in their acts.⁵¹ Turkey should follow the same path and submit judgments of the courts to public scrutiny to ensure that judges are interpreting applicable statutes in a consistent manner.

2. Withdrawal of international protection application

The concept of deemed withdrawal of international protection application aims to exclude applicants from the international protection system by identifying persons who do not comply with the rules stipulated in law.⁵² The concept of deemed withdrawal of international protection application was first enacted in Council Directive 2005/85/EC.⁵³ The Directive was amended in 2013 and repealed by Recast Directive 2013/32/EU.⁵⁴ The EU Directive was taken as an example during the adoption of the LFIP in 2014. Article 77/1/ç of the LFIP establishes the same administrative procedures as the EU Directive and defines how the international protection application of a person shall be considered withdrawn. This article states that international protection application shall be considered withdrawn and the examination of the application shall be discounted in cases where the applicant has failed to comply with the reporting obligations three consecutive times without an excuse and has not shown up in the designated place of residence or has left the place of residence without permission. One of the underlying reasons behind this reporting obligations is to disperse asylum seekers and refugees designated provinces in Turkey, also known as the ‘satellite city’.⁵⁵ Unlike the withdrawal of an international protection application made directly by the applicant, this practice is based on the implied or assumed will of the applicant and results in suspension of the evaluation of international protection.

Through an analysis of sample cases as explained in the methodology section, it is observed that the most common reasons for the deemed withdrawal of international protection application are unauthorised abandonment of one’s place of residence. Article 71 of the LFIP places an obligation on international protection seekers to reside in the designed satellite city, but they often tend to move to metropolitan cities to find a job and meet their basic needs.⁵⁶ Therefore, a substantial number of applicants who are seeking international protection cannot fulfil their notification obligations due to leaving satellite cities. The most important result of these decisions is suspension of the evaluation of international protection applications and the initiation of deportation proceedings, since it is assumed that asylum seeker has demonstrated her/his intention not to follow the international protection application procedure.⁵⁷

However, this practice carries a high risk of refoulement of refugees and asylum seekers to their country of origin or another third country. Against this high risk of deportation, the LFIP provides some guarantees under Articles 4 and 54 of the LFIP. First, the administrative authorities should check whether the concerned person has a special situation that gives her/him the right to remain in Turkey even if s/he does not follow the procedure. Second, if the concerned person who is subject to a deportation order goes to an administrative court for annulment of the decision, the deportation order will be suspended until a final decision by the administrative court.⁵⁸ Against the withdrawal of international protection, asylum seekers can first use the method of objection to the PMM, or s/he can also apply to the administrative court directly. After the judgment of an administrative court on this issue, the parties can appeal if they wish. A regional administrative court makes the final decision.

I collected sample cases from each administrative and regional administrative court on the deemed withdrawal of international protection and analysed them using a qualitative research method. A majority of sample cases have the same characteristics. Thus, I only chose three sample cases to illustrate how administrative courts and regional administrative courts have developed jurisprudence on this subject.

The first case relates to a citizen from Afghanistan who brought a case at the Kütahya Administrative Court for the annulment of a decision by the Afyonkarahisar PDMM. The Kütahya Administrative Court took a human rights-based approach and decided that the plaintiff, who was unable to fulfil the notification obligation the first time due to the excuse he gave (he had to work in Kütahya because he could not find a job in Afyonkarahisar), should not be deported to his country of origin due to the high risk of refoulement. The court underlined that the plaintiff left his province of residence only once to work in Kütahya but returned to his residence at night. Therefore, he did not have the intention to leave his province of residence. The Kütahya Administrative Court annulled the decision of the Afyonkarahisar PDMM and concluded that the plaintiff was willing to continue her/his application for international protection, and the withdrawal of international protection application did not comply with the LFIP.⁵⁹

The Afyonkarahisar PDMM appealed against the decision of the Kütahya Administrative Court and stated that international protection is a very privileged status and puts an obligation on the concerned person to fulfil her/his signature obligation and live in the designated satellite city. In this case, a citizen of Afghanistan refrained from fulfilling her/his obligation without giving any excuse to the administrative authority and thus her/his status was rescinded by the administrative authority. The İzmir Regional Administrative Court stated that: ‘it is clear that the plaintiff has to act according to the obligations imposed on her/him, and s/he is obliged to give the administration the necessary information and documents that prove her/his excuse that prevents her/him from fulfilling these obligations’. Although it was alleged that s/he could not find a job in Afyonkarahisar and thus had to accept work in Kütahya and return to the province of residence at night, the plaintiff was caught by the police and did not provide any information or documents to prove her/his claim. The Court ruled that the plaintiff did not fulfil the obligation imposed on her/him without reasonable excuse. In this case, the Regional Administrative Court annulled the judgement of the Kütahya Administrative Court and stated that its judgment was contrary to the provisions of the LFIP.⁶⁰ This case is very important to understand the approaches of the administrative and regional administrative courts. Even though the administrative court accepted the absence of the plaintiff from her/his residence just once as an excuse, the regional administrative court’s interpretation of the law was very strict and left no discretion. Furthermore, the regional administrative court did not evaluate the special situation of the plaintiff and whether the concerned person could be sent to her/his country by considering the principle of non-refoulement.

The second case relates to an Iranian national who was alleged to have left the city of residence without permission from the Çankırı PDMM. In this case, the Kastamonu Administrative Court stated that contrary to the allegation of the Çankırı PDMM, the plaintiff did not leave her/his residence, and her/his absence from the informed address during the examination did not mean that s/he had left her/his residence. The plaintiff could not be expected to stay at her/his residence permanently; the contrary opinion would lead to a situation indistinguishable from house arrest. The Kastamonu Administrative Court annulled the decision of the Çankırı PDMM because the PDMM could not provide concrete evidence about the absence of the Iranian plaintiff.⁶¹ The Çankırı PDMM went to an appeal at the Ankara 10th Regional Administrative Court, claiming that the plaintiff rented a house with her/his friends collectively and they received each other’s notifications. The plaintiff’s notification was also received by her/his flatmate. The Çankırı PDMM also showed that the plaintiff was visited three times at her/his address but was not found. The Ankara 10th Regional Court decided that the plaintiff had left the place of residence without permission and annulled the decision of the Kastamonu Administrative Court. Interestingly, the Ankara 10th Regional Court did not consider this an infringement of the principle of non-refoulement in this case.⁶² This case is also very important because in Turkey many international protection seekers have been subjected to deportation due to not to being found at home during administrative control. It is a very worrying issue that an international protection seeker has to prove that s/he lives at the designated address in the city of residence. Strict application of this rule has led to human rights infringements, especially the principle of non-refoulement. I definitely support flexible implementation of these rules, considering the difficulties of international protection seekers in establishing dignified living conditions.

