Pehlivan & Güven Law FirmPublished:
This article examines the legal regime governing the acquisition, annulment and revocation of Turkish citizenship, with its substantive, formal and procedural principles, in the light of precedent decisions of the Council of State: the differences between annulment and revocation, the time limits for filing a lawsuit, the risk of rejection of the petition, and the principle of concrete evidence.
Short answer
If a decision granting citizenship was issued as a result of the person's false statement or concealment of material facts, it is annulled under Article 31 of the Turkish Citizenship Law (TVK); if it later emerges that the decision was issued without the legal conditions being met, in duplicate or by mistake, it is revoked under TVK Art. 40. Unless a special time limit is provided, an action for annulment against the revocation must be filed within 60 days; if the time limit is missed, the case may be dismissed without examination of the merits. The 10th Chamber of the Council of State annulled a revocation on the grounds that facts arising after the acquisition of citizenship do not, on their own, show that the initial conditions were absent; in a case where the foreign exchange purchase certificates had been issued with false content, however, it found the revocation lawful.
Related guides: How to Get Turkish Citizenship: An Up-to-Date Guide to the Routes · My Citizenship Was Annulled — What Should I Do? Citizenship Annulment Actions and Council of State Rulings
Turkish citizenship law is a predominantly public-law field that directly concerns the sovereign power of the State and the legal status and fundamental rights of the individual. The acquisition, preservation and, in the cases provided for by law, termination of citizenship status, which establishes a political, legal and social bond between the State and a natural person, must be assessed within the framework of the balance between the powers of the administration and the individual's expectation of legal certainty and foreseeability.
Administrative acts concerning the acquisition of citizenship create significant rights for those concerned; the subsequent annulment or revocation of these acts can directly affect the person's legal status, family relationships, assets and life in Türkiye.
For this reason, acts terminating citizenship decisions must be examined not only in terms of their legal basis, but also in terms of their elements of cause, subject, purpose, competence and form, and the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and administrative stability.
The third paragraph of Article 66 of the 1982 Constitution, which provides that "Citizenship can be acquired under the conditions stipulated by law, and shall be forfeited only in cases determined by law", is one of the fundamental constitutional foundations of Turkish citizenship law.
This provision requires that the conditions for acquiring and losing citizenship rest on a statutory basis. When exercising the powers granted to it, the administration must act within the limits set by law.
In this framework, regulations, circulars, instructions and similar administrative rules may explain how the law is to be applied; however, they cannot create new grounds for loss of citizenship that do not exist in the law or change the statutory conditions.
Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901 sets out the fundamental principles concerning the acquisition of citizenship by birth or subsequently, and the loss of citizenship. Consequently, individual administrative acts carried out in the field of citizenship must comply with the provisions of the relevant law and with constitutional principles.
The State's power to determine which foreigners will be admitted to citizenship is one of the fundamental characteristics of citizenship law. In Turkish law, too, the administration has been granted discretionary power under certain conditions, particularly with regard to the subsequent acquisition of citizenship.
Articles 10, 11 and 12 of Law No. 5901 set out the different routes to naturalisation and the legal framework of these routes.
Nevertheless, the administration's discretionary power is not unlimited. Discretionary power must be exercised in line with the purpose of the law and with regard to the public interest. Administrative acts must also comply with the principles of lawfulness, equality, proportionality, legal certainty and clarity.
Where a citizenship application is rejected or a previously granted citizenship decision is terminated, it is important to set out the legal basis of the act and its connection with the specific facts.
Particularly in disputes concerning the revocation of citizenship, the following matters must be assessed together:
The acquisition of Turkish citizenship can generally be examined in two main groups: acquisition by birth and subsequent acquisition.
Acquisition by birth: Citizenship is acquired at the moment of birth, on the basis of descent or place of birth as provided by law.
Subsequent acquisition: Citizenship is acquired after birth, once the conditions provided by law are met and the relevant procedure is completed. This includes different routes such as acquisition by decision of the competent authority, by marriage, by adoption or by exercising the right of option.
