Turkish Citizenship by Investment: Amounts, Risks, Annulment

Note on sources. The official legal texts of Türkiye are in Turkish. Each provision below is quoted verbatim in Turkish (the authoritative text) and followed by an unofficial English translation for convenience only. Where exact wording matters — the USD 400,000 threshold, the three-year annotation — the Turkish text governs.

Short Answer

Turkish citizenship by investment rests on the exceptional route in Article 12 of Law No. 5901, and the investments that qualify are listed in Article 20(2) of the implementing Regulation. That paragraph sets out seven routes: a fixed capital investment of USD 500,000; real estate of USD 400,000 with a three-year no-sale annotation; employment of at least fifty people; a bank deposit of USD 500,000 held three years; government debt instruments in the same amount; investment fund participation shares; and a private pension contribution. Each route has its own amount, its own holding period and its own determining authority.

Two rules cut across all of them. The amount is converted at the Central Bank rate on the date of determination, not the date of purchase (Article 20(6)). And on five of the seven routes the foreign currency must be sold to a Turkish bank and by that bank to the Central Bank before the transaction; on the deposit, bond and pension routes it is the lira proceeds that are then held for three years (Article 20(10)). Because these amounts sit in secondary legislation they change; the current figure must be verified at the time of application. Meeting the condition opens the route but does not guarantee the outcome (Article 10), and an acquisition can later be annulled for false declaration (Article 31) or withdrawn where the legal conditions were never met (Article 40).

This is one route among several; descent, marriage and the five-year general route are compared in how to get Turkish citizenship, which also covers dual citizenship and what to do if an application is refused. The underlying purchase rules, meaning eligible countries, area limits and military zones, are set out in property acquisition by foreigners.

Legal Basis: The Exceptional Route (Article 12)

Citizenship by investment does not depend on the five-year residence requirement of the general route; it rests on the exceptional route:

5901 sayılı Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu m.12 — Exceptional acquisition of Turkish citizenship

“(1) Millî güvenlik ve kamu düzeni bakımından engel teşkil edecek bir hali bulunmamak şartıyla Cumhurbaşkanı kararı ile aşağıda belirtilen yabancılar Türk vatandaşlığını kazanabilirler.”

(5901 sayılı Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu m.12)

Unofficial translation: “(1) Provided that there is no obstacle in terms of national security and public order, the foreigners specified below may acquire Turkish citizenship by decision of the President.”

This provision ties the investment-based cases to a Presidential decree. The type and amount of the investment are then set out in the implementing Regulation.

The same Article makes refusal mandatory, not discretionary, where such an obstacle exists:

5901 sayılı Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu m.12 — Mandatory refusal

“Millî güvenlik ve kamu düzeni bakımından engel teşkil edecek hali bulunanların talepleri Bakanlıkça reddedilir.”

(5901 sayılı Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu m.12)

Unofficial translation: “Requests of those who have a situation constituting an obstacle in terms of national security and public order are refused by the Ministry.”

So the national-security and public-order screen is not a formality attached to the end of a successful investment; it is a condition the Law places before the President’s discretion is reached.

The Seven Investment Routes at a Glance

Article 12 does not itself name any investment. What counts is set by the Regulation, whose opening words make the routes alternatives, so one of them suffices:

Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20 — the routes are alternatives (paragraph 2)

“Aşağıdaki şartlardan herhangi birini sağlayan yabancı, Kanunun 12 nci maddesinin birinci fıkrasının (b) bendi kapsamında Cumhurbaşkanı kararı ile Türk vatandaşlığını kazanabilir: (2)”

(Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20)

Unofficial translation: “A foreigner who satisfies any one of the following conditions may acquire Turkish citizenship by decision of the President within the scope of subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph of Article 12 of the Law:“

Sub	Investment	Amount	Holding period	Determining authority
a	Fixed capital investment	USD 500,000	(none stated)	Ministry of Industry and Technology
b	Real estate	USD 400,000	3 years	Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change
c	Employment	(no monetary threshold)	(none stated)	Ministry of Labour and Social Security
ç	Bank deposit	USD 500,000	3 years	Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency
d	Government debt instruments	USD 500,000	3 years	Ministry of Treasury and Finance
e	Investment fund participation shares	USD 500,000	at least 3 years	Capital Markets Board
f	Private pension contribution	USD 500,000	3 years in the system	Insurance and Private Pension Regulation and Supervision Agency

Two distinctions in that table are routinely missed. The employment route carries no monetary threshold at all; its test is a headcount. And real estate is the only route at USD 400,000; the other six monetary routes sit at USD 500,000.

Turkish Citizenship by Buying Property: USD 400,000 and Three Years

The concrete condition for the real estate route is in Article 20 of the implementing Regulation:

Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20 — Real estate route

“En az 400.000 Amerikan Doları veya karşılığı döviz tutarındaki kat mülkiyeti veya kat irtifakı kurulmuş ya da üzerinde yapı bulunan arsa vasıflı taşınmazı tapu kayıtlarına üç yıl satılmaması şerhi koyulmak şartıyla satın aldığı”

(Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20)

Unofficial translation: “who has purchased real estate — with condominium ownership or condominium easement established, or a plot with a building on it — worth at least USD 400,000 or the equivalent in foreign currency, on condition that a three-year no-sale annotation is recorded on the title deed.”

Two conditions operate together: the property value must be at least USD 400,000, and a three-year no-sale annotation must be recorded on the title deed. During the annotation period the property cannot be transferred; this is a core condition of the route.

Since 2023 the property itself must also qualify. The words quoted above, condominium ownership or condominium easement established, or a plot with a building on it, replaced a plain reference to “real estate”. Bare land with no building and no condominium title is no longer sufficient on its own.

The Notarised Sale Promise Alternative

The same subparagraph offers a second limb. Instead of taking title at once, the price is paid up front and the transfer is deferred for three years by a notarised contract:

Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20 — the sale promise limb of the property route (paragraph 2, sub b)

“veya kat mülkiyeti ya da kat irtifakı kurulmuş, en az 400.000 Amerikan Doları veya karşılığı döviz tutarı peşin olarak yatırılan ve tapu siciline üç yıl süreyle devir ve terkini yapılmayacağı taahhüdü şerh edilmek şartıyla noterde düzenlenmiş sözleşme ile taşınmazın satışının vaat edildiği Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığınca tespit edilen.”

(Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20)

Unofficial translation: “or, on condition that condominium ownership or condominium easement has been established, that at least USD 400,000 or the equivalent in foreign currency has been paid in advance and an undertaking that no transfer or cancellation will be made for three years is annotated on the title register, the sale of the real estate has been promised by a contract drawn up before a notary, as determined by the Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change.”

On this limb the annotation is not a no-sale note but an undertaking that no transfer or cancellation will be made for three years. The money moves first and the title follows, which changes where the investor’s exposure sits during those three years.

The Five Monetary Routes at USD 500,000

Real estate is not the only route. Five further subparagraphs each set the same headline figure, USD 500,000, but they are not interchangeable: the holding period is worded differently in each, and each has its own determining authority. The differences below decide which route actually suits an investor.

Fixed Capital Investment

The first subparagraph of the list covers fixed capital:

Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20 — the fixed capital route (paragraph 2, sub a)

“En az 500.000 Amerikan Doları veya karşılığı döviz tutarında sabit sermaye yatırımı gerçekleştirdiği Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığınca tespit edilen.”

(Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20)

Unofficial translation: “who is determined by the Ministry of Industry and Technology to have made a fixed capital investment of at least USD 500,000 or the equivalent in foreign currency.”

This route differs from the property route in two ways. The threshold is USD 500,000, and the subparagraph states no separate holding period; what it requires instead is a determination by the Ministry of Industry and Technology that the investment has been made. On company formation in Türkiye see setting up a company in Türkiye as a foreigner.

Bank Deposit

The deposit route avoids property selection and valuation risk altogether, which makes it the simplest of the seven on paper:

Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20 — the bank deposit route (paragraph 2, sub ç)

“En az 500.000 Amerikan Doları veya karşılığı döviz tutarında mevduatı üç yıl tutma şartıyla Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren bankalara yatırdığı Bankacılık Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurumunca tespit edilen.”

(Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20)

Unofficial translation: “who is determined by the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency to have deposited, with banks operating in Türkiye, at least USD 500,000 or the equivalent in foreign currency, on condition that the deposit is held for three years.”

Three elements operate together: at least USD 500,000, held for three years, with banks operating in Türkiye. The determination is made by the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency. The apparent simplicity is misleading, and the reason appears below under the currency conversion rule: what is held for those three years is not dollars.

Government Debt Instruments

Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20 — the government debt instrument route (paragraph 2, sub d)

“En az 500.000 Amerikan Doları veya karşılığı döviz tutarında Devlet borçlanma araçlarını üç yıl tutmak şartıyla satın aldığı Hazine ve Maliye Bakanlığınca tespit edilen.”

(Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20)

Unofficial translation: “who is determined by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance to have purchased at least USD 500,000 or the equivalent in foreign currency of Government debt instruments, on condition that they are held for three years.”

The subparagraph pairs purchased with held for three years; acquiring the instruments is not enough, they must be retained through the period. The determination is made by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance.

Investment Fund Participation Shares

Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20 — the investment fund route (paragraph 2, sub e)

“En az 500.000 Amerikan Doları veya karşılığı döviz tutarında gayrimenkul yatırım fonu katılma payı veya girişim sermayesi yatırım fonu katılma payını en az üç yıl elinde tutma şartıyla satın aldığı Sermaye Piyasası Kurulunca tespit edilen.”

(Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20)

Unofficial translation: “who is determined by the Capital Markets Board to have purchased at least USD 500,000 or the equivalent in foreign currency of real estate investment fund participation shares or venture capital investment fund participation shares, on condition that they are held for at least three years.”

This subparagraph covers two distinct fund types: real estate investment fund shares and venture capital investment fund shares. The period is phrased as at least three years. The determination is made by the Capital Markets Board.

Private Pension Contribution

This is the newest of the seven routes, added by Presidential Decision No. 5554 of 13 May 2022:

Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20 — the private pension route (paragraph 2, sub f)

“En az 500.000 Amerikan Doları veya karşılığı döviz tutarında katkı payını, kapsamı Sigortacılık ve Özel Emeklilik Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu tarafından belirlenen fonlarda tutma ve üç yıl sistemde kalma şartıyla bireysel emeklilik sistemine yatırdığı Sigortacılık ve Özel Emeklilik Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurumunca tespit edilen.”

(Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20)

Unofficial translation: “who is determined by the Insurance and Private Pension Regulation and Supervision Agency to have paid into the private pension system a contribution of at least USD 500,000 or the equivalent in foreign currency, on condition that it is held in funds whose scope is determined by the Insurance and Private Pension Regulation and Supervision Agency and that three years are spent in the system.”

Two conditions stack here. The contribution must sit in funds whose scope the Agency determines, and the investor must remain in the system for three years. Fund selection is therefore not left to the investor’s free choice.

The Employment Route: At Least Fifty Jobs

This is the only subparagraph with no monetary threshold:

Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20 — the employment route (paragraph 2, sub c)

“En az 50 kişilik istihdam oluşturduğu Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığınca tespit edilen.”

(Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20)

Unofficial translation: “who is determined by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to have created employment for at least 50 people.”

The test is the employment created, not a sum invested, and the determination is made by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. The route is meaningful for foreigners who already run, or will establish, a business in Türkiye. On the incentives attached to particular locations see investment zones: free zones, technoparks and OSB.

Your Foreign Currency Is Sold to the Central Bank

This is the rule most investors discover after the transaction rather than before it. On five of the seven routes the money does not stay in the investor’s hands as foreign currency:

Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20 — conversion of the foreign currency and holding in Turkish lira (paragraph 10)

“İkinci fıkranın (b), (ç), (d), (e) ve (f) bentlerinde belirtilen döviz tutarları işlem öncesinde Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren bir bankaya ve bu bankaca da Merkez Bankasına satılır. Satım sonucu; ikinci fıkranın (ç) bendi gereğince elde edilen Türk Lirası tutarlar Türk Lirası mevduatta, ikinci fıkranın (d) bendi gereğince elde edilen Türk Lirası tutarlar Türk Lirası cinsinden Devlet borçlanma araçlarında, ikinci fıkranın (f) bendi gereğince elde edilen Türk Lirası tutarlar bireysel emeklilik sisteminde yer alan Sigortacılık ve Özel Emeklilik Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu tarafından belirlenen fonlarda, üç yıl süre ile tutulur.”

(Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20)

Unofficial translation: “The foreign currency amounts specified in subparagraphs (b), (ç), (d), (e) and (f) of the second paragraph shall, before the transaction, be sold to a bank operating in Türkiye and by that bank to the Central Bank. As a result of the sale, the Turkish lira amounts obtained under subparagraph (ç) shall be held in a Turkish lira deposit, those obtained under subparagraph (d) in Turkish lira denominated Government debt instruments, and those obtained under subparagraph (f) in the funds determined by the Insurance and Private Pension Regulation and Supervision Agency within the private pension system, for a period of three years.”

Two consequences follow. First, the sale happens before the transaction; converting afterwards does not satisfy the condition. Second, on the deposit, bond and pension routes what is held for three years is Turkish lira, not dollars. The investor therefore carries the currency risk across the holding period. Comparing the routes on their headline thresholds alone is, for that reason, incomplete.

Switching Between Investment Types

Changing route part-way through does not reset the clock:

Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20 — transition between investment types (paragraph 8)

“İkinci fıkra kapsamında yapılacak yatırım türleri arasında belirtilen süreyi tamamlamak amacıyla geçişkenlik mümkündür.”

(Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20)

Unofficial translation: “Transition between the investment types to be made within the scope of the second paragraph is possible for the purpose of completing the stated period.”

The paragraph permits transition for the purpose of completing the stated period. The procedure and principles are set by the authority making the determination for that route, under the ninth paragraph, so any switch runs through that authority’s own rules.

How the Amount Is Fixed: The Central Bank Rate

Every threshold is stated in US dollars while the transaction happens in Türkiye. The Regulation says exactly which rate converts one into the other:

Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20 — the rate used to determine monetary values (paragraph 6)

“İkinci fıkrada belirtilen parasal değerlerin belirlenmesinde, tespit tarihindeki Türkiye Cumhuriyet Merkez Bankasının efektif satış kuru ve/veya çapraz döviz kuru esas alınır.”

(Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20)

Unofficial translation: “In determining the monetary values specified in the second paragraph, the effective selling rate and/or cross exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye on the date of determination shall be taken as the basis.”

The operative date is the date of determination, not the date of the transaction. If the rate moves between purchase and determination, an amount that cleared the threshold when the money was spent can fall below it when the authority looks at the file. On the property route a valuation report adds a second variable on top. The practical conclusion is that transacting at a figure close to the threshold is a risk in itself.

The Valuation Report and the Deed Price Are Not the Same Number

The point that causes most trouble on the property route is that a property does not have one “value”. A foreign buyer submits a property valuation report at the acquisition stage, while the official deed records a sale price agreed between the parties. The Council of State has described what the valuation report is and the standards it must meet:

Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2020/5861, K. 2024/6304 — what a property valuation report is

“Taşınmaz değerleme raporu, Sermaye Piyasa Kurulu’nun veya Türkiye Değerleme Uzmanları Birliği’nin internet sayfalarında yayımlanmış olan gayrimenkul değerleme şirketleri tarafından, Uluslararası Değerleme Standartlarına ve Türkiye Değerleme Uzmanları Birliği tarafından yayınlanan TDES-310 Borç Verme ve Teminat Amaçlı Gayrimenkuller İçin İyi Uygulamalar Kılavuzunda belirlenen normlara uygun olarak düzenlenmesi gereken, taşınmazın mevcut piyasa değerini gösteren, yabancı gerçek kişilerin taşınmazı edinim aşamasında sunduğu bir rapordur.”

(Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2020/5861, K. 2024/6304, T. 12.12.2024 — davanın reddine)

Unofficial translation: “A property valuation report is a report showing the current market value of the property, submitted by foreign natural persons at the stage of acquiring the property, which must be drawn up by real estate valuation companies published on the websites of the Capital Markets Board or the Association of Appraisers of Türkiye, in accordance with the International Valuation Standards and the norms set out in the TDES-310 Guide to Good Practice for Real Estate for Lending and Collateral Purposes published by the Association of Appraisers of Türkiye.”

In the same case the court upheld a rule permitting the sale price in the official deed to be set below the market value in the valuation report. The reasoning is freedom of contract: the price is an essential term the parties are free to fix.

Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2020/5861, K. 2024/6304 — a deed price below market value is lawful

“Bu itibarla, resmi senette yer alacak satışa konu taşınmazın satış bedelinin, taşınmazın mevcut piyasa değerinden düşük belirlenmesine imkan veren, herhangi bir zorunluluk ya da kısıtlama getirmeyen dava konusu düzenlemede, 6098 sayılı Kanun’da sözleşmeler yönünden genel ilke olarak kabul edilen sözleşme serbestisine ve hukuka aykırılık görülmemektedir.”

(Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2020/5861, K. 2024/6304, T. 12.12.2024 — davanın reddine)

Unofficial translation: “Accordingly, the contested provision, which allows the sale price of the property to be stated in the official deed below the property’s current market value and which imposes no obligation or restriction, is not found contrary to the freedom of contract accepted as a general principle for contracts in Law No. 6098, or otherwise unlawful.”

That the two figures may diverge is lawful, but it has consequences for citizenship. The determining authority sees both numbers. In a refusal examined by the court the price in the deed and the figure in the valuation report did not match, and the administration found that both fell below the threshold then in force. Understating the deed price may look like a saving on the tax side; on the citizenship file it is a direct risk.

A Wrong Deed Price Cannot Be Corrected Later

If the price is later found to have been recorded incorrectly, applying to the land registry to have it changed will not work. The court held that a property sale contract is a private-law contract and that land registry directorates have no administrative duty to correct anything beyond simple clerical errors:

Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2020/5861, K. 2024/6304 — the registry cannot rewrite the price

“Diğer taraftan, taşınmaz satış sözleşmesinin yasal şekle tabi olması nedeniyle tapu müdürlükleri nezdinde düzenlenip onaylanması, özel hukuk işlemi niteliğini etkilememekte ve tapu müdürlüklerine tarafların özgür iradeleri üzerinde değişiklik yapma hak ya da yetkisi vermemekte; bir diğer ifadeyle, resmi senetteki basit yazım yanlışlıkları dışındaki hususları re’sen düzeltme noktasında tapu müdürlüklerine verilmiş idari bir görev olmadığından, bu yöndeki taleplerin reddine ilişkin idari işlemlerin denetimini yapacak yargısal merciin tespitinde, genel kuraldan ayrılmaya hukuken olanak bulunmamaktadır.”

(Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2020/5861, K. 2024/6304, T. 12.12.2024 — davanın reddine)

Unofficial translation: “On the other hand, the fact that the property sale contract, being subject to a statutory form, is drawn up and approved before the land registry directorates does not affect its character as a private-law transaction and does not give the land registry directorates any right or power to alter the free will of the parties; in other words, since the land registry directorates have been given no administrative duty to correct of their own motion matters other than simple clerical errors in the official deed, there is no legal possibility of departing from the general rule in determining the judicial authority that will review administrative acts refusing such requests.”

Two practical consequences follow. First, an action against the refusal to correct is heard in the civil courts, not the administrative courts; filing in the wrong branch means dismissal on jurisdiction and lost time. Second, once the price is written it is the number the file is judged on. Recording a price close to the threshold is not a detail that can be tidied up afterwards.

The same jurisdictional rule governs the sale-promise limb of the property route. If the land registry refuses to annotate a notarised sale promise, the dispute again belongs to the civil courts:

Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2019/9350, K. 2021/1923 — registry disputes belong to the civil courts

“Tapu sicilinde tescil, terkin ve tashih istemlerinden kaynaklanan uyuşmazlıklar; kural olarak, bu istemlerin mülkiyet veya sınırlı ayni hakların doğması, kısıtlanması ya da ortadan kalkmasına yönelik olması nedeniyle, adli yargı yerinin görevine girmektedir.”

(Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2019/9350, K. 2021/1923, T. 26.04.2021 — reddine)

Unofficial translation: “Disputes arising from requests for registration, deletion and correction in the land register fall, as a rule, within the jurisdiction of the civil courts, because such requests are directed at the creation, restriction or extinction of ownership or limited rights in rem.”

Time spent in the wrong branch of the judiciary is not a mere procedural detail here: it eats into the three-year annotation timetable and therefore into the application plan itself.

How the Thresholds Changed

The most common mistake in this area is planning on a figure that is still circulating online but no longer in force. The Regulation’s own footnotes date every change:

Date	Instrument	What changed
12.12.2016	Council of Ministers Decision 2016/9601	The second paragraph listing the investment routes was added, together with the exchange-rate rule in paragraph 6
13.03.2017	Decision 2017/10008	The investment fund subparagraph (e) was added
19.09.2018	Presidential Decision No. 106	The deciding authority moved from the Council of Ministers to the President; “and/or cross exchange rate” was added to the rate rule; the transition rule in paragraph 8 was added
06.01.2022	Presidential Decision No. 5072	Subparagraphs a, b, c, ç, d and e were all replaced; paragraph 10 requiring sale to the Central Bank was added
13.05.2022	Presidential Decision No. 5554	The property threshold rose from USD 250,000 to USD 400,000; the private pension subparagraph (f) was added
12.12.2023	Presidential Decision No. 7938	The definition of qualifying property was narrowed to condominium ownership, condominium easement, or a plot with a building on it

Two readings matter. The thresholds changed three times in five years, so no figure in this area should be treated as settled. And the 2023 change was not about the amount but about the character of the property, which can exclude a property that comfortably clears the price. Both the current amount and the current property definition must be checked against the legislation in force at the time of the transaction.

