Restriction codes are foremost among the administrative acts that can render a foreign national’s legal status in Türkiye contentious overnight. The V-70 code is one of those whose consequences are the gravest, for the finding that underlies it is that the marriage was contracted not with the intention of establishing a genuine union but for the purpose of obtaining residence status.
Once that characterisation has been made, the foreign national does not merely lose the permit he or she holds. Removal from the country arises, the family residence permit is cancelled, and entry into Türkiye is barred for five years. Turkish citizenship that has been acquired is likewise affected by this process.
Below we assess, in practical terms, the facts on which the V-70 code is based, the evidence by which the administration arrives at that conclusion, and the application and litigation routes that may be pursued to have the code lifted.
What Does the V-70 Code Mean?
This code is a restriction record that is entered against the file of a foreign national in respect of whom an administrative conviction has been reached that the marriage he or she contracted is not genuine, and that closes off entry into the country.
Once the code is established, the existing family residence permit loses its validity; fresh applications made on the same ground are also concluded adversely. By contrast, the foreign national is not absolutely prevented from applying for a different type of residence permit; such an application is, however, examined while the V-70 record continues to stand in the file. In every case, a favourable outcome depends on the five-year entry ban having run its course.
Grounds on Which the Code Is Based
The purpose of the V-70 record is to remove from the country foreign nationals who are found to have made an instrument of the institution of marriage in order to obtain a residence permit, and to prevent their return to Türkiye for a period of five years. The same ground is also taken as the basis for cancelling the family residence permit the foreign national currently holds.
The conclusion that the marriage is not genuine is not reached of its own accord. The competent units conduct an investigation and base that finding on concrete information and documents. Although the fact that the spouses live in the same dwelling is accepted as a weighty criterion in the examination, it has not been treated as decisive on its own. In practice, where reference is made to activity incompatible with the marital union, what is most often meant is prostitution.
Routes to Be Followed in Having the Code Lifted
The V-70 record may be lifted by means of an objection to the administration and an action for annulment brought before the administrative courts. Apart from these two routes, it should not be forgotten that the entry ban resulting from the code comes to an end of its own accord once the five years have elapsed.
The Route of Objection to the Administration
The first of the legal possibilities that may be pursued is to object to the competent authority by a petition setting out the grounds. Objections concerning the lifting of the V-70 record are directed to the Presidency of Migration Management and must be made within 60 days beginning from the day following the day on which the code was notified.
The essential assertion that must be established in the petition of objection is that the marriage was not entered into with the motive of acquiring a residence permit or citizenship. If the union is still continuing, that state of affairs is expected to be documented. A defence is not impossible even where the marriage has come to an end; in that case it must be shown that the union was genuine from the outset and that the relationship dissolved only subsequently.
A period of 30 days is prescribed for the administration to conclude the objection. Since a failure to take a decision within that period counts as an implied refusal, the foreign national becomes able to bring an action. Where the objection is refused expressly or by implication, an action for annulment may be brought from the day following the day on which the refusal decision was taken — in the case of an implied refusal, the day following the thirtieth day.
To make the calculation of time concrete: suppose that the administration is applied to on the fortieth day of the 60-day period for bringing an action. In that case 20 days remain, from the day following notification of the refusal decision, in which to bring the action.
The Route of the Action for Annulment
The second route that may be pursued to have the code lifted is the action for annulment. The action is heard against the Presidency of Migration Management, the authority that established the act. Where the administrative court does not find the request well founded, the avenues of appeal are not closed; an appeal may be lodged before the regional administrative court.
There is an important procedural point to be observed in this action: a stay of execution does not arise unless it is separately requested. The fact that the action has been brought does not of itself suspend the acts flowing from the code. The court assesses the request and, if it finds the conditions to be met, stays execution until the proceedings are concluded.
The details of the V-70 record and of the action for annulment to be brought against it are addressed separately in our study entitled “restriction codes for foreign nationals and the action for the lifting of a code”.
Entry Into the Country by Annotated Visa
The annotated visa is a special type of visa granted to foreign nationals on specified grounds such as family, health or education. A foreign national holding such a visa is able to enter Türkiye even if he or she is under an entry ban by reason of a V-70 record.