Among the routes of subsequent acquisition, one of the mechanisms that gives rise to significant disputes in practice is the exceptional acquisition of Turkish citizenship through investment.
This route, which falls under Article 12 of Law No. 5901, depends on meeting the investment and other conditions provided for in the relevant legislation. Types of investment may include acquisition of immovable property, maintaining a deposit of a certain amount and other investment instruments listed in the legislation.
To acquire citizenship through investment, it is not enough simply to have made the investment. The conditions required for the relevant type of investment, the certificate of conformity and other administrative procedures must be completed in accordance with the legislation, and there must be no legal impediments.
In this context, when examining the lawfulness of citizenship decisions issued subsequently, the genuineness of the investment, the accuracy of the required documents, whether the eligibility conditions were met and the scope of the administrative review are important.
Articles 31 and 40 of Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901 provide for different legal mechanisms for terminating decisions on the acquisition of citizenship under certain conditions.
The legal grounds, conditions of application and consequences of these two institutions must be distinguished from each other. However, assessing the relationship between them in a specific case requires the relevant statutory provisions and implementing legislation to be examined together.
Table 1. Comparison of annulment of citizenship and revocation of the citizenship decision
| Criterion of comparison | Annulment of citizenship | Revocation of the citizenship decision |
|---|---|---|
| Main legal basis | TVK Art. 31 and related provisions | TVK Art. 40 and the relevant implementing legislation |
| Main ground | False statement or concealment of material facts on which the acquisition of citizenship was based | The decision was issued without the legal conditions being met, in duplicate or by mistake |
| Main issue to be examined | The nature of the statement or concealment and its effect on the citizenship decision | Whether the legal conditions were met on the date of the initial decision |
| Legal assessment | The relationship between the person's conduct and the decision is examined | The lawfulness of the initial act and the conditions for revocation are examined |
| Consequence in terms of time | Assessed within the framework of TVK Art. 32 | The consequences of revoking the initial decision are determined under the relevant legislation |
| Judicial review | Cause, procedure, competence and other elements of lawfulness are examined | All relevant elements, including the conditions for revocation, legal certainty and administrative stability, are examined |
The consequences in terms of time indicated in this table should be separately verified against the statutory provisions and relevant rules applicable in the specific case. It should not be assumed that the consequences of annulment and revocation automatically arise in the same way in every case.
Under Article 31 of Law No. 5901, a decision granting Turkish citizenship is annulled by the authority that issued it if it was issued as a result of the person's false statement or concealment of material facts on which the acquisition of citizenship was based.
In applying this provision, the accuracy of the statements on which the citizenship decision was based and the materiality of the facts allegedly concealed are decisive.
Depending on the particular features of the case, the following questions must be answered:
When assessing the consequences of annulment, Article 32 of Law No. 5901 and other relevant provisions must be considered together. In particular, the effect of annulment of citizenship in terms of time, the status of family members and the consequences for legal transactions carried out in the past must be examined within the framework of the express provisions of the law.
Article 40 of Law No. 5901 sets out the legal framework for revoking decisions on the acquisition or loss of Turkish citizenship where it later emerges that they were issued without the legal conditions being met, in duplicate or by mistake.
The key question in applying this institution is whether the necessary legal conditions existed on the date the initial decision was issued.
For example, in the process of acquiring citizenship through investment, a later finding that the investment documents were untrue, or the discovery that the investment conditions required by law were not met at the outset, may be important for the legal basis of the revocation.
However, not every allegation of unlawfulness automatically leads to revocation without any examination. The material facts relied on by the administration, their connection with the relevant statutory provision, and whether the conditions for revocation are met in the specific case must all be assessed.
In this context, the following matters in particular should be examined:
As regards the consequences of the revocation decision in terms of time, the relevant provisions of Law No. 5901 and the Regulation on the Implementation of the Turkish Citizenship Law must be examined together.
The distinction between annulment and revocation of citizenship gives rise to significant debate in terms of the principles of legal certainty and administrative stability.