Which Threshold Applies, the One at Purchase or at Application?

When the figure changes, files caught between purchase and application raise an obvious question. The Council of State answered it for buyers who acquired while the USD 1,000,000 threshold was in force but applied to the land registry after it had fallen to USD 250,000:

Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2020/3336, K. 2024/3481 — the figure in force at the date of application

“Bununla birlikte, davacıların taşınmazı satın aldıkları 10/08/2018 tarihinde taşınmaz değeri olarak aranan 1.000.000 Amerikan Doları bedelin, söz konusu tarihten yaklaşık 1 ay sonra değiştirilerek 250.000 Amerikan Dolarına düşürüldüğü, ayrıca davacıların Şişli Kaymakamlığı Tapu Müdürlüğü’ne başvurdukları 12/02/2019 tarihinde de Türk vatandaşlığının kazanılmasına esas teşkil edebilmesi için taşınmaz değerinin 250.000 Amerikan Doları olmasının yeterli bulunduğu görüldüğünden; hakkaniyet gereği, davacıların başvurularının, satın aldıkları taşınmazın hisselerine düşen değerinin 250.000 Amerikan Doları koşulunu sağlayıp sağlamadığı yönünden değerlendirilmesi suretiyle sonuçlandırılması gerektiği kanaatine varılmıştır.”

(Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2020/3336, K. 2024/3481, T. 30.09.2024 — kısmen reddine, uygulama işlemlerinin iptaline, oy birliği)

Unofficial translation: “That said, since the sum of USD 1,000,000 required as the property value on 10/08/2018, the date on which the claimants purchased the property, was reduced to USD 250,000 approximately one month after that date, and since on 12/02/2019, the date on which the claimants applied to the Şişli District Land Registry Directorate, a property value of USD 250,000 was likewise sufficient to form the basis for acquiring Turkish citizenship, it has been concluded that, as a matter of equity, the claimants’ applications should be determined by assessing whether the value falling to the shares of the property they purchased satisfied the condition of USD 250,000.”

Two separate points follow. First, where the threshold falls, the lower figure in force at the date of application was applied, and the refusals based on the higher figure at the date of purchase were annulled. ⚠ This does not establish the converse for a threshold that rises; the reasoning rests on equity, and no such rule was laid down by this decision.

Second, and less widely understood: where a property is bought in shares, the test is not the total value of the property but the value falling to each shareholder. Where three buyers take a one-third share each, every one of them must independently meet the threshold on their own share. Joint purchases planned on the assumption that the total price carries all the buyers are refused for this reason.

The same decision confirmed that the authority making the determination holds not only the power to determine, but also the power to set the criteria used:

Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2020/3336, K. 2024/3481 — the determining authority sets the criteria

“Buna göre, davalı idareye, bentte sayılan hallerden herhangi birinin gerçekleşip gerçekleşmediğini tespit yetkisi ile birlikte bu tespit sırasında esas alınacak kriterleri belirleme yetkisinin de verildiği sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır.”

(Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2020/3336, K. 2024/3481, T. 30.09.2024 — kısmen reddine, uygulama işlemlerinin iptaline, oy birliği)

Unofficial translation: “Accordingly, it is concluded that the defendant administration has been given, together with the power to determine whether any of the situations listed in the subparagraph has occurred, also the power to set the criteria to be taken as a basis in making that determination.”

That power is written into Article 20(9) of the Regulation. Its practical meaning is that the Regulation fixes the threshold, while the circulars and guidance of the relevant authority fix how compliance is measured, and such instruments have been upheld to the extent that they restate the Regulation rather than narrow it.

Documents the Regulation Requires

Determining the investment and compiling the citizenship file are two separate exercises. The Regulation lists what goes in the file:

Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20 — documents in the exceptional citizenship file (paragraph 3)

“Türk vatandaşlığını istisnai olarak kazanmak isteyen yabancı hakkında Bakanlığın yazılı talimatı üzerine müracaat makamlarınca aşağıda belirtilen belgelerden oluşan dosya düzenlenir:”

(Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20)

Unofficial translation: “Upon the written instruction of the Ministry, a file consisting of the documents specified below shall be compiled by the application authorities in respect of a foreigner who wishes to acquire Turkish citizenship exceptionally:”

The Regulation groups the file into six items: a form petition stating the request; a passport or similar document showing nationality, or evidence of statelessness where obtainable; a civil status document with the relevant marriage, divorce or death certificate; a birth certificate or population register extract showing identity, and for a married applicant a record proving the family link of spouse and children; where there are Turkish first- or second-degree relatives, their population register extract; and a receipt for the service fee. Where the month and day of birth are unknown, either a document completing the date from the applicant’s own authorities or a signed declaration accepting treatment under Article 39 of Law No. 5490 is required.

Note who compiles the file: it is drawn up by the application authorities upon the written instruction of the Ministry, and the completed file is then sent to the Ministry for decision.

The Process in Outline

A typical flow is:

1. Selection and valuation of the investment, confirming by an accepted valuation report on the property route that it meets the USD 400,000 threshold.
2. Currency conversion to a Turkish bank and by that bank to the Central Bank, completed before the transaction on five of the seven routes (Article 20(10)).
3. Investment and annotation, recording the three-year no-sale annotation on the title deed, or on the alternative limb the notarised sale promise and the transfer-and-cancellation undertaking.
4. Certificate of conformity from the ministry or authority that determines that route.
5. Short-term residence permit for the investor and family under Article 31(1)(j) of Law No. 6458.
6. Citizenship application filed with the certificate and the permit; the national-security and public-order examination continues through this stage.

Step five has its basis in the Law itself, because Article 12(1)(b) refers directly to the Law on Foreigners:

6458 sayılı Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu m.31 — short-term residence permit for investors (paragraph 1, sub j)

“Türkiye’de çalışmayan ancak Cumhurbaşkanınca belirlenecek kapsam ve tutarda yatırım yapacaklar ile bunların yabancı eşi, kendisinin ve eşinin ergin olmayan veya bağımlı yabancı çocuğu”

(6458 sayılı Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu m.31)

Unofficial translation: “those who will not work in Türkiye but will make an investment in the scope and amount to be determined by the President, together with their foreign spouse and their own and their spouse’s minor or dependent foreign children”

The permit also carries one structural advantage. The general limit on the duration of short-term permits does not apply to this subparagraph:

6458 sayılı Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu m.31 — scope of the duration limit (paragraph 2)

“Kısa dönem ikamet izni, birinci fıkranın (j) ve (k) bentleri hariç olmak üzere, her defasında en fazla ikişer yıllık sürelerle verilebilir.”

(6458 sayılı Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu m.31)

Unofficial translation: “A short-term residence permit may be issued for periods of at most two years at a time, with the exception of subparagraphs (j) and (k) of the first paragraph.”

