Introduction

This study examines the legal remedies available to a foreign national held under administrative detention at the Tuzla Removal Centre (TRC) and facing a deportation decision, for the purpose of suspending or annulling these procedures, based on the analysis of judicial decisions provided. The analysis focuses on two main legal issues: first, the annulment of the deportation decision; and second, the lifting of the administrative detention order. The decisions examined reveal the application procedures, competent and authorized courts, application deadlines, and the remedies that must be exhausted before filing an individual application to the Constitutional Court, all shaped within the framework of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection No. 6458 (LFIP). The main findings obtained from the comprehensive analysis of judicial decisions are as follows:

Blocking a Deportation Order: The most fundamental and effective way is to file an annulment lawsuit in the competent Administrative Court within seven days from the notification of the deportation decision. Filing a lawsuit automatically suspends the deportation process until the conclusion of the trial.

Lifting Administrative Detention: The authority to apply for the lifting of an administrative detention decision is the Magistrate Criminal Court. This application does not automatically suspend administrative detention, but the court will decide on the application within five days.

Compensation for Unlawful Detention: To claim material and moral compensation on the grounds that administrative detention was unlawful, a full remedy lawsuit in Administrative Justice must be filed after the detention ends.

Individual Application to the Constitutional Court: An application to the Constitutional Court is a secondary avenue. Especially for claims of violation of the right to personal liberty and security, it is mandatory to exhaust avenues such as objection to the Magistrate Criminal Court and full remedy lawsuits.

1. Tuzla Removal Center: Legal Avenues Against Deportation Decisions

The primary legal avenue to prevent a deportation decision is to file an annulment lawsuit in administrative justice.

Period for Filing a Lawsuit and Competent Court: Numerous decisions emphasize that this lawsuit must be filed within seven days from the notification of the decision in the Administrative Court (aym-2/2/2022, uyusmazlik-2022/293, ilkDerece-Kocaeli-2022/45). Due to the short and preclusive nature of the deadlines, meticulous follow-up is critically important.

Effect of the Lawsuit on Deportation Proceedings: The most significant consequence of filing an annulment lawsuit is that it automatically halts the deportation process. This has been explicitly stated in many decisions referencing Article 53 of the LFIP: “Subject to the foreigner’s consent, the foreigner shall not be deported within the period for filing a lawsuit or, in case of recourse to legal remedies, until the conclusion of the judicial proceedings.“ (aym-2/2/2022, ilkDerece-İstanbul-2021/383). This provision provides a vital procedural safeguard for the foreigner.

Grounds for the Lawsuit and Burden of Proof: In the lawsuit, the unlawfulness of the deportation decision can be asserted on various grounds.

Prohibition of Return (Non-refoulement): The most fundamental defense argument is that the foreigner would be at risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment in the country to which they would be sent (prohibition of ill-treatment). The Constitutional Court states that this claim should not be abstract, and the applicant “must reasonably explain the risk of ill-treatment they claim exists in the country to which they will be returned; and (if any) provide information and documents supporting this claim” (aym-17/11/2021).

Situations within the Scope of Article 55 of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection (YUKK): The law stipulates that a deportation decision cannot be made in cases such as serious health problems, pregnancy, or the lack of treatment options for life-threatening diseases (ilkDerece-Kocaeli-2022/45, ilkDerece-İstanbul-2021/383). The existence of these situations is a strong reason for the annulment of the decision.

Procedural Deficiencies: Procedural errors, such as irregularities in the notification process of the decision or insufficient examination by the administration, can also be put forward as grounds for annulment (aym-11/7/2023, ilkDerece-İzmir-2020/469).

2. Tuzla Removal Centre: Annulment of Administrative Detention Decisions and Related Legal Remedies

Administrative detention is not a punishment or an arrest, but an administrative measure taken for the execution of deportation procedures. The appeal avenues against this measure are regulated within the judicial system.

Appeal to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace: The primary and direct way to appeal the administrative detention decision is an appeal to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace. According to Article 57 of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection (YUKK), “The person placed under administrative detention, or their legal representative or lawyer, may apply to the criminal judge of peace against the administrative detention decision.“ (uyusmazlik-2022/253, uyusmazlik-2022/293). This application does not automatically suspend the administrative detention, but the judgeship examines the file urgently (within five days) and renders a decision, which is final. Furthermore, it is possible to reapply with the claim that the conditions for detention have ceased to exist or have changed.