Particularly where the person concerned has not acted fraudulently but the initial citizenship decision is alleged to be unlawful because of the administration's error or incomplete review, the consequences of revocation are debated from the standpoint of equity.
At the heart of this debate lie two fundamental principles:
The first is ensuring lawfulness. When the administration finds that citizenship status has been created by an act that does not meet the statutory conditions, it is obliged to ensure lawfulness to the extent permitted by the legislation.
The second is protecting legal certainty. Individuals' ability to rely to a certain extent on acts carried out by the administration, the foreseeability of legal relationships and the stability of administrative acts are among the fundamental requirements of the rule of law.
In striking a balance between these two principles, whether the person acted in good faith, the nature of the administration's error, the time that has elapsed since the act was carried out and the resulting consequences are important.
Placing the consequences of a situation arising from the administration's own error entirely on the individual without any assessment may be criticised from the standpoint of legal certainty. However, this does not mean that revocation is unlawful in every case. The outcome must be determined within the framework of the relevant statutory provision and the circumstances of the specific case.
In disputes concerning the revocation of citizenship decisions, calculating the time limits for filing a lawsuit correctly is as important as examining the act from a factual and legal perspective.
In administrative proceedings, time limits for filing a lawsuit are procedural rules of public order. If the time limit is missed, the court may, under the relevant procedural provisions, dismiss the case as time-barred without examining its merits.
However, the period within which the administration may exercise its power of revocation and the time limit for filing a lawsuit against the administrative act are separate legal issues.
The limits on the administration's ability to revoke its unlawful acts are addressed in administrative law within the framework of the principles of legal certainty and administrative stability.
The decision of the Council of State Assembly for the Unification of Case Law dated 22.12.1973, E. 1968/8, K. 1973/14, is cited among the classic precedents on the revocation of administrative acts.
Assessments in this field take into account factors such as the nature of the act, fraud or false statements by the person concerned, manifest error, nullity and the relevant special statutory provisions.
However, it should not be concluded directly from general principles of administrative law that the revocation of all citizenship decisions is necessarily limited to a 60-day period. Particularly for acts carried out under Article 40 of Law No. 5901, the special provisions and the relevant case law of the Council of State must be examined separately.
For this reason, the following questions must be answered in the specific dispute:
Under the first paragraph of Article 7 of Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK) No. 2577, the general time limit for filing a lawsuit before the Council of State and the administrative courts is 60 days, where no separate time limit is provided in special laws.
Under İYUK Art. 8, the calculation of time limits takes into account the starting date, the conditions of notification and knowledge, and the other rules set out in the law. Which date is to be taken as the basis in the specific case must be determined by reference to the nature of the act and the manner of notification.
In acts concerning the revocation of a citizenship decision, the date of notification and, where applicable, the legal consequences of notification to the attorney must be examined carefully. Matters such as electronic notification, proper notification and the date of knowledge may also become important depending on the particular features of the case.
When calculating the time limit for filing a lawsuit, the following steps are recommended:
Decision reference: Council of State, 10th Chamber, E. 2025/6295, K. 2025/7133; decision date 30.12.2025.
According to the information reported, the dispute concerns the revocation under Article 40 of the citizenship decision of a person who had acquired Turkish citizenship under Article 12/1-b of Law No. 5901.
It is stated that the revocation decision was dated 16.01.2025, that the notice of the decision was served on the claimant's attorney on 10.04.2025, and that the case was filed on 20.12.2025.
The reported decision states that the case was dismissed as time-barred under Articles 14 and 15 of İYUK on the grounds that the time limit for filing the lawsuit had passed.
This example shows the importance of monitoring the time limit for filing a lawsuit in disputes concerning the revocation of citizenship. Even if the factual and legal arguments that the act is unlawful are strong, the court may not proceed to examine the merits if the case is not filed in time.
Practical conclusion: The notification document, the date of notification, the power of attorney relationship and the time limit for filing a lawsuit must be assessed together and the procedural steps completed without delay.
In actions for annulment concerning the revocation of citizenship, it is not enough to examine the act from a factual and legal perspective alone. The statement of claim must also be prepared in accordance with the procedural rules laid down in İYUK.