The last case relates to the deemed withdrawal of an international protection application due to the unauthorised departure of the plaintiff from Turkey. Since the EU-Turkey Statement on refugees, Turkey has been forced by the EU to impose strict border controls to stop irregular refugees and migration flows into EU territory.⁶³ A removal decision is issued in respect of those who breach the terms and conditions for legal entry or exit from Turkey in accordance with Article 54/1/h of the LFIP. After the implementation of this provision, many Syrian temporary protection seekers, conditional refugees or asylum seekers have been subject to the withdrawal of international protection applications, and then deportation decisions due to breaching the terms and conditions of entry to and exit from Turkey.⁶⁴

As seen in this example case file, an Iranian plaintiff who entered Turkey illegally in 2013 made an application for international protection and started to reside in Kütahya Province with the status of an international protection applicant. The police caught him at the border while he was trying to leave Turkey. After this incident, the plaintiff’s application was considered to be a deemed withdrawal due to not fulfilling the obligations specified in Article 77 of the LFIP. The plaintiff went to appeal the decision of the Kütahya PDMM. The Ankara Administrative Court annulled the decision of the Kütahya PDMM and stated that there was a risk of refoulement if the plaintiff was sent to his country of origin.⁶⁵

Against the decision of the Ankara 1st Administrative Court, the defendant administration went to appeal at the Ankara 10th Regional Administrative Court and stated that the plaintiff had abandoned the province of residence without permission and notification imposed by law. The Ankara Regional Administrative Court annulled the decision of the first instance court and decided that there was no unlawfulness in the process of deemed withdrawal of international protection.⁶⁶ This case is also very important as it shows the alarming situation of international protection seekers in Turkey. They can be subjected to deportation orders due to infringing the rules of exit without considering the principle of non-refoulement.

Regarding the jurisprudence of the administrative courts and regional administrative courts on these sample cases, there is a lack of uniformity in the regional and administrative courts’ judgments. The administrative courts have contributed positively to the development of refugee rights in many cases, even though regional administrative courts have generally followed a strict approach and upheld the decisions of PDMMs.⁶⁷ The differences between administrative courts and regional administrative courts are due to a lack of case law after the adoption of the LFIP. Furthermore, there is no transparency in the justifications of the Turkish courts, as I mentioned in the previous section. Researchers or lawyers cannot reach asylum cases easily. Lack of case law and transparency has led to different judgments in the similar cases. As seen in these three example cases, refugees face deportation decisions after approval of the decisions of the PDMMs on deemed withdrawal of international protection. Thus, there is a high risk of refoulement.

3. Issuance of security codes and entry bans

Security codes and entry bans play a very important role in both the rejection of international protection applications and deportation decisions. Turkey has increasing security concerns due to its geographical proximity to conflict zones and the 2016 failed coup attempt.⁶⁸ These securitised concerns have become a major factor in changing the approach of the Turkish government towards third country nationals.⁶⁹ As stated by Kaya, there is increasing use of security codes or entry bans on the ground of public security and public order.⁷⁰ This is supported by the declaration of the Ministry of Interior that 52,075 third country nationals were subject to an entry ban. Also, the Ministry of Interior deported 4,369 third country nationals suspected of being terrorists under general security codes, so-called G87 or Ç−114.⁷¹ These security codes are taken as the basis for the denial of international protection applications under Article 64 and deportation decisions made under Article 54. Nevertheless, the widespread use of entry bans and security codes is not based on concrete data and constitutes a serious threat to the principle of non-refoulement.⁷²

An entry ban can only be imposed on third country nationals in two circumstances: first: the PMM or governorates shall impose an entry ban on third country nationals who are deported from Turkey,⁷³ second: the PMM, when necessary and after consultation with relevant government bodies, may impose an entry ban on a third country national whose entry into Turkey is objectionable for public order, public security or public health reasons.⁷⁴ However, currently, the practice of the Turkish authorities conflicts with the LFIP. Third country nationals who have been living in Turkey with residence permits are subject to entry bans. These entry bans are mainly based on ‘national security’ and ‘public order’ without any substantive examination of whether the concerned person is a real threat to national security or public order. This information stems from different national intelligence units, for example, Egypt, Israel, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia form the basis of security codes or entry bans but this approach conflicts with the philosophy of the 1951 Refugee Convention.⁷⁵ Furthermore, the implementation of security codes is not set out by the LFIP but likely to be implemented via internal circulars and instructions within the administration.⁷⁶ Security codes are only issued by the PMM at Ankara. Thus, third country nationals who are subject to security codes should appeal before the Ankara 1st Administrative Court. Also, the plaintiff can appeal before a regional administrative court against the decision of an administrative court.

I analysed sample cases, as I explained in the methodology section, using a qualitative research methodology. Sample cases about security codes and entry bans are very important because they have a close link to the rejection of international protection applications and deportation orders. I chose three examples to illustrate the jurisprudence of the administrative courts on entry bans and security codes. The first case relates to a plaintiff originally from Chechnya. He applied to the PMM for international protection but his application was rejected due to security codes called G-87⁷⁷ and Ç−114.⁷⁸ He applied to the Ankara 1st Administrative Court for annulment of the administrative decision but his application was rejected by the Court without requiring any documents and information from the PMM.⁷⁹ It is very interesting that, in practice, international protection seekers do not know anything about security codes or entry bans until their international protection applications are rejected.⁸⁰ As seen in this case file, no notification was given to the plaintiff about security codes or an entry ban when they were activated.

After the rejection of his international protection application, the Istanbul Governorship decided on deportation of the plaintiff to his country. The plaintiff applied to the Istanbul 1st Administrative Court for suspension of the deportation order, because he requested the annulment of security codes from the Ankara 1st Administrative Court. In accordance with Article 53(3) of the LFIP, a deportation order without waiting for the outcome of an ongoing case is unlawful. The Istanbul 1st Administrative Court annulled the deportation order and stated that there was an ongoing case concerning security codes in the Ankara 1st Administrative Court.⁸¹ The plaintiff waited to appeal at the Ankara 1st Administrative Court against the security codes but the Court upheld the decision of the PMM without requiring any reason for the security codes from the public administration.⁸² It is very sad that, after rejection of the annulment of security codes, the plaintiff faced a deportation order again.

The second case relates to a third country national living with his family in Turkey with a residence permit. The police caught him when he was travelling back to Turkey from Syria with his family. He applied to the PMM for international protection during his administrative detention at the removal centre, but his application was rejected due to G-87 security codes and his illegal crossing into Syria under Article 64/5 of the LFIP. The plaintiff applied to the Ankara 1st Administrative Court for annulment of the administrative decision, alleging that he did not present a threat to the security of the country, despite the fact that he has been living in Turkey for 16 years. However, the Court dismissed his request without investigating the reason for the security code. It is very promising that a dissenting vote of a judge in this case drew attention to the absolute protection of Article 3 of the ECHR. The judge underlined that a state cannot justify sending asylum seekers or refugees to a country where there is a real risk of ill treatment, even if the concerned person threatens the public security or public order in that country. In this context, the applicant should benefit from the protection provided by Article 3 of the ECHR, even if the claim made against him/her is true. The security code of an applicant cannot be a reason for the rejection of an international protection request.⁸³ The dissenting vote of this judge is very promising, but the majority of judges do not ask for any concrete evidence from the public authority concerning how a third country national would be a threat to public security or public order.

