G-87 and G-82 Codes in Turkey: Security Entry Bans, Duration and How to Lift Them (2026)

This guide covers the two security codes together. It starts with G-87's definition, legal basis and the facts behind it, followed by the G-82 section and a comparison table. The later sections apply to both codes: how people find out, deportation, the request to lift the code, the lawsuit, the test applied by the Council of State and the Constitutional Court, and compensation after annulment. Other codes are in our restriction codes guide. [L1] marks refer to laws, [R1] to Council of State and Court of Cassation rulings, [C1] to Constitutional Court judgments, all listed at the end. This is general information; every file turns on its own documents.

What Is the G-87 Code in Turkey? "General Security" in the Rulings

G-87 is one of the letter-and-number marks entered against a foreigner's name in migration and police (Emniyet) records. The migration authority does not publish what the codes mean, so G-87 can only be understood from the administration's defences in court and the facts described in rulings.

How did the administration describe G-87 in court?

Two descriptions appear in published rulings:

• December 2020 ruling, administration's defence: G-87 (General Security) is "the data entry code on which an entry ban decision is based for foreigners whose entry into Turkey is considered objectionable under Article 9 of Law No. 6458" (translated) [R1].
• Two rulings of May and June 2021: G-87 is "a restriction code imposed to prevent foreigners who use Turkey to cross into conflict zones from entering and using our country as a route" (translated) [R2] [R3].

A November 2024 ruling summarises it as the code behind an entry ban for foreigners objectionable "in terms of public order, public security or public health" (translated) [R6]. So G-87 is presented less as the ban itself than as a marker of the ground on which the ban was entered.

The meaning in a Court of Cassation notice

G-87 also appears in a criminal file. In a January 2026 judgment of the Court of Cassation's 7th Criminal Chamber, the notice seeking reversal in the interest of the law spells out "G-87 (Persons posing a danger in terms of general security)" (translated) [R9]. The defence argued, from a "Personal Status Report", that the record showed "an A-99 restriction code", not G-87; the Chamber declined jurisdiction. The detail shows why a person needs to see in writing which code is actually on file.

Are G-87 and G-82 the same?

They are often confused, but the rulings treat them as separate codes. G-82 is used for foreigners "engaging, or suspected of engaging, in activities against national security"; G-87 is the "general security" code, mostly seen in files about crossing into conflict zones. Both rest on Article 9 of Law No. 6458, and courts apply a similar test. G-82 is covered in the G-82 section below, and the differences in the comparison table.

Which Article of Turkish Law Is G-87 Based On?

The administration ties G-87 to Article 9 of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (YUKK) [R1]. Its first paragraph: "The Directorate General may, where necessary after obtaining the opinions of the relevant public bodies, ban the entry of foreigners whose entry into Turkey is considered objectionable in terms of public order, public security or public health." (translated) [L1] "Directorate General" now means the Presidency of Migration Management.

No criminal conviction is required; the administration assesses whether entry is "objectionable". The Council of State accepts the power is broad but adds: "when imposing an entry ban, the administration must undoubtedly establish, with sufficient and serious information, the reasons requiring the ban for the person concerned." (translated) [R2] [R3]

Can the ban be imposed while the person is in Turkey?

The article once contained the words "who are outside Turkey". In one G-87 file the foreigner argued that imposing the ban while he was in Turkey was unlawful; the Council of State held it was "not possible to say the article cannot be applied to those inside the country" (translated) [R2]. The current text no longer has those words [L1], and in most files the code was entered while the person was in Turkey.

How long does G-87 last?

Published rulings give no period specific to G-87. The general rule: "The duration of the entry ban shall not exceed five years. However, where there is a serious threat to public order or public security, the Directorate General may extend it by up to ten more years." (translated) [L1] The G-87 files do not state the ban's length; in many, the code was still on record during the lawsuit or request. Duration can only be answered from the person's own record and notification.

