Published on 1 June 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 39038/21
Michael Anthony PLATT against Türkiye
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 13 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants are foreign nationals who self-identify as adherents of the Protestant faith. They have lawfully resided in Türkiye for different durations, holding residence permits (see Column Z of the appended table for specific durations).
On 8 May 2019 the first applicant was denied re-entry into Türkiye and was notified that an entry ban had been imposed against him.
On 10 March 2020 the second and third applicants’ applications for the extension of their residence permits were refused. They were subsequently served with an order to leave Türkiye within ten days (see Column Q of the appended table for the impugned measures).
The applicants challenged these measures before the domestic courts. In the course of the domestic proceedings, it was established that these measures stemmed from the imposition of specific travel restrictions on the applicants (see Column Y of the appended table for the N-82 or the G-82 restriction codes). These codes had been issued on the basis of undisclosed information obtained from the National Intelligence Agency (Milli İstihbarat Teşkilatı).
The applicants’ subsequent judicial appeals were unsuccessful at all instances, culminating in the dismissal of their individual applications by the Constitutional Court through summary decisions rendered on various dates.
The first applicant complains under Article 8, read in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, that the restrictions imposed on him disrupted his settled presence and family life in Türkiye and that no effective domestic remedies were available for these complaints. The second and third applicants invoke Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, contending that the domestic authorities did not comply with their procedural obligations for the expulsion of residents lawfully present within their territory. Finally, all applicants maintain, under Article 9 taken alone and in conjunction with Articles 13 and 14, that the measures were motivated by their religious identity, thereby constituting an unjustified interference with their right to freedom of religion and a form of prohibited discrimination under the Convention and that no effective domestic remedies were available for these complaints.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the restrictions imposed on the first applicant constitute an interference with his 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; Nolan and K. v. Russia, no. 2512/04, §§ 83-89, 12 February 2009; and Dzhurayev and Shalkova v. Russia, no. 1056/15, §§ 30-45, 25 October 2016)?
2. a. Were the second and third applicants lawfully resident in Türkiye? If so, did the restrictions imposed on them amount to expulsions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (compare Yildirim v. Romania (dec.), no. 21186/02, 20 September 2007; Nolan and K. v. Russia, cited above, §§ 109-113; and Ljatifi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 19017/16, §§ 19-23, 17 May 2018)?
b. Did the decisions to expel the second and third applicants – as aliens who were lawfully resident in the territory of the respondent State – comply with the procedural requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (see Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania [GC], no. 80982/12, §§ 114-24, 15 October 2020, and Demirci v. Hungary, no. 48302/21, §§ 37-62, 6 May 2025)?
3. Did the restrictions imposed on the applicants constitute an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of religion within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in a democratic society in terms of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Perry v. Latvia, no. 30273/03, §§ 62-66, 8 November 2007; Nolan and K., cited above, §§ 61-75; and Corley and Others v. Russia, nos. 292/06 and 43490/06, §§ 77-89, 23 November 2021)?
4. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 8 (in respect of the first applicant) and Article 9 (in respect of all applicants), as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, §§ 126-37, 3 May 2007, and Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, § 99, 26 July 2011)? In particular
i. What was the scope of review of the administrative courts and the Turkish Constitutional Court which examined the applicants’ complaints in connection with the restrictions imposed? Was the judicial review limited to ascertaining that the restrictions had been imposed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and, in particular, that the materials which formed the basis for the restrictions had been issued within the administrative competence of the National Intelligence Agency? In this respect, did the domestic courts conduct a balancing exercise between the need to protect national security and the applicants’ rights under Articles 8 and/or 9 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 7?
ii. Were the classified materials from the National Intelligence Agency disclosed to the applicants or their representatives? Were the applicants 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 applicants?
5. In their exercise of the freedoms protected under Article 9 of the Convention, were the applicants victims of discrimination on grounds of their religion, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 9 (see, mutatis mutandis, Centre of Societies for Krishna Consciousness in Russia and Frolov v. Russia, no. 37477/11, §§ 35-44, 23 November 2021, and Ossewaarde v. Russia, no. 27227/17, §§ 48-57, 7 March 2023)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case title
Nationality
Impugned measure (Q)
Applicable restriction code (Y)
Duration of residence in Türkiye (Z)
Date of Introduction of the Application
1
39038/21
Platt v. Türkiye
United States of America
Prohibited re-entry into Türkiye
G-82
Since 2001
29 July 2021
2
27662/25
Coombs v. Türkiye
United Kingdom
Requirement of prior authorisation for
re-entry into Türkiye and non-renewal of
existing residence permit
N-82
Since 2019
15 August 2025
3
27663/25
Coombs v. Türkiye
United States of America
Requirement of prior authorisation for
re-entry into Türkiye and non-renewal of
existing residence permit
N-82
Since 2019
15 August 2025