The last case relates to a Russian Federation national who applied for international protection but his application was rejected by the PMM due to security codes and a lack of credibility. The applicant applied to the Ankara 1st Administrative Court for annulment of the administrative decision, but the Court upheld the decision of the administrative authority and rejected his application without requiring any information about security codes.⁸⁴ After four years later, the plaintiff applied to the Ankara 1st Administrative Court again with the presentation of new country of origin information. The Court finally decided that the plaintiff would be subject to pressure and persecution in his country due to his religious beliefs if he was sent back to there. The Court also drew attention to the inadequate research of the defendant administration to establish the plaintiff's international protection request. The Court stated that there is no compliance with the law in the process of rejection of the international protection request without doing sufficient research about security codes and country of origin information.⁸⁵

As seen in the jurisprudence of the administrative courts, security codes and entry bans are issued by the PMM, but this practice is still not governed by clear criteria. There is legal uncertainty in the method of setting restriction codes. There are no standards regarding measures to prevent the arbitrary limitation of rights of the individual.⁸⁶ As seen in many practices, security codes and entry bans are not even notified to the person.⁸⁷ It is observed in the sample cases that the administrative authority did not give any information to the administrative court about why a security code or entry ban was set.⁸⁸ Administrative courts have not developed a uniform approach to the scrutiny of security codes or entry bans. While some courts annul security codes,⁸⁹ others uphold the decisions of the PMM.⁹⁰ In some decisions, the courts have accepted the deportation of a third country national due to security codes or an entry ban within the scope of power of the sovereign state without questioning why the security code was set. On the other hand, in some other sample cases, courts have asked about the reasons for deportation orders due to security reasons from the PMM. If a security code or entry ban is not supported by concrete evidence and findings, the Court will annul the deportation order. As a result, Turkish administrative jurisprudence on security codes damages the principle of legal certainty.⁹¹

4. Deportation

With increasing security concerns in the country, some of the provisions of the LFIP were amended with the Emergency Decree Law⁹² after the failed coup attempt in 2016 and expanded the scope of the deportation of third country nationals in line with these security concerns. In accordance with these amendments, the LFIP permits the deportation of third country nationals in two categories. The first category of deportation decisions is determined by Article 54/1 of the LFIP based on 14 reasons and issued in respect of those who are leaders, members or supporters of a terrorist organisation or a benefit-oriented criminal organisation; pose a threat to the public order, public security or public health; breach the terms and conditions for legal entry into or exit from Turkey etc. When the conditions apply to a third country national under this provision, deportation will occur. The second category of deportation decisions is applied to international protection applicants or international protection beneficiaries. Article 54/2 of the LFIP states that a deportation decision may be issued at every stage of international proceedings in respect of international protection applicants or international protection beneficiaries who are evaluated as falling within the scope of (b), (d) and (k) of the first paragraph of Article 54(1). Under this provision, asylum seekers or refugees are subject to deportation orders if they ‘pose a threat to public order or public security or public health’.

Article 54/1/(b), (d) and (k) gives more discretionary power to public authorities and opens up deportation grounds which would be in contradiction with international law. This Article is the most problematic provision of the LFIP. Before the amendment was enacted by Decree no 676 in 2016, refugees and asylum seekers could only be deported if there were serious indications that they posed a danger to the security of the country or were convicted of a crime that posed a danger to the public order. The previous Article was narrower than the current Article and in line with the 1951 Refugee Convention and EU law. Furthermore, the LFIP does not establish any procedural criteria for how the administrative authorities should decide whether a person constitutes a threat to public security or public order. These new amendments put refugees and asylum seekers in a more vulnerable position than before. The administrative authorities can now use these three paragraphs of Article 54 to deport a person without showing any concrete evidence or a valid reason before the Court. There is no doubt that the new amendment is clearly against the principle of non-refoulement and in contradiction with the jurisprudence of the ECtHR.⁹³

According to Article 53/3 of the LFIP, when a person is subject to a deportation order, s/he can apply to an administrative court within 7 days of the date of notification. The administrative court must decide on this appeal within 15 days and it thus has a suspensive effect. The decision of the administrative court is final. Before the amendment to the LFIP, a judicial appeal against a deportation order, which was issued on the grounds of terrorism, public order, public security or public health, did not stop the implementation of a deportation orders. The Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC) had received 1,545 individual applications with requests for interim measures against deportation. The TCC delivered a pilot judgment in the Y.T. case⁹⁴ and ruled that the amendment was not compatible with the right to life, prohibition of ill treatment and right to effective remedy. The TCC granted interim measures to prevent the applicant’s deportation to Russia and requested the Ministry of Interior to examine whether the amendment posed a structural problem to protection from refoulement. After this ground-breaking ruling by the TCC, the LFIP was amended with the adoption of Law no 7196 on 6 December 2019⁹⁵ and provides some safeguards against deportation decisions. With this latest amendment, article 53(3) of the LFIP reinstates the suspensive effect of an appeal procedure against a deportation decision and states that the person shall not be removed during the judicial appeal period.

Considering the vulnerabilities of refugees and asylum seekers, applying for an appeal before an administrative court within 7 days is problematic in at least two ways. First, this very restricted time limit for an appeal against a deportation decision may hinder access to an effective remedy.⁹⁶ Concerning the deficiencies in providing free legal advice to third country nationals, this provision of the LFIP may trigger the deportation of asylum seekers and refugees without seeking an effective remedy.⁹⁷ Concerning the difficulties that lawyers face in accessing their clients in detention centres and completing translation work in a very short time frame, this has a negative effect on both access to justice and the quality of the lawyer-client relationship.⁹⁸ Second, accelerated appeal procedures have a paralysing effect on the development of case law.⁹⁹ This consideration found a voice in a Turkish Parliamentary Human Rights Commission Report during a discussion on a draft version of the LFIP. The Committee warned that the finalising of a deportation decision without any control of a superior court might hinder the form of legal precedence in the long term and increase the applications to the ECtHR and the TCC.¹⁰⁰ The Turkish Bar Association Human Rights Centre has also warned that there are major legal problems in the implementation of this law. In particular, judges in the administrative courts do not have sufficient knowledge of the LFIP. For this reason, there are huge interpretation differences between courts in practice. The final character of the judgments of the administrative courts has exacerbated the situation in many cases, and it has led to infringement of applicants’ right to an effective remedy and the principle of non-refoulement.¹⁰¹

I analysed sample cases related to deportation orders as I explained in the methodology section. Considering sample judgments of the administrative courts on the deportation of third country nationals, the main reasons for deportation decisions can be categorised into two groups: the first group is the deportation of person who entered or exited Turkey irregularly, the second group is the deportation decision of a person who is seen as a threat to public security, public order or public health. In this first part, I first analysed some sample cases to understand the jurisprudence of the administrative courts on the deportation of person who entered or exited Turkey irregularly.¹⁰² The first case relates to the deportation of an Afghan national who entered Turkey irregularly. In this case, the Erzurum Administrative Court annulled the deportation decision of the Ağrı PDMM and stated that the deportation of an Afghan national solely because s/he violates the entry regulation constitutes a violation of Article 55 of the LFIP.¹⁰³ The LFIP imposed some restrictions on the deportation of third country nationals even if they violate the regulation on entrance to and exit from the country. In this case, the Administrative Courts asked the Ağrı PDMM to evaluate whether s/he fell into the category of persons not to be subject to deportation. This is a very important step that shows how much the Administrative Court internalises the principle of non-refoulement and the jurisprudence of the ECtHR.