Who Received a G-87 Code? Facts From the Rulings

The situations differ widely; what they share is that the code rests on an intelligence or police letter:

• Airport interview: A man of Chechen origin with a Turkish wife and four Turkish children was interviewed at Istanbul Atatürk Airport while meeting an acquaintance. A deportation decision came first, then "on 13/4/2016 a G-87 restriction code was created on 'general security' grounds and an entry ban imposed" (translated) [C1].
• Foreign INTERPOL notice: For a Russian national, the ban rested on a diffusion message from Russia's INTERPOL unit saying he had "left his country to fight in Syria"; the same file found he "was not identified in the INTERPOL and ASF databases or restriction records" [R2].
• List of names: A police letter attached a list of 20 people marked "In terms of our General and National Security", with only "Chechen Commander" next to the claimant. The National Intelligence Organisation (MİT) told the court there was "no information or document underlying the restriction code" [R3].
• Humanitarian residence application: In Mardin, it emerged that "a G-87 (General Security) code had been imposed by the Presidency on 11/12/2022", followed by deportation under Article 54/1-b of Law No. 6458 [R7].

The code is not tied to one type of event. What a particular G-87 rests on only becomes clear from the documents the administration gives the court.

What Is the G-82 Code? The National Security Record and Entry Ban

G-82 is another restriction code kept in migration and police records and, like G-87, used as the basis for an entry ban. Its meaning appears in Constitutional Court judgments in three forms:

• Tekdemir, November 2025: "G-82 (engaging, or suspected of engaging, in activities against national security) restriction code" (translated) [C3].
• Chasanoglou, January 2026: the same wording in capitals (translated) [C4].
• Gulamova, March 2023: "entry ban recorded with the G-82 (activity against national security) restriction" (translated) [C5].

The administrative court judgment quoted in Tekdemir agrees: the person's entry had been banned "by entering the G-82 restriction code applied to foreigners engaging in activities against national security" (translated) [C3]. The Council of State rulings on G-82 concern only jurisdiction and connection, so they do not discuss the code's meaning [R14] [R15].

What does "suspected of" tell us?

The words "or suspected of engaging" show the code can be entered without any final finding. In Gulamova, the Istanbul administrative court rejecting the deportation case took the view that "the existence of a suspicion that the foreigner poses a threat to public order and security is sufficient" (translated) [C5]. The Constitutional Court applied a different test in the same file, set out below.

Legal basis and the unit that entered it

According to Gulamova, the Directorate General of Migration Management imposed the G-82 ban on 24/8/2016 "under Article 9(1) of Law No. 6458" (translated) [C5], the same paragraph quoted above for G-87 [L1]. The documents relied on in the G-82 files were a National Intelligence Organisation (MİT) letter, a ministry letter or a letter from the Police Intelligence Department [C4] [C5]. In one file the code was entered by the Presidency's Department for Combating Irregular Migration [R14].

How long does G-82 last?

Published rulings do not give G-82's duration. Under the general rule a ban lasts at most five years and, "where there is a serious threat to public order or public security", can be extended by the Presidency by up to ten more (translated) [L1]. In Chasanoglou the applicant said the ban was first five years and then extended by five more; this is recorded as his statement, not a finding of the Court [C4]. In Gulamova the code was entered in 2016 and "removed together with all its versions on 22/2/2022" (translated) [C5], so in that file it stayed on the record for about five and a half years.

How G-82 came to light: three cases in the rulings

On exit at Sabiha Gökçen Airport: A Romanian national who married a Turkish citizen in 2012, settled in Turkey and worked as a lecturer was boarding a flight at Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen Airport on 6/10/2016 to visit family when she "learned that a G-82 ... restriction code had been placed on her passport and that she could never enter Turkey again" (translated). She stayed in Romania from October 2016 to January 2018 (she had missed her flight and spent the night at the airport with her young child) [C3].

On entry at Pazarkule: A Greek national who had worked in Turkey on a work permit for nearly five years tried to enter through the Pazarkule land border on 13/3/2018 and "was not allowed to enter" because of G-82 (translated). He had visited family in a village just across the border [C4].

During a residence application in Istanbul: An Uzbek national working as a domestic worker on a work permit since 2014 applied to the Istanbul Provincial Directorate of Migration Management for a tourist residence permit on 23/7/2019. "When checks on the restriction and entry-exit screen of the GöçNet system showed an active G-82 code", she was handed over to the police with her passport; two days later the Istanbul Governorship ordered deportation (translated) [C5].

The three cases show that the code can sit on the record without separate notice to the person. Notification and the ways of finding out are the same for both codes and are covered below.