In particular, the filing of a lawsuit by more than one person with the same petition must be assessed in terms of the conditions set out in Article 5 of İYUK.
The first paragraph of Article 5 of Law No. 2577 makes the filing of a lawsuit by more than one person with a joint petition subject to certain conditions.
In this context, essentially the conditions that:
must be assessed together.
Being affected by the same administrative act or facing the same legal reasoning is not, on its own, sufficient in every case to file a joint lawsuit. The claimants' personal circumstances, the material facts on which the acts are based and the legal grounds put forward must also be taken into account.
In the process of acquiring citizenship through investment, different documents and personal circumstances may apply to each investor.
The property purchase, the foreign exchange purchase certificate, the bank deposit or other investment documents may be specific to the individual. In addition, in the application, security investigation and citizenship acquisition processes, it may be necessary to distinguish between the legal situation of family members and the situation of different families.
For this reason, the fact that the citizenship of more than one investor was revoked by the same administrative decision does not mean that all the investors can file a lawsuit with the same petition.
On the other hand, it is not correct to automatically treat the situation of spouses and children as identical in every case either. The legal status of family members must be assessed separately in terms of the act in dispute and the relationship of interest.
When preparing the petition, the following matters must be examined for each claimant:
Decision reference: Council of State, 10th Chamber, E. 2023/6208, K. 2025/169; decision year 2025.
According to the information reported, six claimants who had acquired Turkish citizenship through the exceptional route filed an action for annulment with a joint petition after their citizenship was revoked by the same Presidential Decision.
The claimants consisted of three separate married couples.
According to the reported summary, it was accepted that there may be a relationship of rights or interests between persons in the same family; however, it was held that the investment, foreign exchange purchase certificate, certificate of conformity and security investigation processes of different families who are not each other's spouses or children were independent of one another.
The summary states that the court therefore concluded that the joint petition did not comply with Article 5 of İYUK and rejected the petition.
On the basis of this decision summary, it can be said that caution is needed when combining the cases of different investor families. However, whether filing a joint lawsuit is possible in each case must be assessed in the light of the conditions in Article 5 of İYUK and the full reasoning of the relevant decision.
If the petition is rejected, the procedural and time-limit requirements set out in Article 15 of İYUK must be followed carefully. The time limit and consequences of refiling the case must be determined according to the content of the decision and the applicable legislation.
In actions for annulment concerning the revocation of citizenship, the lawfulness of the administrative act must be examined in terms of its elements of competence, form, cause, subject and purpose.
Particularly in reviewing the cause element of the act, the concreteness of the material facts relied on by the administration, the conditions on the date the person acquired citizenship and the nature of the information and documents in the file are important.
In the judicial review of citizenship acts carried out on grounds of national security or public order, the nature of the information and documents relied on by the administration is important.
The facts on which the administration's act is based must be linked to the relevant statutory provision, and it must be possible to carry out an assessment that lends itself to judicial review.
The existence of confidential information and documents does not mean that they are beyond judicial review. The relevant court may examine the necessary information and documents within the framework of the applicable procedural rules.
In this context, the principle of ex officio investigation set out in Article 20 of İYUK is important. The court may ensure that the information and documents necessary to resolve the dispute are obtained from the relevant institutions.
In disputes concerning the revocation of citizenship, the date on which the events constituting the grounds for revocation occurred must be examined separately.
It must be considered whether a fact that did not exist on the date the initial citizenship decision was issued shows, on its own, that the legal conditions that should have existed at the outset were not met.
For this reason, intelligence information, investigations or other facts that come to light later must, in particular, be linked to the legal situation on the date citizenship was acquired.
Decision date: 04.02.2026.
According to the reported summary, the citizenship that the claimant, a Syrian national, and his or her spouse had acquired through the exceptional route on 09.12.2021 was revoked by a Presidential Decision dated 27.05.2024.
In the dispute, it was argued that the allegations contained in the information and documents submitted by the relevant institutions concerned events after the date on which citizenship was acquired.
