Introduction

This study analyzes the procedures and principles for acquiring Turkish citizenship through marriage, the main reasons leading to the rejection of administrative applications, and the issues most frequently subject to annulment by judicial authorities in lawsuits filed against these rejection decisions, in light of the Council of State and Regional Administrative Court decisions presented. The analysis is shaped around the conditions stipulated in Article 16 of the Turkish Citizenship Law (TCL) No. 5901, how these conditions are interpreted by the administration, and the judicial review of the administration’s discretionary power. The study aims to present the legal grounds for rejection decisions and the critical points highlighted in judicial review for applicants and their representatives.

1. Conditions for Acquiring Citizenship from a Procedural and Substantive Perspective

According to the examined decisions, the conditions for acquiring citizenship through marriage are clearly stated in Article 16 of the TCL. These are:

Duration and Continuity: Being married to a Turkish citizen for at least three years, and the marriage still being ongoing at the time of application.

Substantive Conditions:

a) Living within family unity: The marriage must be maintained as a de facto and spiritual union, not for formality or personal gain.

b) Not engaging in activities incompatible with marital unity: Especially refraining from acts such as prostitution.

c) Not having a situation that would constitute an obstacle to national security and public order: The applicant must not have a criminal record or any other situation that is objectionable from a general security perspective.

In addition to these substantive conditions, as emphasized in the decision no. 2019/10218 E. of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State, the lack of procedural conditions, such as presenting a valid “residence certificate (residence permit)” confirming legal presence in Turkey at the time of application, can also lead to the rejection of the application.

2. Issues Most Frequently Subject to Annulment in Judicial Decisions and Reasons for Illegality

Judicial decisions systematically reveal specific illegalities in the administration’s rejection procedures.

a. Failure to Assess the Nature of the Crime and Broad Interpretation of the “National Security” Condition The most common ground for rejection invoked by the administration, “a situation constituting an obstacle to national security and public order,” is the most scrutinized area by the courts. The Council of State emphasizes that the legislator, with this condition, did not intend every type of crime, but rather crimes that pose a serious threat to the existence and functioning of the state (e.g., rebellion, espionage, terrorism, drug trafficking). Accordingly, rejection decisions based on crimes that do not seriously threaten public order by their nature are annulled.

In its decision numbered 2020/6745 E., 2023/7962 K., the 10th Chamber of the Council of State ruled that the crime of “forgery of official documents”, in its decision numbered 2021/3093 E., 2022/289 K., the crime of “causing zoning pollution”, and in the decision numbered 2023/1055 E., 2023/2179 K. of the Administrative Litigation Chambers Board, the crime of “simple assault” would not constitute an impediment to citizenship. The common emphasis in these decisions is as follows: “…when the nature of the crime committed by the plaintiff, which was proven as a result of the trial, is considered together, the said crime is not of a nature that would constitute an obstacle to the plaintiff becoming a Turkish citizen…”

b. Timing of the Act: Citing Pre-marital Acts as Justification Courts rule that the condition of “not engaging in an activity incompatible with the marriage union” , as stated in Article 16/1-b of the TVK, covers the period after the marriage union is established, as its name suggests. It is found unlawful to use acts committed by the applicant years before the marriage date (usually prostitution) as a ground for rejection under this article.

In its decision numbered 2016/1358 E., 2020/5616 K., the 10th Chamber of the Council of State clearly stated this situation: “According to the provision in Article 16 of Law No. 5901, the citizenship application can only be rejected on this ground if it is determined that the plaintiff engaged in an activity incompatible with the marriage union after the marriage date.” (See also in the same vein: 2015/2781 E., 2020/3212 K.; 2016/2766 E., 2020/4436 K.; Ankara Administrative Court 10th Admin. Litigation Chamber, 2017/320 E., 2017/353 K.)

c. Narrow and Formalistic Interpretation of the “Living within Family Unity” Condition The administration rejects applications by interpreting the situation where one of the spouses (usually the Turkish citizen spouse) is in prison as the “living within family unity” condition having ceased to exist. However, the Council of State finds this interpretation unlawful. According to the Court, one of the spouses being separated for a compulsory reason beyond their will (such as detention/conviction) does not, by itself, mean the end of family unity. What is important is whether the marriage continues with its spiritual bonds.