G-82 and deportation: subparagraphs (b) and (d)

If G-82 surfaces while the person is in Turkey, a deportation decision (sınır dışı etme kararı) often follows. Two grounds were used in the rulings:

• Subparagraph (d): In Gulamova the Istanbul Governorship ordered deportation "because of the record, under Article 54(1)(d) of Law No. 6458" (translated) [C5]. It covers "those who pose a threat to public order, public security or public health" [L3].
• Subparagraph (b): In a Mardin file deportation was ordered under 54/1-b "because of the G-82 restriction code record" (translated) [R15]. It covers leaders, members or supporters of a terrorist organisation or a profit-oriented criminal organisation [L3].

Gulamova also shows two cases over one code running in different cities with different results. The deportation case at Istanbul 1st Administrative Court was finally rejected on 25/10/2019. The entry ban case at Ankara 1st Administrative Court was accepted, but the regional administrative court overturned it and rejected the case [C5]. The seven-day period and the 2024 amendment are covered below for both codes.

What the first-instance and appeal courts looked at

The key question was whether the administration could show concretely what the person did against national security. In Gulamova, Ankara 1st Administrative Court saw that the letters behind the code said she had worked at a closed-down educational institution, and asked the Social Security Institution (SGK). The reply said it "could not be established that she worked" there. The court annulled the act because "no concrete finding was made as to what activity she carried out against national security" (translated) [C5].

In Chasanoglou the same court examined MİT's confidential letter of 12/12/2017 and annulled the act, noting that "no concrete finding or determination was made as to what activity he carried out against national security" and that there was "no information, document, investigation or prosecution" linking him to terrorist organisations (translated) [C4].

In both files the 10th Administrative Chamber of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court overturned the annulments and rejected the cases, reasoning that the act was taken "within sovereign power, taking into account the reports of state security units" and that foreigners have no right to enter the country (translated) [C4] [C5]. These appeal decisions are what the Constitutional Court found in violation.

Lifting requests and lawsuits in the G-82 files

Both routes were used. In Chasanoglou and Gulamova the applicants sued directly at Ankara 1st Administrative Court to annul the ban and remove the code [C4] [C5]. In Tekdemir the case to annul the code was won and became final on appeal [C3].

In the file showing the request route, a Bulgarian national petitioned the Istanbul Provincial Directorate of Migration Management to lift a G-82 entered by the Presidency; the petition was impliedly refused. The Presidency told the court that the petition filed in Istanbul "was not sent to the Presidency" (translated). The Council of State held that the case concerned the implied refusal in Istanbul, the Presidency having taken no act on that request, and sent it to Istanbul Administrative Court [R14]. Where the request is filed affects both the answer and the city of the case; the common rules on requests and time limits are below.

Effect on residence and work permits

All three applicants had work or residence histories in Turkey, and G-82 affected all of them. In Gulamova a 2018 work permit extension was refused after a negative opinion from the migration authority; the 2019 tourist residence application turned into deportation once the code was noticed [C5]. In Tekdemir her family residence permit was valid until 23/10/2016, but the code entered on exit kept her from returning [C3]. In Chasanoglou the applicant had worked on a work permit for nearly five years [C4].

Three Constitutional Court judgments on G-82

G-82 reached the Constitutional Court at least three times, and each application ended in a violation, on different rights:

Judgment	Where the code surfaced	Issue	Result
Nargiza Gulamova (2023) [C5]	Residence application at the Istanbul migration office; GöçNet check	Regional court did not check whether she worked at the institution or weigh family life	Family life violated; retrial; net TRY 18,000 non-pecuniary damages; unanimous
Bilal Padali Chasanoglou (2026) [C4]	Entry at the Pazarkule land border	Appeal decision did not discuss whether sufficient and serious information existed	Family life violated; retrial; majority, two dissents
Georgeta Maricela Tekdemir (2025) [C3]	Exit at Sabiha Gökçen Airport	Code already annulled; non-pecuniary damages removed on appeal	Effective remedy violated; retrial; refusal of pecuniary damages not arbitrary

Gulamova (2023): She had married a Turkish citizen in 2020 and, according to the application form, was pregnant. The Court found that the regional court made no "inquiry to establish definitively whether she worked" at the closed institution and never weighed the effect on family life. It unanimously found a violation of the right to respect for family life, ordered a retrial and awarded net TRY 18,000 in non-pecuniary damages [C5].

