Law 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection No.6458  provides for protection from refoulement. Article 4 provides that no one within the scope of this Law may be sent to a place where they would be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment, or where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

Article 4 is within Part I of the Law under the title of “Purpose, Scope, Definitions and Non-Refoulement”; it is applicable for all foreigners covered by the Law regardless of their legal and protection statuses, irregularity, eligibility for expulsion, inadmissibility and so on. 

Additionally, Article 55 (1) provides that deportation decision must not be issued in respect of those foreigners listed below regardless of whether they are within the scope of Article 54:

a) when there are serious indications to believe that they shall be subjected to the death penalty, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country to which they shall be returned to;

b) who would face risk due to serious health condition, age or, pregnancy in case of travel;

c) who would not be able to receive treatment in the country to which they shall be returned while undergoing treatment for a life threatening health condition;

ç) victims of human trafficking, supported by the victim’s assistance programme;

d) victims of serious psychological, physical or sexual violence, until their treatment is completed.

Under Article 55(2) assessment within the scope of Article 55(1) must be made on case by case basis. These persons may be asked to reside at a given address and report to authorities in form and periods as requested.

However, implementation concerns have arisen in case law. For instance, in Akkad v Türkiye, the ECtHR found violations of Articles 3, 5 and 13 ECHR in relation to the forced return of a Syrian temporary protection holder to Syria under the guise of ‘voluntary return’.1 In Abdulkerim Hammud, the Turkish Constitutional Court similarly found violations of Article 17 and Article 40 of the Constitution where a Syrian temporary protection holder was returned on the basis of a voluntary repatriation form without sufficient safeguards showing informed and conscious consent.2

• 1

  ECtHR, Akkad v Türkiye, Application No 1557/19, 21 June 2022. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-218581%22]}.

• 2

  Turkish Constitutional Court, Application No 2019/24388, 2 May 2023. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/media/9412/2023_selected_judgments.pdf.