So the investor permit under subparagraph (j) is not bound by the two-year ceiling that governs other short-term permits. On the permit types and their conditions see residence permit types in Türkiye.

A seventh paragraph added by Law No. 7533 on 21 November 2024 sets a distinct procedure for challenging a refusal or cancellation of that permit:

6458 sayılı Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu m.31 — procedure in actions against refusal and cancellation (paragraph 7)

“Yabancı veya yasal temsilcisi ya da avukatı tarafından, kısa dönem ikamet izni başvurusunun reddi ya da kısa dönem ikamet izninin iptali kararlarına karşı, mahkemeye yapılan başvurularda savunmanın verilmesi veya savunma verme süresinin geçmesiyle dosya tekemmül etmiş sayılır. Davacının gösterdiği adrese tebligat yapılamaması halinde, 6/1/1982 tarihli ve 2577 sayılı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanununun 26 ncı maddesinin üçüncü fıkrasında öngörülen süre iki ay olarak uygulanır. Duruşma yapılması mahkemenin takdirine bağlıdır.”

(6458 sayılı Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu m.31)

Unofficial translation: “In applications made to a court by the foreigner or their legal representative or lawyer against decisions refusing a short-term residence permit application or cancelling a short-term residence permit, the file shall be deemed complete upon the submission of the defence or the expiry of the period for submitting it. Where notification cannot be served at the address given by the claimant, the period provided in the third paragraph of Article 26 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 of 6/1/1982 shall be applied as two months. Whether a hearing is held is at the discretion of the court.”

Three things follow: the file closes on the defence or the lapse of the period for it; the period under Article 26(3) of Law No. 2577 becomes two months where service fails at the claimant’s stated address; and a hearing is discretionary. The residence-permit leg of an investor’s file therefore runs on a tighter timetable than ordinary administrative litigation.

Because several ministries are involved, the Regulation also provides for a coordinating body:

Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20 — commission following the applications (paragraph 7)

“İkinci fıkra kapsamında yapılacak vatandaşlık kazanma başvuruları ile ilgili süreci takip etmek amacıyla İçişleri Bakanlığı bünyesinde Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı, Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı, Hazine ve Maliye Bakanlığı, Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı temsilcilerinden oluşan bir komisyon kurulabilir.”

(Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.20)

Unofficial translation: “In order to follow the process relating to citizenship acquisition applications to be made within the scope of the second paragraph, a commission consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change, the Ministry of Treasury and Finance, and the Ministry of Industry and Technology may be established within the Ministry of the Interior.”

The paragraph says the commission may be established, not that it must be. It is therefore an internal coordination mechanism for the administration rather than a procedural guarantee owed to the applicant.

Tax: The VAT Exemption Has Its Own Three-Year Rule

A foreigner taking the property route will often also qualify for a value added tax exemption. That exemption sits in tax legislation, not in the citizenship rules:

3065 sayılı KDVK m.13 — exemption on delivery of a residence or workplace to a foreigner (sub i)

“Konut veya iş yeri olarak inşa edilen binaların ilk tesliminde uygulanmak ve bedeli döviz olarak Türkiye’ye getirilmek kaydıyla, Gelir Vergisi Kanununun 3 üncü maddesinin birinci fıkrasının 2 numaralı bendinde belirtilenler hariç olmak üzere çalışma veya oturma izni alarak altı aydan daha fazla yurt dışında yaşayan Türk vatandaşları, Türkiye’de yerleşmiş olmayan yabancı uyruklu gerçek kişiler ile kanuni ve iş merkezi Türkiye’de olmayan ve bir iş yeri ya da daimi temsilci vasıtasıyla Türkiye’de kazanç elde etmeyen kurumlara yapılan konut veya iş yeri teslimleri”

(3065 sayılı KDVK m.13)

Unofficial translation: “deliveries of residences or workplaces made, on condition that the exemption applies to the first delivery of buildings constructed as residences or workplaces and that the price is brought into Türkiye in foreign currency, to Turkish citizens living abroad for more than six months having obtained a work or residence permit, excluding those specified in subparagraph 2 of the first paragraph of Article 3 of the Income Tax Law, to foreign national real persons not settled in Türkiye, and to entities whose legal and business centre is not in Türkiye and which do not earn income in Türkiye through a workplace or permanent representative”

The conditions are narrow: the building must have been constructed as a residence or workplace, it must be the first delivery, and the price must be brought into Türkiye in foreign currency. The part that matters most to a citizenship applicant, however, is the clawback in the same subparagraph:

3065 sayılı KDVK m.13 — consequence of disposal within three years (sub i)

“İstisna kapsamında teslim alınan konut veya iş yerinin üç yıl içerisinde elden çıkarılması hâlinde zamanında tahsil edilmeyen verginin, 6183 sayılı Kanunun 48 inci maddesine göre hesaplanan tecil faiziyle birlikte tapu işleminden önce elden çıkaran tarafından ödenmesi şarttır”

(3065 sayılı KDVK m.13)

Unofficial translation: “Where a residence or workplace received under the exemption is disposed of within three years, the tax not collected in time must be paid, together with deferral interest calculated under Article 48 of Law No. 6183, by the person disposing of it before the title deed transaction.”

That three-year period is a separate obligation from the three-year no-sale annotation required for citizenship. The two run alongside each other but come from different statutes and carry different consequences: breaching the annotation undermines the citizenship condition, while breaching the exemption period triggers payment of the uncollected tax with deferral interest before the title deed transaction. The subparagraph also makes the buyer jointly and severally liable with the taxpayer where the exemption was applied although its conditions were not met. For the wider tax picture see taxation of foreign companies in Türkiye.

No Guaranteed Outcome

Satisfying the investment condition opens the exceptional route, but it does not guarantee a result. The Law says so in terms:

5901 sayılı Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu m.10 — Acquisition by decision of the competent authority

“(1) Türk vatandaşlığını kazanmak isteyen bir yabancı, bu Kanunda belirtilen şartları taşıması halinde yetkili makam kararı ile Türk vatandaşlığını kazanabilir. Ancak, aranan şartları taşımak vatandaşlığın kazanılmasında kişiye mutlak bir hak sağlamaz.”

(5901 sayılı Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu m.10)

Unofficial translation: “A foreigner who wishes to acquire Turkish citizenship may acquire it by decision of the competent authority if they satisfy the conditions specified in this Law. However, satisfying the required conditions does not grant the person an absolute right to the acquisition of citizenship.”

The operative words are mutlak bir hak sağlamaz, meaning that it does not grant an absolute right. Read together with Article 12, the position is: the investment opens a route, the national-security and public-order screen can close it, and the final decision rests with the President. An expectation framed as I invested, so citizenship is certain is therefore legally incorrect, however it may be presented in marketing material.

Family Members: Spouse and Children

Investors routinely assume the family follows automatically. The Law separates the two questions:

5901 sayılı Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu m.20 — Effect on spouse and children

“(2) Yetkili makam kararı ile Türk vatandaşlığının kazanılması eşin vatandaşlığına tesir etmez. Ana veya babanın velayeti kendisinde bulunan çocukları, diğer eşin muvafakat etmesi halinde Türk vatandaşlığını kazanır. Muvafakat verilmemesi halinde ana veya babanın mutad meskeninin bulunduğu ülkedeki hakim kararına göre işlem yapılır. Türk vatandaşlığını birlikte kazanan ana ve babanın çocukları da Türk vatandaşlığını kazanır.”