Chasanoglou (2026): He married his Turkish fiancée in Greece on 22/10/2018, after the ban. The Court accepted that when the case was filed "there was a family life established with a Turkish citizen"; noting that the appeal decision did not discuss "whether" sufficient and serious information "existed", it found a violation of family life and ordered a retrial (translated) [C4]. Two members dissented, stressing that the marriage came after the ban and that no serious obstacle to living in another country was shown [C4].

Tekdemir (2025): The code had already been annulled; the dispute was compensation, covered in the section on what happens after a code is lifted [C3].

In all three files the person had a Turkish spouse, and the family tie was the starting point of the review. Gulamova and Chasanoglou rest on the "sufficient and serious information" test from the G-87 judgment A.G. [C4] [C5], quoted in the Constitutional Court section below.

G-87 or G-82? How the Two Security Codes Differ

Side by side, the rulings show the difference mostly in the meaning of the code, the type of supporting letter and the leading judgments; the lifting route and time limits are the same.

Point	G-87	G-82
Meaning in the rulings	"General Security" [R1]; "persons posing a danger in terms of general security" in a Court of Cassation notice [R9]; in some defences a code to stop transit to conflict zones [R2] [R3]	"Engaging, or suspected of engaging, in activities against national security", or "activity against national security" [C3] [C4] [C5]
Legal basis	Law No. 6458, Art. 9 [R1] [L1]	Law No. 6458, Art. 9/1 [C5] [L1]
Duration	Not stated in the rulings; by law at most 5 years, +10 for a serious threat [L1]	Not stated in the rulings; same statutory limit [L1]; in one file entered in 2016 and removed on 22/2/2022 [C5]
Who entered it, on what basis	Mostly the Presidency; police or intelligence letter, INTERPOL diffusion, list of names, airport interview [C1] [R2] [R3] [R7]	Directorate General / Presidency, in one file its irregular migration department; MİT, ministry or Police Intelligence letter [C4] [C5] [R14]
How it surfaced	At the border, in a residence application, on handover for deportation; a GöçNet restriction report in one file [R7] [R8]	On exit at Sabiha Gökçen, on entry at Pazarkule, in a GöçNet check at the Istanbul migration office [C3] [C4] [C5]
Deportation	In A.G. deportation first, then the code; in Mardin 54/1-b after the code [C1] [R7]	54/1-d in Gulamova, 54/1-b in Mardin [C5] [R15]
Lifting route	Request to the Presidency (Art. 9); implied refusal after 30 days; annulment action against the refusal or the ban itself [L1] [L4]
Time limits	60 days against the ban and against refusal of a lifting request; 7 days from notification against deportation [L4] [L3]
Competent court	Ankara if the Presidency entered the code; Hatay for an implied refusal by the Hatay office [R8] [R10]	Ankara if the Presidency entered the code; Istanbul for an implied refusal by the Istanbul office [R14]
Proof the courts asked for	Council of State: reasons shown "with sufficient and serious information"; reversals in the INTERPOL and list files, one rejection upheld [R2] [R3] [R11]	First instance checked SGK records and the MİT letter and annulled; appeal rejected on "sovereign power"; Constitutional Court found violations [C4] [C5]
Leading Constitutional Court judgments	A.G. (2020, family life violated); Albeyati (2026, out of time) [C1] [C2]	Gulamova (2023), Chasanoglou (2026), Tekdemir (2025); violations in all three [C3] [C4] [C5]

Which code is actually on a record is only clear from a record printout; in the Court of Cassation file the parties disagreed on whether the record showed G-87 or A-99 [R9]. As the procedure is the same, the following sections cover G-87 and G-82 together.

How Do I Check If I Have a G-87 or G-82 Code? Notification and e-Devlet

The e-Devlet portal (government services portal) has no restriction code check. In the rulings G-87 surfaced at the border on entry, at the provincial migration office during a residence application, or on handover to the police for deportation; G-82 surfaced on exit at an airport, on entry at a land border and in a GöçNet check during a residence application [C3] [C4] [C5]. A person can ask for their record by petition to the provincial migration office or the Presidency; in one file the administration sent the court a "GöçNet restriction report" [R8].