There is no obstacle to persons in respect of whom this code has been entered making a request for an annotated visa. Whether the request will be met is, however, a matter for the discretion of the administration. The circumstances in which the visa may be granted, the criteria by which the application is assessed and the other matters relating to the application are explained in our article entitled “how is an annotated visa obtained?”.
The Action to Be Brought Against the Deportation Decision
As regards a deportation decision taken in reliance on the code, the period for bringing an action is extremely short: an action for annulment must be brought within 7 days of the decision being notified to the foreign national. The fact that this action has been brought prevents the foreign national from being removed from the country until the court has taken a decision.
The court with subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction to hear the action is the administrative court in the place where the governorship that established the deportation decision is located. In practice such actions are concluded within 4 to 6 months on average. Where the request is granted, the deportation measure is set aside; where it is refused, the procedure resumes from the point at which it stopped and the foreign national is placed under administrative detention.
Where a decision of refusal is given, the routes of appeal and appeal on points of law are not available. That said, a foreign national whose request has been refused retains the possibility of making an individual application to the Constitutional Court together with a request for an interim measure.
There is a further respect in which the action brought against the deportation decision differs from the action concerning the restriction code: here, the bringing of the action directly suspends the administrative acts. There is no need to make a separate request to the court for the deportation measures to be suspended.
In practice, where deportation actions are concluded favourably, it is possible for the annulment of the V-70 record to be ordered as well. Similar details of practice are addressed in our article entitled “how is a deportation decision (removal from the country) lifted”.
Objection to the Administrative Detention Decision
Since the bringing of the deportation action suspends the deportation measures, the foreign national may be held at a removal centre throughout the proceedings. Whether foreign nationals held at such centres can be released for the duration of the action depends on an objection being made to the administrative detention decision.
The authority for the objection is the criminal judgeship of peace in the place to which the governorship that took the deportation decision is attached. This route may be pursued throughout the period during which the foreign national is at the removal centre.
The persons in respect of whom, and the period for which, an administrative detention decision may be given, together with the other details relating to the subject, are examined in our article entitled “objection to an administrative detention decision”.
Duration of the Process in Practice
Having the code lifted takes approximately 1 year in practice. Where the avenues of appeal are pursued, the process may be prolonged further and may extend to several years.
Costs of the Proceedings
In actions for the lifting of a restriction code, the costs stand at approximately TRY 4,000. That amount consists of postal expenses and court fees. The figures in question are the litigation costs in force as from 10.07.2023 and are updated each year on the basis of the revaluation rate.
Courts With Subject-Matter and Territorial Jurisdiction
In disputes concerning the lifting of a V-70 record, the Ankara administrative courts have subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction. Where, by contrast, annulment is sought of a deportation decision taken in reliance on the same code, the administrative courts in the place where the governorship that established the decision is located come into play.
Independent Legal Assessment
Notwithstanding its technical appearance, the V-70 record is, by its consequences, a serious measure that severs the foreign national’s connection with Türkiye for five years. The most common error encountered in practice is that the seven-day period prescribed for challenging the deportation decision is missed and the defence is reduced to the action concerning the restriction code alone. Yet the two acts are subject to different time limits, to different courts with jurisdiction and to different regimes as regards the stay of execution.
When a road map is being drawn up in a concrete file, it is appropriate to assess the following headings as a matter of priority:
- Where a deportation decision has also been established, calendaring the seven-day period for bringing an action as from the first day
- Where an objection is to be made to the administration, calculating from the outset how much of the sixty-day period for bringing an action has been used up
- Assembling the evidence as to the genuineness of the marital union — including the shared dwelling and records of joint expenditure and of communications — before the application is made
- Expressly raising the request for a stay of execution in the petition in the action concerning the restriction code
- Keeping an objection to administrative detention prepared against the possibility of being taken to a removal centre
- Where there is an urgent need to enter the country, assessing the option of an annotated visa in parallel
Independent Legal provides advisory services and conducts litigation in the field of immigration law, from the lifting of restriction codes to the administrative proceedings to be pursued against deportation decisions.