(5901 sayılı Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu m.20)

Unofficial translation: “Acquisition of Turkish citizenship by decision of the competent authority does not affect the citizenship of the spouse. Children under the custody of the mother or father acquire Turkish citizenship if the other spouse consents. If consent is not given, the matter proceeds according to the decision of the judge in the country of habitual residence of the mother or father. Children of a mother and father who acquire Turkish citizenship together also acquire Turkish citizenship.”

Two consequences follow directly from that wording. The spouse is not carried along by the investor’s acquisition. And for children, the other parent’s consent is a condition; where it is withheld, the route runs through a foreign court decision, which is a timeline risk that no valuation report will reveal.

The implementing Regulation adds the default rule on timing:

Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.37 — Children processed together with the parent

“(8) Türk vatandaşlığını kazanmak üzere başvuran ana veya babanın çocuklarının ana veya baba ile birlikte işlem görmesi esastır. Ana veya babanın Türk vatandaşlığını kazandığı tarihte kendileri ile birlikte işlem görmeyen çocukları ergin olduktan sonra Türk vatandaşlığını kazanmak üzere başvurdukları takdirde haklarında 15 inci maddedeki hükümler uygulanır.”

(Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik m.37)

Unofficial translation: “It is the rule that the children of a mother or father who applies to acquire Turkish citizenship are processed together with the mother or father. If children who were not processed together with them on the date the mother or father acquired Turkish citizenship apply to acquire Turkish citizenship after becoming of age, the provisions in Article 15 apply to them.”

This is why family status is a day-one planning item rather than a closing formality: a child left out of the parent’s file is not simply added later; after majority they apply on their own footing.

Annulment (Article 31) and Withdrawal (Article 40)

The part of the picture that investment marketing rarely mentions is that an acquisition decision is not final in the sense of being untouchable. The Law provides two separate mechanisms, and they should not be conflated.

The first applies where the defect lies in what the applicant said:

5901 sayılı Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu m.31 — Annulment of decisions granting Turkish citizenship

“Türk vatandaşlığını kazanma kararı; ilgilinin yalan beyanı veya vatandaşlığı kazanmaya esas teşkil eden önemli hususları gizlemesi sonucunda vuku bulmuş ise kararı veren makam tarafından iptal edilir.”

(5901 sayılı Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu m.31)

Unofficial translation: “A decision to acquire Turkish citizenship shall be annulled by the authority that made the decision where it came about as a result of the false declaration of the person concerned or the concealment of matters material to the acquisition of citizenship.”

The test here is the applicant’s false declaration or concealment of material matters. On an investment file that can reach statements about valuation, source of funds or identity.

The second applies where the defect lies in the decision itself:

5901 sayılı Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu m.40 — Withdrawal of citizenship decisions

“(1) Türk vatandaşlığının kazanılması veya kaybına ilişkin kararlar, hukuki şartlar oluşmadan veya mükerrer olarak verildiği sonradan anlaşıldığı takdirde geri alınır.”

(5901 sayılı Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu m.40)

Unofficial translation: “Decisions concerning the acquisition or loss of Turkish citizenship are withdrawn if it is subsequently understood that they were given without the legal conditions having been met, or given more than once.”

The trigger is narrow, covering only legal conditions not met or a duplicate decision, but it has been used, and it has been litigated. In 2025 the Council of State annulled a Presidential decision withdrawing citizenship, holding that the administration had not discharged its side of the question:

Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2022/7637, K. 2025/3313 — the ground element of a withdrawal decision

“işlemin sebep unsuru olan istihbaratın tek başına davacıların milli güvenlik ve kamu düzeni açısından engel hali olduğunu ortaya koymaya yeterli olmadığı, sonuç olarak davacıların hukuki şartlar oluşmadan vatandaşlığa alındığını ispata yarayacak herhangi bir bilgi ve belgenin dosyaya sunulmadığı anlaşıldığından, dava konusu kararda sebep unsuru yönüyle hukuka uyarlık bulunmadığı sonucuna varılmıştır.”

(Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2022/7637, K. 2025/3313, T. 26.06.2025 — oy çokluğuyla iptaline)

Unofficial translation: “since it was understood that the intelligence forming the ground element of the act was not on its own sufficient to establish that the claimants had a situation constituting an obstacle in terms of national security and public order, and that consequently no information or document capable of proving that the claimants had been granted citizenship without the legal conditions having been met was submitted to the file, it was concluded that the contested decision was not in accordance with the law as regards its ground element.”

Two readings matter for an applicant. First, withdrawal under Article 40 is subject to judicial review, and the reviewing court examines the ground element of the act. Second, the burden described in that passage sits with the administration: it was the absence of information or documents proving that the conditions were unmet that decided the case. The decision was taken by majority, with dissenting opinions recorded.

The distinction between the two matters in practice. Annulment under Article 31 turns on a defect in the applicant’s own declaration and is applied by the authority that made the decision. Withdrawal under Article 40 turns on the decision having been given without the legal conditions or more than once, and on the reading above the administration must establish that with concrete, sufficient and serious information. Both are administrative acts and both are open to an action for annulment.

The Same Chamber Upholds Withdrawal Where the Evidence Is Concrete

Read on its own, the decision above suggests that withdrawal is a class of act the courts routinely undo. That impression is wrong. The same chamber upheld a withdrawal where the evidence was concrete. The file concerned a person who had acquired citizenship through the property route under Article 12(1)(b), and the detailed material in a foreign state’s extradition request was found sufficient:

Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2023/4836, K. 2024/6781 — withdrawal upheld on concrete evidence

“Bu itibarla, milli güvenlik ve kamu düzeni bakımından sakıncalı bulunan davacının, Türk vatandaşlığını kazanma kararının, 5901 sayılı Kanun’un 40. maddesi uyarınca hukuki şartlar oluşmadan verildiği gerekçesiyle geri alınmasına yönelik olarak tesis edilen dava konusu kararda hukuka aykırılık görülmemiştir.”

(Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2023/4836, K. 2024/6781, T. 24.12.2024 — davanın reddine, oy birliği)

Unofficial translation: “Accordingly, no unlawfulness has been found in the contested decision, made with a view to withdrawing, under Article 40 of Law No. 5901 and on the ground that it had been given without the legal conditions having been met, the decision granting Turkish citizenship to the claimant, who was found objectionable in terms of national security and public order.”

The chamber also held that material a criminal court had found insufficient to support extradition may still be treated as an obstacle under Law No. 5901; that the administration holds broad discretion in this field, grounded in sovereignty; and that this discretion is conditional on the administration putting forward sufficient factual and legal evidence.

Read together, the two decisions do not conflict. They apply one test: what matters is whether the fact the administration relies on is concrete and documented. An abstract intelligence note did not suffice; a file with a detailed evidential list did.