Article 10 of the law governs notification of an entry ban:

For bans under Article 9/1, the kind both codes rest on, notice is given "by the competent authority at the border gate when they come to enter Turkey", and must state "how foreigners can effectively exercise their right to object" (translated) [L2]. A person abroad therefore often learns of the ban officially at the border.

If there was no notification, when does the time limit start?

The lawsuit period normally starts the day after "written notification" [L4]. Rulings counting it from the date the person learned of an un-notified ban are explained in our main guide. In G-87 files that date is usually a border report, a residence refusal letter or a deportation notice, and the G-82 events happened at the same kinds of moments; the dates of these documents decide the count.

A Security Code and a Deportation Decision: The Difference

G-87 and G-82 are entry ban records; a deportation decision is a separate act. They often go together: in A.G. deportation came first and G-87 two weeks later [C1]; in Mardin deportation followed G-87 [R7]. In the G-82 files the Istanbul Governorship relied on 54/1-d, and in a Mardin file the administration on 54/1-b [C5] [R15]. The law lists among deportation grounds a threat to public order or security and leading, belonging to or supporting a terrorist organisation (Law No. 6458, Art. 54/1-d and b) [L3].

The period to challenge deportation is "seven days from notification" [L3], far shorter than the sixty days against the entry ban. Article 53 was amended on 21 November 2024 by Law No. 7533; it now says that, "subject to the foreigner's consent, the foreigner shall not be deported during the period to file a lawsuit or, if one is filed, until the proceedings end" (translated) [L3]. Previously 54/1-b, d and k were excluded from this protection, which matters when reading pre-2024 rulings. Details are in our deportation guide.

If both cases are filed, which court hears them?

The Council of State has treated a G-87 ban case and a deportation case from the same events as "connected" [R7], and reached the same result for a G-82 ban case and a deportation case in Mardin [R15], so both can be heard by one court. The time limits stay separate: seven days for deportation, sixty for the ban and for refusal of a request to lift it. Separate cases can also end differently, as the Istanbul and Ankara cases in Gulamova did [C5].

How to Lift a G-87 or G-82 Code: Request and Annulment Action

The rulings discuss two routes: a request to the administration and an annulment action at the administrative court (idare mahkemesi). They are not exclusive; in many G-87 files a request came first and a lawsuit followed when no answer arrived, while in the G-82 files direct annulment actions were also used (see the G-82 section).

Request to the Presidency and implied refusal

The law says: "The Directorate General may lift the entry ban or, without prejudice to it, allow the foreigner to enter Turkey for a certain period." (translated) [L1] In many G-87 files the person or a lawyer petitioned under this power; in one, the request of 25/03/2015 was "impliedly" refused [R2].

Implied refusal comes from Article 10 of Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (İYUK): "If no answer is given within thirty days, the request is deemed refused", and a lawsuit can be filed within the normal period from the end of those thirty days (translated) [L4]. If the administration gives a non-final answer, the person may wait, but "the waiting period cannot exceed four months from the application" (translated) [L4].

Provincial migration office or the Presidency?

G-87 was mostly entered by the Presidency. In a Hatay file the request went to the Hatay provincial migration office; the Council of State held the case concerned the implied refusal of that request, with "no request to annul the G-87 code", and found Hatay Administrative Court competent [R10]. In another, the person said the Presidency entered the code and the Presidency denied it; the Council of State sent the question to Ankara Administrative Court [R8]. In the G-82 file a petition filed in Istanbul was never forwarded to the Presidency, and the case went to Istanbul Administrative Court [R14]. Where the petition goes, and which act the claim targets, decide both the answer and the city of the case.

Annulment action: time limit and court

There is no special period for either code; Article 7 of Law No. 2577 applies: "where special laws set no separate period, the period to file a lawsuit is sixty ... days" (translated) [L4]. The competent court is where the authority that acted is located: Ankara if the Presidency entered the code, or that province's court for an implied refusal by a provincial office [R8] [R10] [R14]. Our appeal and lawsuit period calculator gives a general count from your dates; fixing the notification date depends on the file. From abroad, a lawyer can act under a power of attorney: see hiring a lawyer in Turkey from abroad.

What Does the Council of State Look at in G-87 Cases?