In the decision of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State numbered 2016/1913 E., 2020/6958 K. it was stated that:”…the victimization of a well-intentioned foreigner merely because their spouse committed a crime and went to prison would result in their being punished for a crime they did not commit…”

Similarly, in the decision numbered 2016/13579 E., 2021/1030 K., the plaintiff providing financial support to their spouse in prison and maintaining their relationship with their family was accepted as proof that the marriage union spiritually continued, and the rejection was canceled.

d. Insufficient, Biased, or Contradictory Administrative Investigation It is essential for an important action, such as the rejection of a citizenship application, to be based on a concrete, objective, and sufficient investigation. Courts annul rejection decisions based on incomplete or contradictory evidence.

In the decision of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State numbered 2016/13970 E., 2020/4563 K., it was ruled that the investigation based solely on the statement of a single person who was hostile towards the plaintiff’s spouse was insufficient.

In the decision numbered 2016/16078 E., 2020/4353 K., the existence of contradictions between the interview form and the social investigation report, which the administration based its rejection decision on, was considered a reason for the annulment of the action.

e. Attribution of Spouse’s Status to the Applicant and the Principle of Personal Nature of Punishments Even if the applicant themselves meets the legal conditions, the administration may reject applications by citing the Turkish citizen spouse’s criminal record or intelligence information about them. However, judicial decisions frequently emphasize that this approach is contrary to the principle of the “personal nature of punishments”. Unless there is concrete evidence that the applicant participated in their spouse’s actions, rejecting the application solely due to the spouse’s status is deemed unlawful. (See: Council of State 10th Chamber, 2016/12540 E., 2020/5618 K.; Plenary Session of Administrative Law Chambers, 2021/3757 E., 2022/439 K.)

f. Determination of Sham Marriage Allegation Without a Judicial Decision It is a common situation for the administration to reject an application, concluding that the marriage is a formality as a result of its own investigation, and on the grounds that the “living within a family unit” condition has been violated. However, the Council of State has introduced an important legal limitation on this matter. As clearly stated in the decision numbered Council of State 10th Chamber, 2012/8144 E., 2015/4051 K.: “Since the annulment of a marriage relationship is only possible with a decision to be rendered by the judicial authorities, it is legally not possible for the administration to make an assessment that the marriage is a formality (sham) and establish an administrative act without a decision issued by the judicial authorities.”

g. Reliance on Repealed Regulations As stated in the decision of the Administrative Litigation Chambers Board numbered 2020/3097 E., 2021/403 K., the fact that the regulation provision whose annulment was sought by the plaintiff was not in force on the date the lawsuit was filed renders the case moot. This situation demonstrates the importance of the currency of the legislation underlying the administrative act and relying on the correct legal text when filing a lawsuit.

Conclusion

Acquisition of Turkish citizenship through marriage is subject to the broad discretionary power of the administration, particularly concerning “national security and public order” and “family unity,” in addition to the objective conditions specified in the law. The judicial decisions reviewed indicate that this discretionary power is not limitless and is restricted by general principles of law (individuality of penalties, proportionality, reliance on concrete evidence). Judicial authorities consistently annul administrative rejection decisions based on assumptions, pre-marital events, insufficient investigations, or broad interpretations that exceed the purpose of the law. Particularly, the threat posed by the nature of the crime in terms of public order, the moral dimension of family unity, and the objectivity of the administrative investigation play a decisive role in judicial review. Therefore, in lawsuits filed against rejection decisions, it is of great importance to analyze the administration’s reasoning within the framework of these legal review criteria. An article suggestion.

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?

The acquisition of Turkish citizenship through marriage is a complex procedure based not only on a marriage contract but also on detailed legal analysis and administrative process management. Therefore, it is of great importance for applicants and foreign spouses to conduct the process accompanied by a lawyer specialized in citizenship and immigration law.

Especially for foreign nationals residing in areas such as Istanbul, Kadıköy, Tuzla, Pendik, Maltepe, Kartal, Gebze, and Tepeören, security investigations, family unity determinations, and interview processes conducted by the administration in citizenship applications are carried out with great meticulousness. Small errors, missing documents, or inconsistent statements made during these stages can lead to the rejection of the application or prolonged litigation processes.

An experienced citizenship lawyer, by offering professional guidance at every stage of the process:

Ensures that the application file is prepared completely and in accordance with the legislation,

Develops effective defense against possible administrative interpretations regarding the conditions of “living within family unity” and “national security”,

In annulment lawsuits to be filed in case of rejection, forms legal arguments in accordance with the precedents of the Council of State and Regional Administrative Courts,

Provides personalized consultancy on pre-interview preparation, statement consistency, and document control.

Therefore, the support of an expert lawyer in the process of acquiring Turkish citizenship through marriage plays a decisive role both in the successful outcome of the application and in preventing loss of rights during possible judicial stages.