A third decision shows how far the court will go to test this. The chamber issued interlocutory orders requiring the agencies to produce concrete information and documents, classified material was presented to the panel by hand, and it was still found insufficient:

Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2021/279, K. 2025/3174 — interlocutory orders demanding concrete evidence

“Davaya konu kararın gerekçesini teşkil ettiği belirtilen “milli güvenlik ve kamu düzeni açısından sakıncalı olma” durumunun açıklığa kavuşturulması amacıyla Dairemiz tarafından 24/05/2021 ve 11/04/2022 tarihlerinde verilen ara kararları ile davalı idarelerden, Emniyet Genel Müdürlüğü’nden ve Milli İstihbarat Teşkilatı Başkanlığı’ndan; davacının milli güvenlik ve kamu düzeni açısından sakıncalı olduğunu ispata yarayan somut bilgi ve belgeler istenilmiştir.”

(Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2021/279, K. 2025/3174, T. 23.06.2025 — oy çokluğuyla iptaline)

Unofficial translation: “By interlocutory orders issued by our Chamber on 24/05/2021 and 11/04/2022 with a view to clarifying the situation of ‘being objectionable in terms of national security and public order’ stated to constitute the ground of the contested decision, concrete information and documents serving to prove that the claimant was objectionable in terms of national security and public order were requested from the defendant administrations, from the General Directorate of Security and from the Directorate of National Intelligence.”

Here too two members dissented, emphasising the state’s sovereign discretion. The test is therefore stable; its application to a given file remains contested.

Challenging the Decision: Time Limit, Venue and Suspension

Annulment and withdrawal are administrative acts, and an action for annulment lies against them. Three procedural points decide outcomes in practice.

The time limit. No separate period is set in the special law, so the general rule applies:

2577 sayılı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu m.7 — dava açma süresi (1. fıkra)

“Dava açma süresi, özel kanunlarında ayrı süre gösterilmeyen hallerde Danıştayda ve idare mahkemelerinde altmış ve vergi mahkemelerinde otuz gündür.”

Unofficial translation: “The time limit for bringing an action is sixty days before the Council of State and the administrative courts, and thirty days before the tax courts, where no separate period is set out in their special laws.”

In administrative disputes the period runs from the day following written notification (Article 7(2)(a)). The sixty days are preclusive: missing them ends the case without any examination of the merits.

The competent court. The administrative court for the place where the authority that made the act sits is competent. The Council of State applied this to an exceptional citizenship application when two administrative courts each declined jurisdiction:

Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2025/1318, K. 2025/2034 — venue follows the authority that acted

“Bu durumda, davacının başvurusunun İstanbul Valiliği İl Nüfus ve Vatandaşlık Müdürlüğünce zımnen reddedildiği görüldüğünden, uyuşmazlığın görüm ve çözümünde genel yetki kuralını düzenleyen 2577 sayılı Kanun’un 32. maddesi uyarınca iptali istenen işlemi tesis eden merciin bulunduğu yer olan İstanbul ilinin idari yargı yetkisi bakımından bağlı bulunduğu İstanbul İdare Mahkemesinin yetkili olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.”

(Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2025/1318, K. 2025/2034, T. 15.04.2025 — dosyanın yetkili mahkemeye gönderilmesine)

Unofficial translation: “In this situation, since the claimant’s application was impliedly refused by the Istanbul Governorship Provincial Directorate of Civil Registry and Citizenship, it has been concluded that, under Article 32 of Law No. 2577 governing the general rule of venue, the competent court is the Istanbul Administrative Court, to which the province of Istanbul, being the place where the authority that made the act whose annulment is sought is located, is attached in terms of administrative judicial venue.”

Where a governorship acted, venue lies in that province; the file does not have to go to Ankara. Where the withdrawal was made by Presidential decree, by contrast, the action is brought before the Council of State itself. Confusing the two routes ends in dismissal on jurisdiction or venue.

That distinction produces a second trap. Where an action filed in the wrong court is dismissed on jurisdiction and the file is forwarded to the Council of State, the case has already moved; filing a fresh action with the same claim is unnecessary and will be dismissed:

Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2023/4965, K. 2025/3738 — a second action over the same act

“Bu itibarla, davacının, derdest bulunan ve işbu davadan daha önce açılarak Dairemizin E:2023/5027 sayılı esasına kaydedilen davadan ayrı olarak bakılan davayı açmakta korunmaya değer güncel bir hukukî yararı bulunmadığından, bakılan davanın derdestlik nedeniyle incelenmesi mümkün değildir.”

(Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2023/4965, K. 2025/3738, T. 11.09.2025 — derdestlik nedeniyle incelenmeksizin reddine)

Unofficial translation: “Accordingly, since the claimant has no current legally protected interest in bringing the present action separately from the pending action brought earlier than this one and recorded on our Chamber’s docket under E:2023/5027, it is not possible to examine the present action, by reason of lis pendens.”

The chamber noted that although lis pendens is not regulated in Law No. 2577, a second action with the same parties, subject matter and grounds is dismissed without examination in the administrative courts as well. Where the first action was dismissed on jurisdiction and forwarded, the thing to await is the outcome of that file.

Suspension of execution. Bringing an action does not by itself stop the act. Suspension requires two conditions to be met together:

2577 sayılı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu m.27 — yürütmenin durdurulması (2. fıkra)

“Danıştay veya idari mahkemeler, idari işlemin uygulanması halinde telafisi güç veya imkânsız zararların doğması ve idari işlemin açıkça hukuka aykırı olması şartlarının birlikte gerçekleşmesi durumunda, davalı idarenin savunması alındıktan veya savunma süresi geçtikten sonra gerekçe göstererek yürütmenin durdurulmasına karar verebilirler.”

Unofficial translation: “The Council of State or the administrative courts may, where the conditions that the implementation of the administrative act would give rise to damage that is difficult or impossible to repair and that the administrative act is manifestly unlawful are met together, decide to suspend execution, giving reasons, after the defendant administration’s defence has been received or the period for the defence has expired.”

If Citizenship Is Withdrawn, What Happens to the Property?

A person whose withdrawal becomes final reverts to foreigner status. From that point the property they hold falls under the general regime governing acquisition of immovable property by foreigners:

2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.35 — yabancı gerçek kişilerin edinim sınırları

“Yabancı uyruklu gerçek kişilerin edindikleri taşınmazlar ile bağımsız ve sürekli nitelikteki sınırlı ayni hakların toplam alanı, özel mülkiyete konu ilçe yüz ölçümünün yüzde onunu ve kişi başına ülke genelinde otuz hektarı geçemez.”

Unofficial translation: “The total area of immovable property and of independent and permanent limited rights in rem acquired by foreign natural persons may not exceed ten per cent of the surface area of the district that is subject to private ownership, nor thirty hectares per person nationwide.”

The final paragraph of the same article provides a liquidation procedure for property held contrary to that regime:

2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.35 — aykırı edinimlerin tasfiyesi

“Bu madde hükümlerine aykırı olarak edinilen, edinim amacına aykırı kullanıldığı ilgili Bakanlık ve idarelerce tespit edilen, süresi içinde ilgili Bakanlığa başvurulmayan veya süresi içinde projeleri gerçekleştirilmeyenler ile bu maddenin birinci fıkrası kapsamındaki sınırlamalar dışında miras yoluyla edinilen taşınmazlar ve sınırlı ayni haklar, Maliye Bakanlığınca verilecek bir yılı geçmeyen süre içinde maliki tarafından tasfiye edilmediği takdirde tasfiye edilerek bedele çevrilir ve bedeli hak sahibine ödenir.”