Action for Full Redress (Path to Compensation): As consistently emphasized in the decisions of the Constitutional Court, an action for full redress must be filed for the compensation of material and moral damages incurred due to the alleged unlawfulness of administrative detention. This lawsuit does not ensure the person’s release; its purpose is to remedy the damage incurred after the detention ends. The Constitutional Court (AYM) deems individual applications made without exhausting this path inadmissible due to “non-exhaustion of remedies.” The Constitutional Court’s (AYM’s) approach on this matter is clear: “…it has concluded that examining applications made without exhausting the action for full redress, which is seen to offer a chance of success, possess the capacity to provide sufficient redress, and be accessible for compensating the material and moral damages claimed to have been suffered due to unlawful deprivation of liberty by an administrative decision, is incompatible with the subsidiary nature of individual applications.”“ (AYM-29/12/2021, AYM-28/1/2021).

Jurisdictional Divergence: Although the general tendency is for full redress lawsuits seeking compensation to be heard in administrative courts, a decision by the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes stated that lawsuits claiming moral compensation arising from administrative detention should be heard in judicial courts (UYUSMAZLIK-2022/473). This situation indicates that caution should be exercised regarding the competent court in compensation lawsuits.

Conclusion

For a foreign national detained at the Tuzla Repatriation Center, a two-pronged legal strategy should be pursued to prevent the deportation process and terminate administrative detention:

Against the deportation decision, an annulment lawsuit must be filed in the Administrative Court without missing the 7-day period from the notification of the decision. This lawsuit will halt the deportation process until the end of the judicial proceedings.

Against the administrative detention decision, an objection must be immediately filed with the Magistrate Criminal Court, requesting release.

In addition to these methods, after the administrative detention ends, filing a full remedy lawsuit for the compensation of damages incurred due to alleged unlawfulness is essential both to remedy a possible loss of rights and to keep the path for individual application to the Constitutional Court open. It is crucial for lawyers to act by considering the different branches of jurisdiction stipulated for each legal process, the short application periods, and the Constitutional Court’s strict jurisprudence regarding the principle of “exhaustion of remedies” for the successful management of the process. A paper suggestion.

Tuzla Removal Center: Why is Tuzla Lawyer Support Necessary?

For foreigners held at the Tuzla Removal Center, the effective execution of legal processes is of critical importance, both in terms of not missing short application periods and applying to the correct authorities with the correct procedure.

At this point, the support of a lawyer working in Tuzla and specialized in foreigners’ law provides significant advantages:

Geographical Proximity Advantage: The fact that the Repatriation Center is located in Tuzla allows the lawyer to quickly reach the center, meet with their client face-to-face, and obtain the necessary documents in a timely manner. This ensures the safe utilization of forfeiture periods, especially those like the 7-day lawsuit filing period.

Local Experience: A lawyer with prior experience in cases handled by courts in Tuzla (Administrative Court, Criminal Judgeship of Peace), by knowing both local practices and the jurisprudential tendencies of the judgeships, can provide a more strategic defense.

Opportunity for Swift Intervention: In applications to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace for the lifting of an administrative detention order, the lawyer’s proximity to the center provides great convenience in preparing petitions, following up on hearing days, and intervening in urgent developments.

Preparation for Application to the Constitutional Court: Since the principle of exhaustion of remedies must be observed, an expert lawyer, by conducting both administrative and judicial processes in a coordinated manner, ensures that the individual application route remains open.

In conclusion, for foreigners held under administrative detention at Tuzla Repatriation Center, working with a lawyer based in Tuzla and specialized in foreigners’ law, as well as in the regions of Istanbul Pendik lawyer, Kartal lawyer, Maltepe lawyer, Gebze lawyer, Orhanlı lawyer, Tepeören lawyer, Darıca lawyer, Bayramoğlu lawyer, or Çayırova lawyer, provides a significant advantage in terms of both time management and legal strategy. This support is vital for reducing the risk of deportation and protecting the right to personal liberty and security.