The second case relates to the deportation of an Iranian who attempted to exit Turkey irregularly. From an examination of the case file, it was understood that the plaintiff came to Istanbul Airport legally on a valid passport, but attempted to go to Denmark without a visa. Gendarme teams caught him while he was trying to get on a small boat. After he attempted to exit Turkey irregularly, the Muğla PDMM decided to deport him to his country of origin. The plaintiff opened a case against the Muğla PDMM and requested the annulment of its deportation decision. In this case, the Muğla Administrative Court made an important decision that completely contradicted the previous decision of the Erzurum Administrative Court. The Court stated:

people who violate legal entry and exit rules of the country can be subject to a deportation decision. There is no need for any judicial decision or criminal investigation for the deportation of a third country national. Deportation of third country nationals is a natural result of the sovereign power of the State and aims to protect the public order.¹⁰⁴

The Court also rejected the request of the plaintiff to be assessed her/his special situation and sent to a safe third country.

I found it very interesting that the issue of deportation of those who have made an irregular exit gained increasing momentum with the EU-Turkey Statement. It is a most worrying issue that, after the EU-Turkey Statement, many third country nationals have been subject to deportation decisions due to violations of the exit rules of Turkey.¹⁰⁵ Most of them are not able to defend their rights legally due to deficiencies in legal assistance and interpreters. I argue that even though the right to seek asylum is a fundamental human right, as provided in Article 14 of the UDHR, some bilateral agreements, especially the EU-Turkey Statement, are raising a barrier to asylum seekers and violating the principle of non-refoulement.¹⁰⁶

In the second part, I analysed the decision of administrative courts on the deportation of a third country national who was seen as a threat to public security, public order and public health. Article 54/1/d of the LFIP regulates the deportation of third country nationals on the grounds of ‘public security, public order and public health’ but the meanings of these concepts lack ‘clarity and precision’.¹⁰⁷ Such ambiguity gives wide discretion to the public authorities. As seen in practice, the administrative authorities issue deportation orders as a preventive administrative act.¹⁰⁸ Regarding the jurisprudence of the administrative courts on deportation decisions, there is no complete case law among the administrative courts on how to interpret this article. The administrative courts have developed two different approaches to this issue. Even though some administrative courts underline that reasonable doubt and a near or distant threat to public order and security is enough to permit the deportation of a third country national, some administrative courts require the public authorities to explain in what ways public security is endangered by the concerned third country nationals.

To look at the administrative courts’ different approaches to deportation decisions, I analysed three examples here to illustrate how the administrative courts can decide on the deportation of third country nationals without showing any concrete evidence or valid reasons. The first case relates to a Syrian national who was subject to deportation for posing a threat to public security. As it is understood in an examination of the case file, the plaintiff was suspected of transferring money to a terrorist organisation from information provided by the Turkish Intelligence Service. The public prosecutors initiated an investigation based on this information but the investigation has not concluded yet. There is no final criminal court decision on this accusation. The Istanbul Administrative Court decided that reasonable suspicion and threat were sufficient for a deportation decision. The Court upheld the decision of the Istanbul PDMM and underlined the sovereign power of the State.¹⁰⁹

The second case relates to an Uzbekistan national who was subjected to a deportation decision due to threatening the public order and public security. According to information in the case file, the person was accused of being a member of an armed terrorist organisation called ISIS and was taken into custody after a decision by the Istanbul 3rd Criminal Magistrates Court. It was alleged that he was in contact with terrorist groups through his mobile phone number. The Court concluded that reasonable suspicion was sufficient to make a deportation decision and the deportation decision was within the scope of sovereign power of the State.¹¹⁰

Lastly, a Syrian national was subject to a deportation decision of the Istanbul PDMM due to the allegation of membership of an armed terrorist organisation. The Syrian plaintiff requested annulment of the decision from the administrative court since there was no evidence that s/he posed a threat to the public order or public security. Regarding the allegations, no criminal evidence was found in a search of his home based on a search warrant from the Istanbul 3rd Criminal Magistrates Court. Even though there were no concrete or material evidence found at the concerned person’s home, the Court ruled that reasonable suspicion or a near and distant threat to public order and security were sufficient to make the deportation decision. It was concluded that the deportation decision was established within the scope of the sovereign power of the state.¹¹¹

Now, I turn to cases where the administrative court requires the public authority to show in what ways the concerned third country national endangers public security. For example, a Syrian national filed a case for annulment of a deportation decision by the Erzurum PDMM. In its judgment, the Administrative Court held that the public authority could not provide any concrete evidence collected by a real risk assessment of how the applicant was linked to a terrorist organisation. The Erzurum Administrative Court decided to halt the deportation from Erzurum to a safe third country.¹¹²

In a very similar case, a Russian national who was originally from Dagestan was accused of being a manager, member and supporter of a terrorist organisation and subject to a deportation decision from Turkey to another safe third country. S/he opened a case file requesting annulment of the deportation decision of the Istanbul PDMM. As seen in the case file, the plaintiff was handed over to the Istanbul PDMM upon the detection of Ç−141 and G-87 restriction codes. The Administrative Court determined that the entry bans on the plaintiff were cancelled with the final decision of the Administrative Court. So, there was no concrete evidence to show that the plaintiff might have been linked to a terrorist organisation. During the plaintiff’s stay in Turkey, s/he did not do anything wrong that might constitute a threat to the public order and public safety. In this regard, the Istanbul Administrative Court decided to halt the deportation of the Russian national from Turkey to another safe third country.¹¹³

In another case, a Syrian national who was under temporary protection and living with his wife and two children in Istanbul was taken into custody by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Syrian plaintiff and his wife were subject to deportation orders due to posing a threat to the public order and public security, even though there was no lawsuit filed against them. Also, according to information provided by the PMM, no active entry ban or restriction code has been imposed on the plaintiff and his wife so far. As a result of an investigation initiated by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, it was decided that there was no need to prosecute the plaintiff on behalf of the public, therefore, all charges were dropped. The Istanbul Administrative Court also underlined that the plaintiff did nothing wrong during his stay in Turkey. The Court annulled the deportation order of the PMM and stated that the Syrian plaintiff and his wife were under temporary protection and there was not enough evidence to prove that the plaintiff was a threat to the public security and public order.¹¹⁴

In another interesting case, a Kazakhstan national was subject to a deportation decision due to his connection and contact with a radical terrorist organisation. The plaintiff was married with four children who had residence permits in Turkey. Also, his mother was a Turkish citizen. The Istanbul 1st Administrative Court took into consideration Article 41 of the Turkish Constitution and Article 8 of the ECHR and decided that in the case of deportation of the plaintiff, his ties to his family could be ruptured. Given this possibility, there was no compliance with the law and so the Court annulled the deportation decision.¹¹⁵

As seen in the jurisprudence of the administrative courts, they have developed more humanitarian approaches towards international protection seekers who have families living in Turkey. On these occasions, the Courts have generally annulled deportation decisions even though there were reasonable suspicions or evidence found by the security forces. These are very promising judgments considering the previous decisions of the administrative courts. On the other hand, if the plaintiff is living alone, the jurisprudence of the administrative court varies. Even though some of the courts require concrete evidence to see whether the plaintiff poses a risk to the host community, some accept that ‘reasonable doubt’ and a ‘near or distant threat to public order and security’ are enough for the deportation of third country nationals. There is no consistency in the jurisprudence of administrative courts. There is a need for time to reach complete harmony on their jurisprudence.