The rulings turn on one question: could the administration show the court concretely why the person was considered dangerous? Some first-instance courts upheld acts "when intelligence reports and the G-87 code are assessed together" (translated) [R2] [R3]. In many files the Council of State found this insufficient. Its published G-82 rulings concern only jurisdiction and connection; for G-82 the test on the merits comes from the Constitutional Court judgments described above [R14] [R15].

Two reversals: the INTERPOL message and the "Chechen Commander" list

In the INTERPOL file the Council of State reversed the rejection because "no concrete information or document about the accusations was submitted" and there was no criminal investigation or prosecution (translated) [R2].

In the list file it found that "what act of each foreigner on the list threatened our general and national security was not assessed one by one", that only "Chechen Commander" was written next to the claimant and that MİT had no supporting information, and reversed (translated) [R3]. The person was a company partner in Istanbul with residence and work permits.

Three stages in one file: upheld, set aside, annulled

One file shows how results can change. In December 2020 the Council of State upheld the rejection of a case against refusal to lift the code [R1]. On rectification in March 2023 that was set aside and the judgment reversed, as the act "could not be based on any concrete document or information" (translated) [R4]. On retrial the court annulled the act, and in April 2024 the Council of State upheld that by majority [R5].

If the code is removed during the case

In November 2024 the administration reported during a case that "all G-87 codes imposed on the claimant ... were removed". The Council of State reversed, requiring a new decision "after also investigating on what grounds the codes were removed" (translated) [R6]. Later deletion does not always make the case pointless.

An upheld rejection

Not every file went the claimant's way. In November 2020 the administration said only that "an entry ban was imposed on general security grounds"; the case was rejected and the Council of State upheld it (translated) [R11]. The difference seems to lie in what was filed and how far the court examined it; no single ruling is a general rule.

The Constitutional Court's Test: A.G. and the G-82 Judgments

The most cited G-87 judgment is the Constitutional Court's A.G. of 16/12/2020 [C1]. The applicant had lived lawfully in Turkey for about 14 years; his wife and four young children were Turkish citizens. Istanbul annulled his deportation, but his case in Ankara against the G-87 ban was rejected.

The Court accepted that intelligence must stay confidential and that a "high standard of proof" cannot be expected, but set this test: "Public authorities must, in the circumstances of the specific case, submit to the courts sufficient and serious information that the person engaged in activities endangering national security." (translated) [C1] Review by the courts cannot be "a purely formal examination".

It found that the suspected link to conflict zones "rested only on the impression formed in the interview at Atatürk Airport" and that the effect on family life was never weighed, and held the right to respect for family life violated [C1]. Two 2021 Council of State G-87 rulings quote these paragraphs directly [R2] [R3].

The same test in the G-82 files

Gulamova and Chasanoglou rest on the same sentence [C4] [C5]. Courts must explain why they accepted or rejected the information submitted; in both files the violation came from the appeal decision not having that discussion. In A.G. and in the three G-82 files the person had a Turkish spouse, and the family tie was the starting point. In an N-82 file where family ties were found weak there was no violation; see the N-82 section of our V-69 guide.

The 30-day limit for an individual application

An individual application must be made within thirty days of learning of the final decision. In February 2026 an application over "the rejection of a case to annul the G-87 code" was inadmissible as late: the lawyer was deemed to know of the decision on the day the e-notification was opened, and applied after thirty days (translated) [C2].

What Happens After the Code Is Lifted? Other Files and Compensation

A security code is often used as a ground in residence, international protection and citizenship files, which can change once it is annulled. In December 2020 a person argued that the "G-87 and N-87 records" behind the reversal in his protection case had been finally annulled; the Council of State accepted rectification and upheld the annulment of the protection refusal (translated) [R12].

In another file it found unlawful a residence refusal for a person with no active record "based on restriction records entered earlier and later cancelled" (translated) [R13]. The long-term route is in our long-term residence permit guide. The V-69 code, entered when a residence permit is cancelled, can appear alongside G-87.