The decision summary states that it was established that there was no Interpol record, criminal investigation or terrorism record concerning the claimant, and that the revocation was annulled on the grounds that facts arising after the acquisition of citizenship do not, on their own, show that the initial legal conditions were absent.
Legal significance: This decision summary indicates that events after the date of acquisition of citizenship must be considered separately from the assessment of the legal conditions on the date the initial decision was issued.
Decision date: 23.06.2025.
According to the reported summary, the citizenship the claimant had acquired on 04.09.2018 was revoked by a Presidential Decision dated 09.05.2019.
It is stated that the court examined the confidential documents, that the relevant information and documents had been known to the administration before the citizenship decision as well, but that no concrete data justifying the revocation could be put forward.
According to the decision summary, the revocation was annulled because the grounds relied on by the administration could not be sufficiently established.
Legal significance: This decision summary shows the importance of linking the information and documents on which the administrative act is based to the relevant statutory conditions, and of the act being amenable to judicial review.
In acquiring Turkish citizenship through investment, the substantive and legal conditions provided for in the legislation for the relevant type of investment must be fulfilled.
In the process of acquiring citizenship through the acquisition of immovable property, the genuineness of the investment, the relevant amount and other statutory conditions, and the legal status of the foreign exchange purchase certificate and certificates of conformity are important.
A later finding that the investment documents are untrue may be capable of affecting the lawfulness of the initial citizenship decision. However, in the specific case, the legal basis of the revocation, the nature of the relevant document and whether the initial conditions were met must be examined separately.
Decision date: 05.02.2026.
According to the reported summary, the claimant, an Afghan national, acquired Turkish citizenship through the acquisition of immovable property on 27.09.2022.
It is stated that a subsequent review by the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre found that the foreign exchange purchase certificates on which the investment was based had been issued with false content, and that the certificate of conformity for the property investment was cancelled.
It is stated that the citizenship decision was then revoked under Article 40 of Law No. 5901.
According to the decision summary, the Council of State found the revocation lawful on the grounds that the investment condition had not been met at the outset, and dismissed the case.
Legal significance: In citizenship-through-investment disputes, the accuracy of the investment documents and whether the statutory conditions were met on the date citizenship was acquired may be decisive.
Nevertheless, it cannot be said that every dispute over a document automatically requires the revocation of the citizenship decision. The legal nature of the document, the basis of the finding and the statutory conditions for revocation must each be assessed separately in the specific case.
In acquiring citizenship through investment, certain types of investment carry obligations to maintain the investment for a specific period.
In practice, the effect on the citizenship decision of losing the investment conditions within the three-year holding period may be a matter of dispute.
It is argued that Article 8 of an instruction issued by the General Directorate of Population and Citizenship Affairs provides that, if the conditions are lost within the three-year holding period, the citizenship decision will be annulled under TVK Art. 31.
In the legal assessment of such a provision, the full text and the status of the relevant instruction must first be established. The relationship between the grounds for annulment provided for in the law and the consequences attached to a breach of investment obligations must then be examined.
Administrative regulatory acts must comply with higher-ranking norms. Whether a new ground for annulment of citizenship that does not exist in the law can be created by an instruction must be assessed within the framework of the principle of legality.
For this reason, a breach of the three-year holding obligation must be distinguished from making a false statement or concealing a material fact during the citizenship application.
Key assessment: A subsequent breach of the investment obligation is not the same legal fact as making an untrue statement during the initial application. The legal consequence to be applied must be determined within the framework of the relevant statutory provisions and the circumstances of the specific case.
The acquisition, annulment and revocation of Turkish citizenship is a field of law in which the balance between the powers of the administration and the legal certainty of the individual is of particular importance.
In disputes concerning the termination of citizenship decisions, the legal ground of the act, the conditions existing on the date of the initial decision, the information and documents relied on by the administration and the applicable procedural rules must be assessed together.
In the light of the principles reported in the Council of State decisions, legal practitioners should pay particular attention to the following matters.