V. Conclusion

This article analyses sample judgments of the administrative courts between 2014 and January 2021 to find out the role of the administrative courts in developing jurisprudence on refugee rights. Sample cases are collected from each administrative court as explained in the methodology section and grouped into four main subject areas in accordance with the requests of plaintiffs. Sample cases indicate that administrative courts diligently examine every case but their jurisprudence is still far from establishing consistency in their decisions. This undermines the principle of legal certainty, which is an element of the rule of law under Article 2 of the Turkish Constitution.

The main reasons that lead to inconsistencies in the jurisprudence of Turkish administrative courts can be explained by institutional deficiencies in the international protection system, vague definitions in asylum law, a lack of trained judges and case law and no transparaency in judgments under Turkish asylum law. First, Turkey adopted its asylum law seven years ago, but access to international protection procedures and applicable rights remains a serious matter of concern in practice, due to institutional deficiencies after the adoption of the LFIP. There is no uniform approach to procedural rules and decision-making at first instance. The PDMM still employs the security forces due to a lack of migration experts for refugee status determination. The lack of migration experts, legal assistance and interpreters affect the quality of interviews, the assessment of evidence and the identification of vulnerable groups. Quality gaps in the first instance have also negatively affected judgments of the Administrative Courts in many cases.

Second, Turkish asylum law also gives wide discretion to the administrative authorities and judges in their interpretation of the provisions of the LFIP. The rejection of international protection applications, the issuing of security codes or entry bans and deportation orders due to ‘public security’ or ‘public order’ result in many variations in the justifications of the administrative courts. These provisions negatively affect establishing consistency in administrative judgments. For example, the deportation of third country nationals on the ground of ‘public security’ and ‘public order’ lacks clarity and precision and gives wide discretion to the public authorities and judges. Regarding the jurisprudence of the administrative courts on deportation decisions, there is no consistency among the administrative courts on how to interpret these terms. In some cases, deportation orders were accepted by the courts within the scope of the discretionary power of the public administration without questioning why security codes were set; and in some other cases, deportation orders were questioned by the courts and they required the reasons for deportation decisions due to security concerns. If a deportation order due to security codes cannot be supported by concrete information and findings, the Court annuls the deportation decision.

Third, this situation is also exacerbated due to untrained administrative judges and a lack of case law. Administrative judges do not have enough knowledge and experience of refugee law but they deal with large numbers of cases after the adoption of the LFIP in 2014. The UNHCR and other international organisations have organised special educational programmes, but they are not enough. To achieve consistency in the decisions of administrative courts, it would be desirable for judges to have some degree of knowledge and experience of refugee law. Furthermore, the lack of case law hinders reaching consistency between the courts. The final character of the judgments of administrative courts on deportation decisions and inadmissible applications has resulted in huge interpretation differences between the courts in practice. Regional administrative courts should be appealing courts for all international protection claims without exception.

Lastly, there is no transparency in the judgements of Turkish administrative courts explaining the reasons for their adjudication. This situation causes the courts to make different decisions on the same issues. The unavailability of judgments of the administrative courts creates a lack of control and leads to inconsistencies in judicial decisions. If judicial decisions can be made public, this will pave the way for public inspection of court judgments and create a driving force for courts to self-discipline themselves in terms of legal certainty.

After all, the fate of a refugee is entirely in the hands of the court that deals with that case. It is not possible to eliminate all ambiguous concepts in the LFIP and the role of the judges in decision-making, but sharing the judements of the administrative courts with the public in a transparent manner and opening the way for all asylum applications and deportation decisions to go to a regional court is considered a big step forward to ensure legal certainty. I would like to conclude with the words spoken by dissenting judges in the case of Şahin and Şahin v. Turkey: if justice degenerates into a lottery, this only undermines the credibility of the courts and weakens public confidence in the judicial system.¹¹⁶

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Hülya Kaya

Hülya Kaya holds a Master's degree from the University of Portsmouth and a PhD from the University of Sussex. She is working as a lecturer of law at Bolton University. She published her book called ‘The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees: Assessing Its Impact on Fundamental Rights’ from Edwards Elgars.

Notes

1 OGT. (Official Gazette of Turkey) 11.4.2013, no: 28615.

2 Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz, and Philip G. Schrag, ‘Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication’, Stanford Law Review 60, no. 2 (2007): 299–305; David Storey, ‘Consistency in Refugee Decision-Making: A Judicial Perspective, Notes and Comments’, Refugee Survey Quarterly 32, no. 4 (2003): 125; Robert Thomas, Administrative Justice and Asylum Appeals: A Study of Tribunal Adjudication, 2nd ed. (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011); A. David Strauss, ‘Must Like Cases Be Treated Alike?’, Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper, no. 24 (2002).

3 UNHCR, Operational Update Turkey, September 2023, https://data.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/104205 (accessed April 7, 2024).

4 European Council of European Union, EU-Turkey Statement, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-statement/ (accessed April 7, 2024).

5 Sergio Carrera and Elspeth Guild, ‘EU-Turkey Plan for Handling Refugees is Fraught with Legal and Procedural Challenges’, March 10, 2016, https://www.ceps.eu/publications/eu-turkey-plan-handling-refugees-fraught-legal-and-procedural-challenges (accessed April 7, 2024); Steve Peers, ‘The Final EU/Turkey Refugee Deal: A Legal Assessment’ (18 March 2016), http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/the-final-euturkey-refugee-deal-legal.html?m=1 (accessed April 7, 2024).

6 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the State of Play of Implementation of the Priority Actions Under the European Agenda on Migration (February 10, 2016) 85 final, Brussels.

7 Steve Peers, ‘The EU, Turkey and the Refugee Crisis: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?’, EU Law Analyses, February 5, 2016, http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-eu-turkey-and-refugee-crisis-what.html (accessed April 7, 2024); Marks Reinhard, ‘Legal Opinion on the Admissibility under Union Law of the European Council’s Plan to Treat Turkey like a ‘Safe Third Country’, Pro Asyl, (2016): 9–10; Emanuela Roman, Theodora Baird, and Talia Radcliffe ‘Why Turkey is not a “Safe Country”’, Statewatch (2016): 18–19; Sergio Carrera and Elspeth Guild, ‘EU-Turkey Plan for Handling Refugees is Fraught with Legal and Procedural Challenges’, CEPS Commentary (March 10, 2016): 18–9. https://www.ceps.eu/publications/eu-turkey-plan-handling-refugees-fraught-legal-and-procedural- (accessed April 7, 2024).

