Published on 1 June 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 23333/25
Tacettin TAMUR
against Türkiye
lodged on 14 July 2025
communicated on 13 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the domestic authorities’ refusal of the applicant’s request to reacquire Turkish citizenship which he was stripped of seventeen years before.
On 17 March 2004 the applicant lost his Turkish citizenship on the grounds that he had not completed his compulsory military service, in accordance with Article 25(d) of the former Law on Turkish Citizenship (Law no. 403).
On 29 April 2021 the applicant lodged an application with the Ministry of the Interior to be regranted Turkish citizenship. He alleges before the Court that he had not been aware of the deprivation of his citizenship until then, as he had been in prison, and that he had lodged the application following his release.
On 14 December 2021 the applicant’s application was rejected.
On 18 March 2022 the applicant initiated administrative proceedings seeking the annulment of the rejection decision. The applicant argued that he should not have lost Turkish citizenship in the first place, as he had never left the country to evade his compulsory military service, which was a precondition for the deprivation of Turkish citizenship under Article 25 (d) of Law no.403. He further submitted that the loss of his Turkish citizenship had rendered him stateless, in breach of international law.
On 23 June 2022 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the case on the grounds that the security investigation conducted in respect of the applicant had revealed that he had been convicted on 30 April 2012 of the offence of producing or trading in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment.
On 7 December 2022 the Ankara Regional Court of Appeals upheld the decision.
On 16 May 2025 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible as manifestly ill‑founded.
Invoking Article 8 and Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains, respectively, about the domestic judicial authorities’ rejection of his request to reacquire Turkish citizenship and the reasoning of their decisions. He argues, in particular, that the domestic authorities failed to give due consideration, in their decisions, to his statelessness and its implications for his private and family life.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, as a result of the domestic authorities’ rejection of his request to reacquire Turkish citizenship?
In particular, while rejecting the applicant’s request to reacquire Turkish citizenship, did the domestic authorities take into consideration in their decisions that the applicant had become stateless following the revocation of his Turkish citizenship in 2004 (see, mutatis mutandis, Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 1/16, §§ 50-64, 13 July 2023)?