A compensation claim after annulment: Tekdemir

Tekdemir shows that a second stage is possible after annulment. Under Article 12 of Law No. 2577, those concerned may "first file an annulment action and, once it is decided", file a full remedy action within the lawsuit period from "notification of that decision or of the decision given on appeal"; both actions can also be filed together (translated) [L4]. After the annulment of her G-82 code became final, she claimed TRY 449,014 pecuniary and TRY 75,000 non-pecuniary damages. Ankara 7th Administrative Court rejected the pecuniary claim for lack of documents and awarded TRY 25,000 non-pecuniary; the regional court removed that award too [C3].

The Constitutional Court first said that "it cannot be said that every administrative act annulled by the courts causes harm to those concerned or that every annulment requires compensation". But here the interpretation refusing non-pecuniary damages was "of a nature almost categorically preventing" redress and made the full remedy action "ineffective in practice", so it found a violation of the right to an effective remedy and ordered a retrial (translated) [C3]. The pecuniary claim had failed because it was "not certain" a job offer would have been accepted and expenses were not backed by "a document such as a receipt or bank slip"; the Court did not find this arbitrary (translated) [C3]. Documents on time abroad, missed flights, family separation and lost work are therefore central to such a claim.

Visa, Residence and Work Permits With a G-87 or G-82 Code

For someone abroad, the first obstacle is usually the visa. Article 15 bars visas for "those whose entry into Turkey is banned" and "those considered objectionable for public order or security", but allows an exception: "those to whom issuing a visa is considered beneficial may be issued one with the Minister's approval" (translated) [L5]. For visa-exempt nationals, Article 7 turns back those listed in Article 15 as "inadmissible passengers".

Two questions arise. First, the request and lawsuit against the ban, which a lawyer in Turkey can run under a power of attorney; a request filed without one was not processed, as our main guide explains. Second, a short entry while the ban stays: the Presidency may allow entry "for a certain period" without lifting it [L1]. No G-82 file in the rulings shows these exceptions being used; a similar mechanism, for the code that makes entry subject to the Presidency's permission, is explained in the N-82 section of our V-69 guide. Which applies depends on family, ties to Turkey and the document behind the code.

Residence and work permits for a person in Turkey

Inside Turkey, the problem is usually the residence permit: a short-term permit is not issued, or is cancelled, where "there is a valid deportation or entry ban decision" (Law No. 6458, Art. 33/1-ç) [L5]. In Mardin, G-87 surfaced during a humanitarian residence application [R7]; the effect of G-82 on work and residence permits is described in the G-82 section, where a residence application in Gulamova turned into deportation [C5]. Refusal or cancellation can be challenged as a separate act; see our V-69 guide.

Documents That Clarify a G-87 or G-82 File

In the rulings these documents and questions usually shaped the dispute:

• Record printout: Only G-87 or G-82, or also N-87 or a Ç code? Which unit entered it, and when? A timed Ç code can also appear, for example Ç-104 or Ç-114.
• Underlying letter: A police, MİT, ministry or Foreign Ministry letter, an INTERPOL notice or an interview report? Courts can order these by interim decision [R3].
• Where is the person? In Turkey, the seven days against deportation; abroad, the sixty days against the ban and the notification date.
• Notification papers: Border report, refusal letter, deportation notice and their dates.
• Can the alleged activity be verified? In Gulamova an SGK record inquiry changed the result at first instance [C5].
• Criminal record: Any investigation or prosecution; the rulings noted more than once that there was none [R2] [R3] [C4].
• Family and settled life: Turkish spouse and children, residence and work permit history, business ties [C1] [R3]; when the family tie was formed can also be argued, as in the Chasanoglou dissent [C4].

This is not a road map; each file raises its own questions.

G-87 and G-82 Files in Istanbul and on the Asian Side

As G-87 is mostly entered by the Presidency in Ankara, cases are as a rule heard by Ankara administrative courts. A deportation decision taken in Istanbul, or a refusal by the Istanbul provincial migration office, can bring the case before Istanbul courts. Two of the G-82 cases arose in Istanbul itself: the code applied on exit at Sabiha Gökçen Airport on the Asian side, and the record found during a residence application at the Istanbul migration office [C3] [C5]. Cases against deportation decisions of the Istanbul Governorship and implied refusals of the Istanbul migration office are heard by the Istanbul administrative courts [R14]; see our Istanbul court guide and Ankara court guide.