8 Hülya Kaya, The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees: Assessing its Impact on Fundamental Rights (Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar, 2020), 158–60; Meltem İneli-Ciğer, ‘Remedies Available against Asylum Decisions and Deportation Orders in Turkey: An Assessment in View of European Law and the European Convention on Human Rights’, Nordic Journal of International Law 88 (2019): 217–18.

9 Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention. It has been referred to as the cardinal and non-derogable principle of international law.

10 Article 141 of 1982 Constitution states that ‘Trials in the court are open to all’ but there is no mention about transparency about court decision. In Turkey courts do not publish their decision online.

11 See similar cases: Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/2712, J: 2020/585; Kayseri Administrative Court, R: 2018/830, J: 2019/31; Ordu Administrative Court, R: 2018/988, J: 2019/138; Konya 1st Administrative Court, R: 2018/710, J: 2018/1116; Afyonkarahisar Administrative Court, R: 2018/551, J: 2018/713; Aksaray Administrative Court, R: 2018/731, J: 2018/800; Erzincan Administrative Court, R: 2018/1099, J: 2019/374; Tokat Administrative Court, R: 2018/371, J: 2019/79; Zonguldak Administrative Court, R: 2018/916, J: 2019/80; Kayseri Administrative Court, R: 2018/946, J: 2019/154; Kastamonu Administrative Court, R: 2018/1395, J: 2019/199; Eskişehir 1st Administrative Court, R: 2018/720, J: 2019/81; Çorum Administrative Court, R: 2018/769, J: 2019/79; Manisa Administrative Court, R: 2018/1136, J: 2019/123; Kırıkkkale Administrative Court, R: 2018/501, J: 2019/85; Erzincan Administrative Court, R: 2018/901, J: 2019/946; Van Administrative Court, R: 2018/2365, J: 2019/329; Bursa Administrative Court, R: 2018/881, J: 2018/1590; Manisa Administrative Court, R: 2018/1264, J: 2019/190; Kütahya Administrative Court, R: 2018/695, J: 2019/174.

12 Ankara 1stAdministrative Court, R: 2015/594, J: 2015/2960; Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2015/583, J: 2015/1895; Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2015/1290, J: 2015/3124; Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2014/2352, J: 2015/1252 and 10th Chamber of the TCS, R: 2015/3427, J: 2018/49.

13 See similar cases; the deportation decision of person due to public security, public order or public health: Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/2043, J: 2020/3585; Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/2161, J: 2020/3629; Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/1778, J: 2020/487; Istanbul 1stAdministrative Court, R: 2019/2726, J: 2020/68; Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/1995, J: 2019/3576; Çorum Administrative Court, R: 2018/820, J: 2019/47; Samsun Administrative Court, R: 2019/8, J: 2019/303; Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2017/3335, J: 2018/2642; Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/2043, J: 2019/3585; Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/2024, J: 2019/3513; Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/3197, J: 2020/747; Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/2566, J: 2020/769; Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/2821, J: 2020/753; Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/2530, J: 2020/458.

14 İbrahim Kaya ‘Reform in Turkish Asylum Law: Adopting the EU Acquis?’, European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, CARIM-RR, 16 (2009): 1–2, https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/11849/?sequence=2 (accessed April 13, 2024); Ahmet İçduygu, ‘Syrian Refugees in Turkey: The Long Road Ahead’, Washington DC Migration Policy Institute, April 3, 2015. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/TCM-Protection-Syria.pdf. (accessed April 7, 2024).

15 Kemal Kirişçi ‘Turkey’s New Draft Law on Asylum: What to Make of It?’, in Turkey, Migration and the EU: Potentials, Challenges and Opportunities, ed. Seçil Paçacı Elitok and Thomas Straubhaar (Hamburg University Press, 2012), 73; Seçil Paçacı Elitok, ‘Turkish Migration Policy Over the Last Decade: A Gradual Shift Towards Better Management and Good Governance’, Turkish Policy Quarterly 12, no. 1 (2013): 170.

16 Kemal Kirişçi, ‘UNHCR and Turkey: Cooperating for Improved Implementation of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees’, International Journal of Refugee Law 13, no. 1 (2001): 71; Bill Frelick, ‘Barriers to Protection: Turkey’s Asylum Regulations’, International Journal of Refugee Law 9, no.1, (1997): 14; Kadir Ay ‘Bugünkü Yasal Düzenlemeler Çerçevesinde Yürütülen Uygulamalar ve Karşılaşılan Güçlükler’ (Conducted Practices and Encountering Problems within the Framework of Today’s Legislative Arrangements) Türk Mülteci Hukuku ve Uygulamadaki Gelişmeler (Turkish Migration Law and Developments in the Practice) (Publication of Istanbul Bar Association, 2004), 71.

17 Kaya, The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees, 111.

18 Article 63 of the LFIP.

19 Implementation Circular (No. 57), 22.6.2006.

20 OGT, 22.10.2014, no: 29153.

21 Article 11 of TPR.

22 Kaya, The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees, 163; Meltem İneli-Ciğer, ‘How Well Protected are Syrians in Turkey?’ Open Democracy (January 17, 2017) https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/mediterranean-journeys-in-hope/how-well-protected-are-syrians-in-turkey/ (accessed March 1, 2024).

23 Kaya, The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees, 163; M. Angel Castillo and C. James Hathaway, ‘Temporary Protection-Refuge’, Canada’s Journal of Refugees 15, no. 1 (1996): 11.

24 Kaya, The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees, 161–62.

25 Article 78/1.

26 Report on Turkey’s Asylum Law and Policies, Heinrich Böll, Stiftung Istanbul, 2019, 10–11. https://tr.boell.org/en/2019/12/11/turkeys-asylum-law-and-policies (accessed April 7, 2024).

27 Article 80/1. The International Protection Assessment Committee resolves the problem. This way is much more simplier and cheaper than going to court.

28 Article 79/2.

29 Article 80/d/e.

30 Article 72 and 79.

31 AIDA/ECRE Turkey Country Report: Admissibility Procedure, 2022 Update, 56–59. https://asylumineurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/AIDA-TR_2022-Update.pdf (accessed April 7, 2024).

32 International Commission of Jurists, ‘Principles on the Role of Judges and Lawyers in Relation to Refugees and Migrants’ (3 May 2017) https://www.icj.org/rmprinciples/ (accessed on April 7, 2024).

33 See Cathryn Costello, The Human Rights of Migrants in European Law (Oxford University Press, 2016); David Moya and Georgios Milios, Aliens Before the European Court of Human Rights: Ensuring Minimum Standards of Human Rights Protection (Brill, 2021).