Unofficial translation: “Immovable property and limited rights in rem that are acquired contrary to the provisions of this article, that the relevant Ministry and administrations determine to be used contrary to the purpose of acquisition, in respect of which no application was made to the relevant Ministry within the period, or whose projects were not realised within the period, together with those acquired by inheritance outside the limitations under the first paragraph of this article, shall, if not liquidated by their owner within a period not exceeding one year to be granted by the Ministry of Finance, be liquidated and converted into money, and the price shall be paid to the rightholder.”

Two honest boundaries should be drawn around this provision. First, the withdrawal of citizenship is not listed among the grounds for liquidation. The regime is triggered by the property having been acquired contrary to the article or by one of the other listed situations. The sentence “if citizenship is withdrawn the property is automatically sold” is therefore not what the article says. What produces consequences in practice is that, on reverting to foreigner status, the country, area and surface limits begin to apply to the person, and liquidation follows where those limits are found to be exceeded.

Second, liquidation is not confiscation. If the owner does not sell within the period, the property is liquidated, converted into money, and the price is paid to the rightholder. What the owner loses is the ownership itself and the ability to choose the timing of the sale, not the value. The country list, the ten per cent district limit and the thirty hectare cap are set out in detail in property acquisition by foreigners.

Common Mistakes

• Planning on an old amount. Thresholds change; the current real estate threshold is USD 400,000 and it, too, may change (Regulation, Article 20).
• Skipping the three-year annotation. Without the annotation the real estate route is not valid (Regulation, Article 20).
• Assuming a guaranteed result. Satisfying the conditions does not grant an absolute right; the decision rests with the President (Articles 10 and 12).
• Ignoring valuation and exchange rate. The amount is in US dollars and the rate applied is the Central Bank rate on the date of determination, so valuation and currency movement together can push it below the threshold (Regulation, Article 20(6)).
• Converting the currency after the transaction. On five routes the sale to a Turkish bank and on to the Central Bank must happen before the transaction (Regulation, Article 20(10)).
• Expecting to hold dollars for three years. On the deposit, bond and pension routes what is held is Turkish lira, and the currency risk sits with the investor (Regulation, Article 20(10)).
• Comparing the routes on headline amounts alone. The employment route has no monetary threshold, property sits at USD 400,000 and the other five monetary routes at USD 500,000; the determining authorities and the wording of the holding periods differ too (Regulation, Article 20(2)).
• Assuming bare land qualifies. Since the 2023 amendment the property must have condominium ownership or condominium easement established, or a building on it (Regulation, Article 20(2)(b)).
• Confusing the VAT three years with the annotation. They are separate obligations; breaching the exemption period means paying the uncollected tax with deferral interest before the title deed transaction (Law No. 3065, Article 13(i)).
• Treating false declaration and withdrawal as the same thing. A defect in the declaration is a ground for annulment (Article 31); a defect in the decision is a ground for withdrawal (Article 40).
• Recording a deed price below market value. It is lawful for the deed price to sit below the valuation report, but the determining authority sees both figures and a refusal follows where both fall below the threshold (10th Chamber, E. 2020/5861, K. 2024/6304).
• Assuming the price can be corrected later. Land registry directorates have no duty to correct anything beyond clerical errors, and the dispute belongs to the civil courts (same decision).
• Looking at the total price on a shared purchase. The test is the value falling to each shareholder (10th Chamber, E. 2020/3336, K. 2024/3481).
• Suing in the administrative court over an annotation. Registration, deletion and correction claims in the land register belong to the civil courts (10th Chamber, E. 2019/9350, K. 2021/1923).
• Missing the sixty-day time limit. It runs from the day after written notification, and a second action over the same act gains no time (Law No. 2577, Article 7).
• Assuming every withdrawal is overturned. Where the evidence is concrete, withdrawal has been upheld (10th Chamber, E. 2023/4836, K. 2024/6781).
• Leaving family to the last minute. The spouse is not carried along at all, and a child’s inclusion may require the other parent’s consent (Article 20 of Law No. 5901; Article 37 of the Regulation).
• Treating the security screen as a formality. Where an obstacle exists in terms of national security and public order, refusal by the Ministry is mandatory (Article 12).
• Assuming the decision is untouchable. A citizenship decision can be withdrawn where the legal conditions were not met (Article 40) — though the administration must be able to show it.

Summary

Turkish citizenship by investment rests on the exceptional route in Article 12 of Law No. 5901 and takes concrete shape in Article 20(2) of the implementing Regulation, which lists seven subparagraphs. On the property route the threshold is at least USD 400,000 plus a three-year no-sale annotation on the title deed, and since 2023 the property must have condominium ownership or condominium easement established, or a building on it. Five further monetary routes sit at USD 500,000: fixed capital, bank deposit, government debt instruments, investment fund participation shares and a private pension contribution. The employment route uses no monetary threshold at all but requires employment for at least fifty people. Each route has its own determining authority.

Two cross-cutting rules change the economics. The amount is converted at the Central Bank effective selling and/or cross rate on the date of determination, not the date of the transaction (Article 20(6)). And on five routes the foreign currency is sold to a Turkish bank and by that bank to the Central Bank before the transaction, with the lira proceeds held for three years on the deposit, bond and pension routes, so the currency risk stays with the investor (Article 20(10)). Transition between investment types is possible for the purpose of completing the period (Article 20(8)). A property purchase may also qualify for VAT exemption, but that exemption carries its own three-year disposal rule, separate from the citizenship annotation (Law No. 3065, Article 13(i)).

The thresholds changed three times in five years, so the current amount and the current property definition must be verified at the time of application. The spouse is not carried along and children generally need to be processed together with the parent (Article 20 of Law No. 5901; Article 37 of the Regulation). Finally, meeting the investment condition opens the route but does not guarantee the outcome: the Law states that satisfying the conditions grants no absolute right (Article 10), refusal is mandatory where a national-security or public-order obstacle exists (Article 12), and the decision rests with the President. An acquisition can afterwards be annulled for false declaration (Article 31) or withdrawn where the legal conditions were never met (Article 40), a power the Council of State reviews on its ground element (10th Chamber, E. 2022/7637, K. 2025/3313).

Where a file goes wrong, three things decide the outcome, and all three are now measurable. Value is not one number: the price in the deed and the market value in the valuation report may lawfully diverge, but the determining authority reads them together, and a price once written cannot be corrected through the registry (10th Chamber, E. 2020/5861, K. 2024/6304). On a shared purchase the test is the value falling to each buyer, and where the threshold fell the figure in force at the date of application was applied (E. 2020/3336, K. 2024/3481).

Procedure is the second. The time limit for challenging an annulment or withdrawal is sixty days, suspension of execution requires two conditions together, venue follows the authority that made the act, and land register disputes go to the civil courts. Evidence is the third. The Council of State has annulled withdrawals resting on abstract intelligence (E. 2022/7637, K. 2025/3313; E. 2021/279, K. 2025/3174) while upholding one supported by a detailed evidential record (E. 2023/4836, K. 2024/6781). The test is stable; what decides a case is the concrete material the administration puts in the file.

⚠ These decisions date from 2021 to 2025 and should be read with their dates. Both the secondary legislation and the administrative practice in this field change; the current amount, the current property definition and the current determination procedure must be verified separately at the time of application.