Pehlivan & Güven Law FirmPublished: Updated:
On 21 September 2026, the Ministry of Interior announced that, following investigations into citizenship-by-investment procedures, the citizenship decisions of 6,134 people had been annulled or revoked. Most of the decisions concern foreigners who acquired Turkish citizenship by buying real estate, together with their spouses and children who became citizens through them. Among them are investors who acted in reliance on a valuation report approved by the state and a certificate of conformity issued by the land registry directorate.
In this article, we explain how to file an action against the annulment of citizenship, how the time limit works and which principles from Council of State (Danıştay) decisions can be relied on in the claimant's favour. A significant share of the actions brought against citizenship annulments are heard by the Council of State. For this reason, we have also listed separately the first steps that anyone served with an annulment decision should take.
Short answer: 5 things you need to know if your citizenship has been annulled
Related guides: Acquisition, Annulment and Revocation of Citizenship · How to Get Turkish Citizenship: An Up-to-Date Guide to the Routes
According to the Ministry's announcement, following investigations by the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre, the Tax Inspection Board and the General Directorate of Security:
In the practice publicly known as the "Babatak" method, it is alleged that properties with a much lower market value were shown on paper as being above the threshold required for citizenship by investment (USD 250,000 for applications before 13 June 2022, USD 400,000 since then). However, this picture is not accurate for every file. The legal position of investors who actually paid the money, actually bought the property and relied on the report of a valuation expert authorised by the state is entirely different from that of people who took part in an organised fraud. It is often this difference that determines the outcome of the case.
Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901 provides for two separate institutions. Which of the two the decision served on you relies on changes how the entire defence is built:
| Annulment (Art. 31) | Revocation (Art. 40) | |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory text | "…if it occurred as a result of the false statement of the person concerned or their concealment of material facts forming the basis for the acquisition of citizenship, it shall be annulled by the authority that made the decision." | "…if it is subsequently understood that it was granted without the legal conditions being met or more than once, it shall be revoked." |
| Fault | The person's own false statement or concealment of information is required. | No fault on the person's part is required; it is sufficient that the legal conditions were not met at the outset. |
| Administration's burden of proof | Concretely establishing the false statement and that it was made by the person | Proving that the condition was genuinely not met on the date citizenship was acquired |
| Spouses and children | Also applies to spouses and children who became citizens through the person (Art. 32). | Assessed according to the specific facts; a separate act is issued for family members. |
| When it takes effect | From the date of the decision (Art. 32) | Disputed, depending on the nature of the revocation decision |
Important note: Contrary to what is often said in public, Article 32 of the Law expressly provides that an annulment decision takes effect from the date of the decision. For this reason, legal transactions carried out during the period of citizenship (company formation, marriage, birth registrations, contracts concluded) do not automatically become invalid. There is no automatic nullity with retroactive effect.
Your time limit may be running
A decision annulling citizenship can be challenged before the administrative court within 60 days of its notification (Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, Art. 7). If the decision has been served on you, contact us without delay so the time limit is not missed.
Citizenship by investment is acquired by Presidential decision under Article 12 of Law No. 5901. Annulment is likewise carried out by "the authority that made the decision" under Art. 31. Actions for annulment against Presidential decisions are heard by the Council of State acting as a court of first instance (İYUK Art. 24).
Ministry-level acts, such as the cancellation of the investment certificate of conformity and acts concerning civil registry records, fall as a rule within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts. However, if these acts are connected with the annulment of citizenship, it should be requested under İYUK Art. 38 that they be heard together at the Council of State as connected cases. Otherwise, the same matter may end in conflicting decisions from different courts.
The time limit for filing a lawsuit is 60 days from written service of the decision (İYUK Art. 7). If service was never made or was made improperly (for example, if the identity card of a person abroad was deactivated without service), the time limit starts only from the date on which the decision became known. Documenting this date is vitally important. Situations such as the identity card appearing as inactive on e-Devlet or being told orally at the civil registry office should each be recorded separately.