34 See ECtHR, Jabari v. Turkey, no.40035/98, judgment, 11 July 2000, para. 6; ECtHR, Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, judgment, 22 September 2009, para. 3; ECtHR, Asalya v. Turkey, no. 43875/09, judgment, 15 April 2014, para. 26; ECtHR, Tehrani and Others v. Turkey, no. 32940/08, judgment, 13 April 2010, para. 3; ECtHR, Z.N.S. v. Turkey, no. 21896/08, judgment, 19 January 2010, para. 3; ECtHR, Ranjbar and Others v. Turkey, no. 37040/07, judgment, 13 April 2010, para. 4; ECtHR, Athary v. Turkey, no. 50372/09, judgment, 11 December 2012, para. 2; ECtHR, Moghaddas v. Turkey, no. 46134/08, judgment, 13 February 2011, para. 2.

35 Article 80.

36 Bahtiyar Akyılmaz, Murat Sezginer, and Cemil Kaya, Türk İdari Yargılama Hukuku (Turkish Administrative Procedure Law), 9th ed. (Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Publisher, 2023), 51–68.

37 Ibid.

38 Sivas Administrative Court, R: 2018/602, J: 2019/48.

39 Ankara 10th Regional Administrative Court, R: 2019/863, J: 2019/1076.

40 Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2018/250, J: 2018/2438.

41 Ankara 10th Regional Administrative Court, R: 2018/1130, J: 2018/300.

42 Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2016/129, J: 2017/1454. See other cases Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2015/212, J: 2015/2209 and 10th Chamber of the TCS, R: 2015/5439, J: 2020/397.

43 Ankara 10th Regional Administrative Court, R: 2017/1119, J: 2017/1291.

44 See example: Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R (Registration Number): 2015/428, J (Judgement Number): 2015/1729. In this case, the plaintiff who is from Afghanistan applied to the PMM for international protection first but the PMM rejected his application. Ankara 1st Administrative Court annulled the decision of the PMM due to inadequate research of the special situation of the applicant. The PMM applied to the TCS for annulment of the decision of the Ankara 1st Administrative Court. The TCS was the highest appeal court on asylum issues before the adoption of the new asylum law. The TCS annulled the decision of the Administrative Court and underlined that relocation within the country is an applicable option for the plaintiff as it is stated in the country-of-origin report. (10th Chamber of the TCS, R: 2016/160, J: 2020/399).

45 See similar cases: Ankara 1st Administrative Court, E: 2019/640, K: 2019/888 and 10th Chamber of the TCS, R: 2019/10294, J: 2020/82; Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2014/1875, J: 2015/499 and 10th Chamber of the TCS, R: 2018/848, J: 2019/2195.

46 Kaya, The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees, 234–35.

47 AIDA/ECRE Turkey Country Report: Overview of Main Changes Since the Previous Report Update, 14 July 2023. https://asylumineurope.org/reports/country/turkiye/overview-main-changes-previous-report-update/. (accessed April 7, 2024).

48 AIDA/ECRE Turkey Country Report, ‘Regular Procedure Turkey’, July 14, 2023, https://asylumineurope.org/reports/country/turkiye/asylum-procedure/procedures/regular-procedure/ (accessed April 7, 2024).

49 ibid.

50 Mustafa Saldırım, and Gözde Hülagü, ‘The Istanbul Declaration on Transparency in the Judicial Process and Measures for the Effective Implementation of the Istanbul Declaration’, Ethics, Transparency and Trust Project of the Court of Cassation (2019) https://www.yargitay.gov.tr/documents/ek1-1568642341.pdf (accessed April 7, 2024).

51 Guilherme France, ‘Transparency of Court Proceedings’, Transparency International Anti-Corruption Helpdesk Answer (September 30, 2019) https://knowledgehub.transparency.org/helpdesk/transparency-of-court-proceedings. (accessed April 13, 2024).

52 Article 77/ç of the LFIP.

53 OJ. 13.12.2005. L 326/13, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on Minimum Standards on Procedures in the Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status.

54 OJ. 29.06.2013 L 180/60, Council Directive 2013/32/EU of 26 June 2013 on Common Procedures for Granting and Withdrawing International Protection (recast).

55 Refugee Rights Center, “Implicit Withdrawal” of International Protection Applications in Turkey: Issues in Implementation and Recommendations, Legal Opinion Paper, December 2017, https://www.mhd.org.tr/images/yayinlar/MHM-76-EN.pdf (accessed on April 7, 2024)

56 Kaya, The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees, 196–200.

57 Refugee Rights Center, “Implicit Withdrawal” of International Protection Applications, 4.

58 Ibid.

59 Kütahya Administrative Court, R: 2018/729, J: 2019/154.

60 Izmir Regional Administrative Court, R: 2019/999, J: 2019/1047.

61 Kastamonu Administrative Court, R: 2018/943, J: 2018/1373.

62 Ankara 10th Regional Administrative Court, R: 2018/1664, J: 2019/258.

63 Kaya, The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees, 99–122.

64 Ibid., 121–25; Amnesty International Turkey, ‘Illegal Mass Returns of Syrian Refugees Expose Fatal Flaws in the EU-Turkey Deal’ (1 April 2016); Mülteci-Der, and Pro-Asyl ‘Observation on the Situation of Refugees in Turkey’ (22 April 2016): 6.

65 Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2016/689, J: 2016/2386.

66 Ankara 10^th Regional Administrative Court, R: 2017/679, J: 2017134.

67 Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2016/689, J: 2016/2386; Ankara 10^th Regional Administrative Court, R: 2017/679, J: 2017/134; Kayseri 1st Administrative Court, R: 2018/830, J: 2019/31; Ankara 10^th Regional Administrative Court, R: 2019/892, J: 2019/924; Kastamonu Administrative Court, R: 2018/934, J: 2018/1373; Ankara 10^th Regional Administrative Court, R: 2018/1664, J: 2019/258; Kastamonu Administrative Court, R: 2018/947, J: 2018/454; Ankara 10^th Regional Administrative Court, R: 2018/1665, J: 2019/257; Kastamonu Administrative Court, R: 2017/1126, J: 2017/1973; Ankara 10^th Regional Administrative Court, R: 2018/179, J: 2019/335; Kastamonu Administrative Court, R: 2017/895, J: 2017/1579; Ankara 10^th Regional Administrative Court, R: 2017/1344, J: 2018/219; Kayseri 1st Administrative Court, R: 2017/219, J: 2017/595; Ankara 10^th Regional Administrative Court, R: 2017/540, J: 2017/674; Yozgat Administrative Court, R: 2016/271, J: 2016/1406; Ankara 10^th Regional Administrative Court, R: 2017/273, J: 2017/620.

68 Cavidan Soykan, ‘Seeking Refuge in Turkey: How and Why? The Experiences of Turkey’s Asylum Seekers’, IMIS Working Paper 8, (2021): 8.

69 Kaya, The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees, 173.

70 Ibid., 224–26.

71 Immigration Policy Board Convened, 15 February 2017 (Göç Politikalar Kurulu Toplandı) https://www.goc.gov.tr/goc-politikalari-kurulu-toplandi27 (accessed on April 7, 2024)

72 Kaya, The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees, 174; Lami Bertan Tokuzlu, ‘An Assessment on the Contribution of the Foreigners and International Protection Law to the Principle of Legal Certainty Under the Turkish Practice (Yabancılar ve Uluslarararası Koruma Kanunu’un Yasal Belirlilik İlkesi Konusunda Türk Uygulamasına Katkısı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme)’, Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi (Journal of Court of Jurisdictional Disputes) 7 (2016): 1097.

