General (scope, criteria, time limits)
According to Article 72(1) LFIP, there are 4 grounds on which an application may be considered inadmissible:
(a) A Subsequent Application where “the applicant submitted the same claim without presenting any new elements”;
(b) An application submitted by a person, who was previously processed as a family member and signed a waiver to give up on his or her right to make a personal application, where the person submits a personal application: (i) either after the rejection of the original application, without presenting any additional elements; or (ii) or at any stage during the processing of the original application, without presenting any justifiable reason;
(c) An application by a person who arrived in Türkiye from a First Country of Asylum;
(ç) An application by a person who arrived in Türkiye from a Safe Third Country.
An inadmissibility decision can be taken “at any stage in the procedure” where the inadmissibility criteria are identified. However, the examination of inadmissibility criteria under Article 72 LFIP must be carried out by the PDMM during the Registration stage.
Depending on the outcome of the inadmissibility assessment by the PDMM,
- If an applicant is considered to fall into criteria listed in (a) or (b) above, the PDMM will issue the inadmissibility decision and notify the DGMM Headquarters within 24 hours, however, there is no time limit for the finalisation of the inadmissibility assessment by the PDMM;
- If an applicant is considered to fall into criteria listed in (c) or (ç) above, the PDMM will refer the file to the DGMM Headquarters, which will finalise the inadmissibility determination and may or may not issue an inadmissibility decision. There is no time limit for the referrals to the DGMM Headquarters and the finalisation of the inadmissibility determination.
Inadmissibility decisions must be communicated to the applicant in writing. The 1st Administrative Court of Isparta ruled on a case in 2020 whereby the applicant appealed against the inadmissibilty decision issued by Burdur PDMM regarding his international protection application. The decision referring to article 72 (a) of LFIP was based on applicant’s pending application to Canada. The Administrative Court cancelled the inadmissibility decision and ruled that the referred LFIP article could not be applied to the applicant. It concluded that the inadmissibility decision was baseless, lacked sufficient research and should have considered human rights violations in Somalia.
Article 74(1) RFIP requires the PDMM to conduct an interview with the applicant prior to taking an inadmissibility decision.
Inadmissibility decisions can only be appealed before the competent Administrative Court. Such decisions must be appealed within 15 days of the written notification of the decision, as opposed to 30 days in the Regular Procedure. The application to the Administrative Court carries automatic suspensive effect.
The 15-day time limit for appealing inadmissibility decisions was contested before the Constitutional Court as unconstitutional, on the basis that it was disproportionate in view of applicants’ inability to obtain legal assistance in these cases. The Court found Article 80(1)(ç) LFIP to be compatible with the Turkish Constitution, holding that the rules on inadmissibility are not complex to such an extent as to prohibit applicants from challenging a negative decision in person within the 15-day deadline.
In 2020 there seemed to be a trend whereby international protection applicants who were taken to removal centres after the issuance of a deportation decision against them had an inadmissibility decision issued about their international protection applications whilst they were in detention. It seemed that while an applicant was being held in a removal centre in one city, a decision about their international protection application was issued by a PDMM in a different city. The decisions seemed mostly negative.
The rules and practice set out in Regular Procedure apply. However, applicants whose claims are dismissed as inadmissible face obstacles in accessing legal representation for the purpose of lodging an appeal given that they are not issued an International Protection Application Identification Card on the basis of which power of attorney may be granted. Access to legal assistance is exacerbated by the shorter deadline of 15 days to lodge an appeal against an inadmissibility decision, compared to 30 days in the regular procedure.
 Article 72(2) LFIP; Article 74(3) RFIP.
 Article 73 RFIP.
 Article 72(3) LFIP.
 1st Administrative Court of Isparta, decision number 2020/241.
 Article 80(1)(a) LFIP.
 Article 80(1)(ç) LFIP.
 Information from a stakeholder, March 2021.