A retired teacher from Hamburg hits a pedestrian on a coastal road near Antalya. The pedestrian is injured, not badly, and the police take him to the station. By evening he is released, with one condition read out in Turkish and translated in a few words: he may not leave Türkiye. His return flight is in four days. A German engineer finishing a project in Izmir is stopped at departure and told that a ban on travel abroad has been recorded against him in a fraud investigation started by a supplier. Neither of them has been charged, convicted or remanded. Both want to know the same things: what kind of order this is, how long it lasts, and how it can be changed.
In Turkish criminal procedure, a ban on leaving the country ordered by a criminal judge or court in such cases is an obligation of judicial control (adli kontrol) under Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 5271, CMK). This guide covers that criminal court ban. Administrative restrictions under other laws, and questions of entry or residence, are not the subject of this guide. The custody and remand stage that often comes before the ban is explained in the companion guide on a German citizen detained in Türkiye.
Where the exit ban comes from
Judicial control is the measure the Code places between release and remand. In an investigation, where the grounds for detention in Article 100 exist, the judge may place the suspect under judicial control instead of remanding him (CMK Article 109(1)). Judicial control can also be applied where the law bars remand (Article 109(2)), for example for offences carrying a maximum prison term of two years or less, other than intentional offences against bodily integrity (Article 100(4)).
Judicial control consists of one or more obligations listed in Article 109(3). The first of them is not leaving the country: “yurt dışına çıkamamak” (Article 109(3)(a)). Others include reporting regularly to places set by the judge (Article 109(3)(b)), not driving vehicles and handing in the driving licence (Article 109(3)(d)), depositing a security (Article 109(3)(f)), providing security for the victim’s rights (Article 109(3)(h)), and not leaving one’s home or a particular area (Article 109(3)(j) and (k)).
Who orders it depends on the stage:
- Investigation. The suspect may be placed under judicial control at any stage of the investigation by decision of the criminal judge of peace (sulh ceza hâkimi), on the public prosecutor’s request (CMK Article 110(1)).
- Trial. Once a case is before a court, Article 109 and the first two paragraphs of Article 110 are applied, where necessary, by the competent court at every stage of the trial (Article 110(3)).
Judicial control can be ordered at different moments, for example: when a suspect is brought before the judge at the end of police custody and the judge chooses judicial control instead of remand; when a remanded suspect is released on objection or on a release request; or later in the investigation on the prosecutor’s request, in which case a traveller may learn of it only at departure.
What the ban means and what it does not
The obligation is a restriction on leaving the country while the criminal file is open. It is not a conviction and it is not a finding that the person committed the offence. Time spent under judicial control is not deducted from a later sentence as a restriction of personal liberty; that rule does not apply to the treatment obligation and the obligation not to leave one’s home, and every two days under the latter count as one day of the sentence (CMK Article 109(6)).
It is also not a detention order, but it is enforced through the threat of one. A suspect who wilfully fails to comply with judicial control obligations can be remanded by the competent judicial authority, whatever the prison sentence that could be imposed (CMK Article 112(1)). A person under an exit ban who leaves the country by another route exposes himself to remand under that provision and has not ended the case.
The practical consequence for a German national is that the ban keeps him in Türkiye. He can live anywhere in the country unless the judge has also imposed an obligation not to leave his home or a particular area (Article 109(3)(j) and (k)).
How long it can last
The Code contains three separate time controls.
- Periodic review. Whether the judicial control obligation should continue is decided at intervals of four months at the latest: in the investigation by the criminal judge of peace on the prosecutor’s request, in the trial by the court of its own motion, in each case having regard to Article 109 (CMK Article 110(4)).
- Overall maximum. In cases that do not fall within the jurisdiction of the assize court (ağır ceza mahkemesi), judicial control may last at most two years, extendable by one year in compelling cases with reasons (Article 110/A(1)). In assize court cases the maximum is three years, extendable in compelling cases with reasons, the extensions together limited to three years, or four years for certain offences (Article 110/A(2)).
- End of the investigation. When a decision of non-prosecution is given, the suspect is free (Article 103(2)). If the prosecutor considers during the investigation that judicial control is no longer necessary, he releases the suspect of his own motion (Article 103(2)).
Which ceiling applies depends on the court that has jurisdiction over the offence, and the lawyer checks this on the file. Within the ceiling, the four-month review is the point at which the necessity of the ban has to be decided again.