Decisions of the Council of State acting as a court of first instance may be appealed to the Plenary Session of the Administrative Law Chambers of the Council of State. Once domestic remedies are exhausted, an individual application may be made to the Constitutional Court concerning the right to respect for private and family life (Article 20 of the Constitution) and the right to property (Article 35 of the Constitution).
The mass annulment of citizenship by investment on valuation grounds is a new practice. For this reason, no settled and published case law of the Council of State on this subject has yet emerged. Nevertheless, the criteria adopted by the Council of State in citizenship disputes and the general principles of administrative law provide a strong basis for good-faith investors.
Article 31 makes annulment conditional solely on the decision having been made "as a result of the false statement of the person concerned or their concealment of … material facts". The wording of the provision is personal. Current legal scholarship also accepts that annulment requires the person to have knowingly vitiated their declaration of intent, and that annulment cannot be based on the acts of third parties. It is also emphasised that where the value was inflated by proxies or intermediary firms without the foreigner's knowledge, intent to deceive must be required and the person must be given the opportunity to prove otherwise (Ç. Özgür, "Yatırım Yoluyla Kazanılan Türk Vatandaşlığının İptali ve Geri Alınması", AÜHFD, Vol. 75, No. 1, 2026, pp. 741-779).
Relevance to the case: The valuation report was prepared not by the investor but by a valuation firm licensed by the Capital Markets Board (SPK). The land registry directorate examined the report and the administration issued the certificate of conformity. If it cannot be shown with concrete evidence that the investor took part in the fraud, the elements of Art. 31 are not met.
Relevance to the case: The administration must concretely prove that the value of the property on the date of purchase was below the threshold. A later valuation made with today's market data, where it is unclear by which method and with which comparables it was prepared, does not discharge this burden. A valuation is by its nature an estimate and moves within a certain range of values. A difference close to the threshold should not on its own be considered sufficient to establish "falsity". In the case, an independent court-appointed expert examination establishing the value on the date of sale and, if necessary, an on-site inspection should be requested.
In numerous decisions concerning the rejection of citizenship applications, the Council of State has held that the acts of another person (for example, a spouse) cannot be attributed to the applicant in a manner incompatible with "the principle of the personal nature of offences and penalties". These decisions also state that, in the absence of a concrete finding, general security investigation notes are not enough on their own to justify the exercise of discretion (e.g. Council of State, 10th Chamber, E.2016/12504, K.2020/5619; E.2016/15357, K.2020/4351). Although these decisions concern the rejection of applications, the principle they set out on the limits of the administration's discretion should apply even more strongly to acts that terminate citizenship.
The following principle became established in administrative law through the decision of the Council of State's Board for the Unification of Case Law dated 22.12.1973, K.1973/14 (Official Gazette 14.06.1974, No. 14915): an unlawful act may be withdrawn without any time limit only in cases of nullity, manifest error, or a false statement or fraud by the person concerned. Outside these exceptions, the administration may correct its error only within the time limit for filing a lawsuit (to the same effect: Council of State, 11th Chamber, E.2008/5396, K.2010/9432, dated 25.11.2010).
Relevance to the case: In every file, the administration must concretely show whose fault it attributes the error to.
Under Article 90/5 of the Constitution, Turkish courts are obliged to apply the European Convention on Human Rights directly. The European Court of Human Rights examines the termination of citizenship under Article 8 of the ECHR through two questions: (i) what are the consequences of the act for the person, and (ii) is the act arbitrary? (Ramadan v. Malta, App. No. 76136/12, 21.06.2016).
In Usmanov v. Russia (App. No. 43936/18, 22.12.2020), the Court held that Article 8 of the ECHR had been violated in respect of an applicant whose citizenship was annulled on the grounds that he had not declared his siblings on the application form. The Court found that the domestic courts had confined themselves to an "overly formalistic" approach and had not weighed the length of the person's stay in the country, their family and social ties and the hardship the act would cause. The Court of Justice of the European Union has likewise accepted, in Rottmann (C-135/08, 02.03.2010) and Tjebbes (C-221/17, 12.03.2019), that the termination of citizenship, even where based on fraud, must undergo an individual proportionality assessment.