The applicable time limit for filing a lawsuit must be determined under Article 7 of İYUK and other relevant provisions; the date of notification and the start of the time limit must be established from the documents.
The general 60-day time limit should not be regarded as an absolute rule to be applied in every dispute without any exception or special provision. The nature of the act in dispute and the special legislation must be examined first.
As expiry of the time limit may prevent examination of the merits, the dates of notification and of filing the case must be clearly shown in the file.
Where a lawsuit is planned to be filed by more than one investor or family member, the conditions in Article 5 of İYUK must be assessed separately.
It must be determined whether there is a commonality in the claimants' rights or interests and whether the material facts or legal grounds giving rise to the dispute are the same.
The fact that different investor families are affected by the same administrative decision should not, on its own, be accepted as sufficient for filing a lawsuit with a joint petition. The legal situation of each claimant and his or her relationship to the act in dispute must be set out separately.
The material facts on which the revocation of citizenship is based must be clearly identified.
In citizenship-through-investment disputes, the following documents in particular should be examined:
A link must be established between the reasoning of the administrative act and the material data in the file; abstract allegations must be distinguished from verifiable material facts.
The date on which the events constituting the grounds for revocation occurred must be determined.
Facts existing before the date of acquisition of citizenship and events arising after that date must be examined separately. Whether a later event shows that the conditions that should have existed on the date of the initial decision were not met must be assessed on the basis of concrete reasons.
This distinction is particularly important in disputes concerning security assessments and investment documents.
It must be determined which provision of Law No. 5901 the revocation is based on, and the lawfulness of the act must be examined in terms of its elements of cause, subject, competence, form and purpose.
The administration's power of revocation and the time limit for an action for annulment against the citizenship decision must be assessed separately.
It must also be explained how the principles of legal certainty, administrative stability, proportionality and legality are to be applied in the specific dispute.
Under the principle of ex officio investigation set out in Article 20 of İYUK, it may be requested that the information and documents necessary to resolve the dispute be obtained from the relevant institutions.
Particularly where it is not possible for the claimant to obtain the documents alleged to form the basis of the administrative act, it may be important for the court to request the files and documents from the relevant institutions.
When preparing this request, it should be stated clearly which document is to be requested from which institution and why the document is important for resolving the dispute.
Annulment (TVK Art. 31) applies where the citizenship decision was issued as a result of the person's false statement or concealment of material facts. Revocation (TVK Art. 40), on the other hand, applies where it later emerges that the decision was issued without the legal conditions being met, in duplicate or by mistake.
Unless a separate time limit is provided in special laws, it is 60 days under İYUK Art. 7, and the time limit runs from notification. In the decision of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State, E. 2025/6295, a case filed after the time limit was dismissed as time-barred.
In the decision of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State, E. 2023/6208, it was held that the investment and security investigation processes of different families who are not each other's spouses or children were independent; the joint petition was found not to comply with İYUK Art. 5 and the petition was rejected.
In the decision of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State, E. 2024/3835, the revocation was annulled on the grounds that facts arising after the acquisition of citizenship do not, on their own, show that the initial legal conditions were absent.
In the decision of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State, E. 2024/405, the revocation was found lawful on the grounds that the foreign exchange purchase certificates had been issued with false content and the investment condition had not been met at the outset.
The annulment or revocation of decisions on the acquisition of Turkish citizenship are not simple acts that can be assessed solely within the scope of the administration's discretionary power. These acts must be examined within the framework of the principles of legality, legal certainty, administrative stability and effective judicial review.
Particularly in disputes concerning citizenship acquired through investment, whether the investment conditions were met at the outset, the accuracy of the documents, the concreteness of the administrative findings and the timing of the events are important.
In addition, correctly determining the time limit for filing a lawsuit, observing the conditions for a joint petition and ensuring that the court examines the information and documents on which the administrative act is based are the fundamental elements of an effective litigation strategy.
In conclusion, every dispute concerning the revocation of citizenship decisions must be resolved by assessing together the relevant statutory provisions, the material features of the specific case and the applicable case law.