Changing or lifting the ban: the request to the judge
The first route is a request. On the suspect’s request, after taking the public prosecutor’s opinion, the judge or court may decide within five days under Article 110(2) (CMK Article 111(1)). Article 110(2) gives the judge a wide range: he may add new obligations, lift the obligations in whole or in part, change them, or temporarily exempt the suspect from some of them.
That range is what makes a request worth preparing. The ban can be lifted outright, or it can be replaced by an obligation that meets the same purpose without keeping the person in Türkiye, or it can be suspended for a defined period. A request is stronger when it addresses the reason the ban was imposed and offers a concrete alternative. Material that can be relevant in files involving German nationals:
- a registered address in Germany and an address for service in Türkiye through the lawyer;
- an employment contract, a business registration or a pension record showing ties to Germany;
- family in Germany, especially dependants;
- the stage of the investigation: whether the suspect’s statement has been taken, whether expert reports have been obtained, whether witnesses have been heard;
- in a traffic accident or injury case, whether the victim has been compensated or whether settlement through conciliation (uzlaşma) is under way, where the offence is one for which conciliation is attempted (CMK Article 253(1));
- an offer of an alternative obligation from Article 109(3), such as a security deposit (Article 109(3)(f)) or providing security for the victim’s rights (Article 109(3)(h)).
There is no time limit on a request. It can be made as soon as something has changed, and repeated when something else changes.
Challenging the ban: the objection
The second route is an objection (itiraz). Judicial control decisions can be challenged by objection (CMK Article 111(2)). The objection is made to the judge or court that gave the decision, by petition or by a declaration recorded by the court clerk, within two weeks of the day the person concerned learned of the decision (Article 268(1)). The judge whose decision is challenged corrects it if he finds the objection well founded; otherwise he sends it within three days at most to the authority competent to examine it (Article 268(2)). For judicial control decisions of a criminal judge of peace, that authority is the judge of the criminal court of first instance (asliye ceza mahkemesi) in its judicial district (Article 268(3)(b)).
The objection attacks the decision as it was made: whether there was a ground for detention at all, whether the decision gave reasons, whether the ban was proportionate. The request under Article 111(1) looks forward: whether, today, the ban is still needed. Where the two-week period is still open, both can be used. When it has passed, the request remains.
Request, objection and review compared
| Route | Filed with | Time limit | What it can achieve |
|---|---|---|---|
| Request to lift or change (CMK 111(1)) | The judge or court that has the file | None; decision may be given within five days | Lifting, change or temporary suspension of the ban (CMK 110(2)) |
| Objection (CMK 111(2), 268) | The judge who made the order, who corrects it or forwards it within three days | Two weeks from learning of the decision (CMK 268(1)) | Decision of the reviewing judge: for a criminal judge of peace, the criminal court of first instance judge (CMK 268(3)(b)) |
| Periodic review (CMK 110(4)) | Decided by the judge on the prosecutor’s request, or by the court of its own motion | At intervals of four months at the latest | Continuation or ending of judicial control |
| Overall time limit (CMK 110/A) | Applies by law | Two years plus one year outside assize court cases; three years plus extensions in assize court cases | Judicial control cannot run beyond the ceiling |
When the ban is lifted: what remains
Lifting the exit ban does not close the criminal file. The investigation or the trial continues, and the lawyer remains the point of contact for the prosecutor’s office and the court. Other judicial control obligations, such as reporting or a deposit, may stay in place, and the judge can impose new ones if circumstances change (CMK Article 110(2)). A non-prosecution decision or the end of the trial is what finally ends the file.
For a German national returning home, that means keeping the lawyer informed of any change of address in Germany, answering correspondence about the case, and planning for any hearing at which the court asks for personal attendance.
How Lex Lata works on exit ban files
Lex Lata advises on Turkish criminal procedure and acts before the criminal judges of peace and the criminal courts. On an exit ban file, the lawyer first establishes which prosecutor’s office or court ordered the ban and on which file, examines the investigation file and obtains copies of the decision and documents (CMK Article 153(1)), unless the judge has restricted that access (Article 153(2)), checks whether the two-week objection period is still open, and then prepares either an objection, a request under Article 111(1) with an alternative obligation, or both. Reports go to the client in English or Turkish. German law, German employment questions and any German side of the matter belong to a Rechtsanwalt in Germany. For the wider context of a Turkish matter run from Germany, see our overview for clients in Germany, and for the full structure of Turkish criminal procedure our guide to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