Relevance to the case: Where a family has lived in Türkiye for years, set up a company, has children attending school and is registered with the health system, these circumstances should be set out in detail in the petition. The court should be expressly asked to carry out a proportionality review weighing the effect of the act on family life.
In an action against the annulment of citizenship, the outcome is often determined by the documents. The following documents will help in the case.
Under Article 32, an annulment decision also applies to spouses and children who acquired Turkish citizenship through the person concerned. Two distinctions are important here:
Under Article 33, persons whose citizenship has been annulled must liquidate their assets in Türkiye within one year at the latest. Assets not liquidated within this period are sold by the administration and the proceeds are deposited in a bank in the person's name. However, the Law also provides a strong safeguard: "If these persons apply to the courts against the annulment decision, the liquidation of the assets shall be deferred until the end of the case."
For this reason, filing a lawsuit within the 60-day period also prevents properties from being sold at a low price. However, the deferral of liquidation arises from the law and is limited to assets only. For the identity card, passport and right of residence, a stay of execution must be requested separately.
A person whose citizenship is annulled reverts to foreigner status upon the annulment decision. If they do not hold a valid residence permit under Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, they may face deportation proceedings. For a stay of execution (İYUK Art. 27), two conditions must be shown together: that the act is manifestly unlawful and that damage which is difficult or impossible to remedy would arise. For the second condition, harms such as children being cut off from education, the company's activities coming to a halt, loss of access to healthcare and the breakdown of family unity should be supported by concrete documents.
Making a precautionary residence permit application while the case is pending should also be considered. This application does not mean that the claims in the case are being abandoned; it is merely an additional safeguard against the risk of deportation. If a restriction code has been entered together with the deportation order, a separate lawsuit is also available against it.
Annulment of citizenship is the setting aside, by the authority that made the decision, of the citizenship decision of a person who later acquired Turkish citizenship, because of that person's own false statement or concealment of material facts forming the basis for citizenship (Art. 31 of Law No. 5901). Setting aside decisions made without the legal conditions being met is called revocation (Art. 40). An annulment decision takes effect from the date of the decision (Art. 32).
You must file a lawsuit within 60 days of the annulment decision being served on you (İYUK Art. 7). The time limit is strict. If it is missed, the decision becomes final.
Since citizenship acquired by investment is granted by Presidential decision, an action against the annulment or revocation decision is filed with the Council of State in Ankara acting as a court of first instance.
No. Under Art. 33 of Law No. 5901, if a lawsuit is filed against the annulment decision, the liquidation of the assets is deferred until the end of the case.
Under Article 31, annulment requires the person's own false statement or concealment of information. If the report was prepared by an SPK-licensed firm and approved by the administration, evidence showing that you did not take part in the fraud forms a strong defence in the case.
The annulment decision applies to a spouse and children who acquired citizenship through you (Art. 32). A lawsuit should be filed for each of them with a separate power of attorney. The position of children born while you were a citizen is, however, separately open to dispute.
No. Under Article 32 of the Law, an annulment decision takes effect from the date of the decision.
Upon annulment of citizenship, the person reverts to foreigner status. Because of this risk, a stay of execution should be requested together with the lawsuit and, if necessary, a precautionary residence permit application should be made.
The state's power to terminate citizenship obtained by fraud is beyond dispute. However, this power cannot be used in a way that punishes the good-faith investor who complied with the rules, actually paid the money and relied on the state's own approval mechanism. When the requirement in Article 31 of a false statement by "the person concerned" themselves, the Council of State's requirement of a concrete fact existing at the date of acquisition, the principle of administrative stability and the proportionality review of the ECtHR are considered together, it is clear that each file can be defended on its own evidence.