Our office is in Maltepe, on Istanbul's Asian side, and handles restriction code files for foreigners living there or flying via Sabiha Gökçen Airport, and for their Turkish family members in Kartal, Pendik, Kadıköy and Ataşehir. More is on our Law on Foreigners and Administrative Law pages; Turkish terms are in our glossary.

Sources

Code	Source	Subject
L1	Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, Art. 9	9/1 entry ban; 5 years, +10; 9/6 lifting and timed entry; prior permission
L2	Law No. 6458, Art. 10	Notification at the border gate; objection rights
L3	Law No. 6458, Arts. 53, 54	7 days against deportation; Law No. 7533 of 21/11/2024; 54/1-b, d
L4	Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure, Arts. 7, 10, 12	60 days; implied refusal after 30 days; 4-month limit; full remedy action after annulment
L5	Law No. 6458, Arts. 7, 15, 33	Inadmissible passengers; visa refusal and Minister's exception; no short-term permit during a ban
O1	Presidency of Migration Management, English website	Residence and procedures in English
R1	Council of State 10th Chamber, 16.12.2020, E.2016/2812 K.2020/6421	"G-87 (General Security) ... data entry code"; rejection upheld
R2	Council of State 10th Chamber, 17.05.2021, E.2016/2309 K.2021/2311	Conflict zones; INTERPOL diffusion; no concrete document; reversed
R3	Council of State 10th Chamber, 10.06.2021, E.2016/16059 K.2021/3251	List of 20, "Chechen Commander"; no MİT information; reversed
R4	Council of State 10th Chamber, 14.03.2023, E.2021/1714 K.2023/1215	Rectification of R1; rejection reversed
R5	Council of State 10th Chamber, 04.04.2024, E.2024/339 K.2024/1368	Same file; annulment upheld by majority
R6	Council of State 10th Chamber, 21.11.2024, E.2020/4631 K.2024/5214	Codes removed during the case; grounds must be investigated
R7	Council of State 10th Chamber, 30.10.2023, E.2023/5774 K.2023/6027	Mardin; humanitarian residence; 54/1-b deportation; connection
R8	Council of State 10th Chamber, 04.03.2024, E.2024/336 K.2024/440	GöçNet report; Ankara court competent
R9	Court of Cassation 7th Criminal Chamber, 20.01.2026, E.2025/6507 K.2026/598	G-87 meaning; A-99 argument; no jurisdiction
R10	Council of State 10th Chamber, 19.09.2023, E.2023/4981 K.2023/4572	Hatay request, implied refusal; Hatay court competent
R11	Council of State 10th Chamber, 25.11.2020, E.2016/2826 K.2020/5410	General security ban; rejection upheld
R12	Council of State 10th Chamber, 01.12.2020, E.2018/3842 K.2020/5485	G-87 and N-87 annulled; protection refusal annulment upheld
R13	Council of State 10th Chamber, 25.11.2020, E.2016/3625 K.2020/5405	Refusal based on cancelled records unlawful
R14	Council of State 10th Chamber, 05.12.2022, E.2022/7310 K.2022/5681	G-82; Bulgarian national; irregular migration department; petition in Istanbul not forwarded; Istanbul court competent
R15	Council of State 10th Chamber, 03.04.2024, E.2024/1506 K.2024/1290	G-82 entry ban; Mardin; 54/1-b deportation; connection
C1	Constitutional Court, A.G., App. No. 2018/6143, 16.12.2020 (Official Gazette 25.02.2021)	G-87; "sufficient and serious information"; family life violated
C2	Constitutional Court, Sabah Noori Hammood Albeyati, App. No. 2021/52406, 17.02.2026	G-87 case; e-notification opened; 30 days missed
C3	Constitutional Court, Georgeta Maricela Tekdemir, App. No. 2021/17696, 05.11.2025 (Official Gazette 20.02.2026)	G-82 meaning; Sabiha Gökçen; full remedy action; effective remedy violated
C4	Constitutional Court, Bilal Padali Chasanoglou, App. No. 2021/14332, 28.01.2026	G-82; Pazarkule; no concrete finding in MİT letter; family life violated (majority)
C5	Constitutional Court, Nargiza Gulamova, App. No. 2020/33373, 30.03.2023 (Official Gazette 01.06.2023)	G-82; Istanbul migration office; GöçNet check; 54/1-d deportation; family life violated; TRY 18,000