73 Article 9/2.

74 Article 9/1.

75 Kaya, The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees, 175–76.

76 Asylum Information Database, ‘Country Report: Turkey’ (2019): 27.

77 G-87 Security Code is applied to a lot of foreigners on the judgement that s/he disturbs the public order. However, there are many cases that this code applied to foreigners even if they are only working without permission or make fake marriages. See detailed Report on the Unspoken Field on the Deportation of Migrants and Refugees: Security Codes’ Victims, Mazlumder Istanbul Branch, 2020, p. 19.

78 Ç-114 is applied to third country nationals who are subjected to judicial proceedings and restricts entrance of the concerned person into Turkey for one year. See detailed Report on The Unspoken Field on the Deportation of Migrants and Refugees: Security Codes’ Victims, Mazlumder Istanbul Branch, 2020, p. 40–42.

79 Ankara 1^th Administrative Court, R: 2015/594, J: 2015/2960.

80 Mazlumder, ‘Report on the Unspoken Field on the Deportation of Migrants and Refugees: Security Codes’ Victims’, 2020, 37–49.

81 Istanbul 1^th Administrative Court, R: 2015/583, J: 2015/1895

82 Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2015/1752, J: 2016/284.

83 Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2015/1290, J: 2015/3124.

84 Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2015/708, J: 2015/2243.

85 Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/1357, J: 2019/1610.

86 Report on The Unspoken Field on the Deportation of Migrants and Refugees: Security Codes’ Victims, Mazlumder Istanbul Branch, 2020, p. 50–52.

87 Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2018/2264, J: 2019/261; Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/2530, J: 2020/458; Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2018/1900, J: 2019/374; Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2015/594, J: 2015/2960; Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2015/1290, J: 2015/3124; Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2015/583, J: 2015/1895.

88 Ankara 1stAdministrative Court, R: 2015/594, J: 2015/2960; Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2015/583, J: 2015/1895; Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2015/1290, J: 2015/3124; Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2014/2352, J: 2015/1252 and 10^th Chamber of the TCS, R: 2015/3427, J: 2018/49.

89 See an example cases which the Court cancels security codes and entry bans due to lack of evidence: Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2018/1517, J: 2019/2837; Ankara 10^th Regional Court, R: 2019/711, J: 2019/1158; Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2018/2264, J: 2019/261; Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2018/1517, J: 2018/2837; Ankara 10^th Regional Administrative Court, R: 2019/711, J: 2019/1158; Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2018/2264, J: 2019/261; Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2018/1900, J: 2019/374.

90 See example cases: Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2015/1290, J: 2015/3124; Ankara 1st Administrative Court, R: 2015/594, J: 2015/2960.

91 Tokuzlu, ‘An Assessment on the Contribution of the Foreigners’, 1097.

92 OGT. 29.10.2016, no: 29872.

93 Kaya, The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees, 146; Gamze Ovacık, Turkish Judicial Practices on International Protection, Removal and Administrative Detention in Connection with the Safe Third Country Concept (İstanbul: On İki Levha, 2021), 168–77; Daily Sabah, ‘Turkey Deports Thousands of Foreigners Who Disrupt Public Order’, July 21, 2022, https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/turkey-deports-thousands-of-foreigners-who-disrupt-public-order/news (accessed April 7, 2024).

94 YT Application (2016) TCC 2016/22418.

95 Law No 7196, OGT. 24.12.2019, no: 30988.

96 Meltem İneli Ciğer, ‘Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Kararları Işığında Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu’nda Aralık 2019’da Yapılan Bazı Değişikliklerin Değerlendirilmesi (AnAssessment of December 2019 Amendments to the Turkish Law on Foreigners and International Protection in View of the European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence)’, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araşturmaları Dergisi 26, no. 2 (December 2020): 701–2.

97 Volkan Görendağ, ‘676 Sayılı KHK İle Mülteci Hukukun Temel İlkeleri Askıya Alınıyor’ (The Fundamental Principles of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection is Suspended with the Decree-Law numbered 676) (3 Kasım 2016), http://www.multeci.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=378%3A676-sayl-khk-ile-muelteci-hukukunun-temel-ilkeleri-askya-alnyor&catid=31%3Agenel&Itemid=1&lang=tr. (accessed March 1, 2024).

98 AIDA/ECRE Turkey Country Report, ‘Regular Procedure Turkey’.

99 Esra Dardağan Kibar, ‘An Overview and Discussion of the New Turkish Law on Foreigners and International Protection’, Perceptions 18, no. 3 (2013): 125.

100 Grand National Assembly of Turkey, European Union Harmonization and Affairs Investigation Committees, Report on the Draft Law of the Foreigners and International Protection, 1/619, Term 24, Legislation Year 2, 2012: 25–26.

101 Uğur Altun, and Özge Görel, ‘Report on Asylum Seekers and Refugees’, Turkish Bar Association Human Rights Centre (2016): 33.

102 See the jurisprudence of the Administrative Courts on the deportation of person who entered or exited from Turkey; Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/2955, J: 2020/688; Muğla 1st Administrative Court, R: 2018/1305, J: 2019/99; Çanakkale Administrative Court, R: 2018/887, J: 2018/1080; Erzurum Administrative Court, R: 2019/1160, J: 2020/290; Erzurum Administrative Court, R: 2019/1159, J: 2020/288; Erzurum Administrative Court, R: 2019/948, J: 2019/1635; Erzurum Administrative Court, R: 2019/682, J: 2019/1636.

103 Erzurum 1^th Administrative Court, R: 2019/335, J: 2020/345; Erzurum 1^th Administrative Court, R: 2019/1159, J: 2020/288.

104 Muğla 1^th Administrative Court, R: 2018/1305, J: 2019/99.

105 Kaya, The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees, 95–97 and 224.

106 Ibid., 242.

107 Kibar, An Overview and Discussion of the New Turkish Law, 119.

108 Gülüm Özçelik Bayraktaroğlu, ‘Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanun Hükümleri Uyarınca Yabancıların Türkiye’den Sınır Dışı Edilmesi (The Deportation of Foreigners from Turkey in the Provisions of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection)’, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi (The Journal of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations) (September-October 2013): 227–28; Kibar, An Overview and Discussion of the New Turkish Law, 126.

109 Istanbul 1stAdministrative Court, R: 2019/2821, J: 2020/753.

110 Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/2530, J: 2020/458.

111 Istanbul 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019 /2566, J: 2020/769.

112 Erzurum 1st Administrative Court, R: 2019/1323, J: 2020/249.

113 Istanbul 1th Administrative Court, R: 2019/1778, J: 2020/487.

114 Istanbul 1th Administrative Court, R: 2019/2726, J: 2020/68.

115 Istanbul 1th Administrative Court, R: 2019/1995, J: 2020/3576.

116 ECtHR, Şahin and Şahin v. Turkey, no. 13279/05, judgment, 20 October 2011, Joint Dissenting Opinion, para. 17.