Published on 22 June 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 45023/22
İsmail ASLAN
against Türkiye
lodged on 10 September 2022
communicated on 1 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is a German national and a Blue Card (mavi kart) holder, a status granted to individuals who were Turkish citizens by birth but subsequently renounced their citizenship with the permission of the authorities. On 31 May 2017, the applicant was refused entry into Türkiye pursuant to Article 15(1)(c) of Law no. 6458 (the Law on Foreigners and International Protection). He was removed to Germany the following day.
The applicant sought the annulment of the entry ban in the Istanbul Administrative Court. During proceedings, the Directorate General of Migration Management disclosed that a Ç -141 restriction code (Ç-141 tahdit kodu) had been imposed on the applicant. This code classified him as a threat to international security, requiring a ministerial authorisation for entry for a period of five years. The underlying information was deemed classified.
On 30 January 2018, the administrative court dismissed the case. It referred to an assessment by the Istanbul Security Directorate’s Anti-Terrorism Branch, which suggested the applicant might participate in regional conflicts in Iraq and Syria, thus posing a risk to public order. This judgment was upheld on appeal. Subsequently, the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s application inadmissible ratione materiae, characterising the complaints as falling within the ambit of the right to freedom of residence and movement and the right to a fair trial (Articles 23 and 36 of the Constitution).
On 10 October 2024 a further entry ban was imposed on the applicant.
Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the entry ban disproportionately interferes with his private and family life. He allegedly maintains close ties with 11 siblings residing in Türkiye and was unable to attend a sibling’s funeral in 2018 due to the ban. At 60 years old, having initiated retirement and purchased property in Türkiye with his spouse, he intends to spend his retirement there. He argues that, given the age and health of his relatives, the ban creates a severe risk of permanent separation from his family and the social foundations of his life.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant duly exhaust all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of his complaint under Article 8? In particular, was the applicant’s grievance regarding his right to respect for private and family life raised in substance before the domestic authorities (see Fu Quan, s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 24827/14, §§ 171-72, 1 June 2023 and the case-law cited therein)? In this connection, the Government are requested to clarify the scope of the Constitutional Court’s review concerning the parties’ respective submissions dated 7 April and 22 April 2021 – which specifically addressed the complaint regarding the right to respect for private and family life?
2. Did the restriction imposed on the applicant constitute an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Savran v. Denmark [GC], no. 57467/15, §§ 172-79, 7 December 2021)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-67, ECHR 2006-XII; Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, §§ 61-101, ECHR 2008; and Dzhurayev and Shalkova v. Russia, no. 1056/15, §§ 30-45, 25 October 2016)?
3. a. What was the scope of review of the Istanbul Administrative Court which examined the applicant’s complaints in connection with the impugned restriction?
b. Was the judicial review limited to ascertaining that the restriction had been imposed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and, in particular, that the materials which formed the basis for the restriction had been issued based on the assessment conducted by the Istanbul Security Directorate’s Anti-Terrorism Branch? In this respect, did the courts conduct a balancing exercise between the need to protect national security and the applicant’s right to respect for family life?
c. Were the classified materials disclosed to the applicant or his representative? Was the applicant given a fair and reasonable opportunity to refute the facts and findings contained in those materials? In particular, did the courts examine other pieces of evidence to confirm or refute the allegations against the applicant?