To register an international protection application, potential applicants must approach a PDMM to register their application. If the PDMM cannot register the application itself, it instructs the applicant to report to a different province within 15 days, where he or she is required to reside and to register the application. Transportation costs are not covered but PMM refers people in need to NGOs for assistance. Practice is not standardised, and persons are often refused registration by the PDMM without being referred to another PDMM.
When they are referred to another proviences, the potential applicants are not given any proof of their intention to apply for asylum, which may be an issue if they are controlled by police on their way to referred provience, as they could be treated as irregular migrants[1] and transferred to removal centre as they are.
An international protection applicant has the right to remain on the territory throughout the asylum procedure, although derogations apply on grounds of “public safety”, “public health” and “membership of a terrorist or criminal organisation”. The Constitutional Court issued a pilot judgment in the case of Y.T. in 2018, launching the pilot procedure to examine whether requests for interim measures it had received stemmed from a structural problem to protection from refoulement and, if so, what measures could be taken. In its decision, published in July 2019[2] the Court stated that the application of Articles 53(3) and 54 of LFIP should be revised and that appeals against deportation should have suspensive effect especially where deportation could create severe human rights violations. The Court gave the governmental authorities one year to make the necessary legal changes or it would examine all applications filed requesting an interim measure to stop deportations in substance. The authorities adopted the legal amendment in December 2019.[3] If the authorities respect the ruling and appeals now often have a suspensive effect meaning that rights to prevent refoulement have been strengthened, there have been concerns that this had a knock-on effect of increasing ‘voluntary returns’ (see section on Removal and refoulement). Stakeholders noted more cases where the Court did not give an injunction, but the ECtHR did. The Court reportedly gives more importance to concrete documents that prove that the applicant is in danger with the applicant’s story considered less as evidence.[4] In the absence of concrete evidence, the Court almost always decides to reject objections to deportation decisions.
Under the LFIP, the PDMM shall aim to issue a first instance decision within 6 months in the regular procedure. This time limit is not binding and may be extended if deemed necessary. In practice, the procedure might take years[5]. Under the accelerated procedure, the personal interview has to be conducted within 3 days of the date of application and a decision must be issued within 5 days of the interview, thus reaching 8 days in total.
The LFIP also provides a differentiated set of remedies against decisions issued under the regular procedure compared to the accelerated procedure and admissibility decisions. Judicial appeals against negative decisions under the accelerated procedure and inadmissibility decisions have to be filed within 7 days. The reduction of the time limit for objecting to deportation decisions from 15 days to 7 days has sparked concerns regarding its constitutionality. Many argue that this shortened period does not afford enough time for individuals in deportation centres to understand their right to appeal or to access legal counsel. Various challenges, such as difficulties in locating individuals, or accessing to removal centres, further compound the issue, often making it logistically impossible to meet the seven-day deadline. Consequently, there are very few cases where appeals are lodged. Despite these concerns, the Constitutional Court has ruled that the continuation of the seven days is not unconstitutional.
Negative decisions in the regular procedure can be challenged at the International Protection Evaluation Commission (IPEC) within 10 days or directly at the competent Administrative Court within 30 days; in practice, the latter remedy is applied. All international protection appeals generally carry suspensive effect and guarantee applicants’ right to stay in Türkiye until the full exhaustion of remedies, except for persons facing deportation on grounds of “public safety”, “public health” and “membership of a terrorist or criminal organisation”.
[1] Information provided by stakeholders, March – April 2024.
[2] Constitutional Court, Decision 2016/22418, 30 May 2019, in Turkish here.
[3] Articles 53(3) and 54 of LFIP that were amended by Law No 7196 amending several acts, 6 December 2019, available in Turkish here
[4] Information provided by a stakeholder, May 2022.
[5] Information provided by stakeholders, March – April 2024.