Blog › Turkish Citizenship Law Portal › Article 12

Article 12 of Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901: Exceptional Citizenship and Turkish Citizenship by Investment (CBI Turkey)

Key Points

I. Introduction

Turkish citizenship may be acquired by birth or subsequently. Within the second category, Law No. 5901 recognises several routes through which citizenship is acquired by a decision of the competent authority. Article 12 establishes a distinct mechanism among them: the exceptional acquisition of Turkish citizenship.^[1]

For most foreign investors, Article 12 is the provision that matters. What the market calls Turkish citizenship by investment, CBI Turkey or the Turkish passport programme has no statute of its own. It is one branch of Article 12, added in 2016 and implemented through the Regulation. Reading the investment route in isolation from Article 12 therefore gives an incomplete picture of both the opportunity and the legal risk.

The exceptional character of Article 12 does not mean that citizenship follows automatically once a foreigner falls within one of the listed categories. The wording is permissive: qualifying foreigners may acquire Turkish citizenship by presidential decision, subject in every case to the absence of an impediment in terms of national security and public order. The questions examined below are therefore who falls within Article 12, what follows legally from satisfying one of its categories, how the security condition operates, how far administrative discretion extends, and what the administrative courts do when an application is rejected or a citizenship decision is later withdrawn.

II. The Legal Framework of Article 12

A. Four Categories of Exceptional Citizenship

Article 12 forms part of the system of subsequent acquisition by decision of the competent authority. Its defining feature is that it opens an exceptional route for specifically identified groups instead of requiring the general conditions of Article 11.^[2]

The first group consists of persons who bring industrial facilities to Türkiye or who have rendered, or are considered likely to render, outstanding services in the fields listed, and for whom the relevant ministries submit a reasoned proposal. The second, added in 2016, covers holders of the investor residence permit under Article 31(1)(j) of Law No. 6458, Turquoise Card holders and specified family members. The third consists of persons whose naturalisation is considered necessary. The fourth covers persons accepted as immigrants, a status governed by the Settlement Law No. 5543.^[3]

The provision is therefore broader than Turkish citizenship by investment. Investment is one route within Article 12; Article 12 is not an investment-citizenship provision as such.

B. How Article 12 Differs from the General Route in Article 11

Under Article 11, a foreigner applying for citizenship through the general route must, among other conditions, be of full age, have resided in Türkiye without interruption for five years before the application, show an intention to settle, have no illness endangering public health, be of good moral character, speak sufficient Turkish, have income or a profession to support themselves and their dependants, and have no impediment in terms of national security and public order.^[4]

Article 12 does not repeat these conditions. In particular, it requires neither five years of residence, nor Turkish language ability, nor an intention to settle. The only general condition it carries over expressly is the last one. This is why the CBI Turkey route allows an investor and the investor’s family to apply for a Turkish passport without having lived in the country.

C. National Security and Public Order as a Common Condition

One requirement extends across the whole of Article 12: the foreigner must have no condition constituting an impediment in terms of national security and public order. It appears in the opening words of the first paragraph and so qualifies all four categories. Article 12(2), added in 2017, attaches an express consequence: applications of persons with such an impediment are rejected by the Ministry.^[5]

National security and public order allow the administration to consider information that goes beyond the documents in the application file, including archive and intelligence records. For an investor, this is the stage at which an application that is complete on paper can still fail. Characterising the field as one of sovereignty does not, however, take the decision outside administrative law, as Section V explains.

D. Eligibility Is Not an Entitlement

The 2009 text already used the formulation that the listed foreigners “may” acquire Turkish citizenship, and that wording has survived every amendment.^[6] Article 12 creates a legal route through which exceptional acquisition can occur; it does not create an automatic administrative consequence once the applicant shows membership of a category or completion of an investment. The Tenth Chamber of Danıştay proceeds from the same premise, describing citizenship as a field in which the State has broad discretion rooted in sovereignty.^[7]

III. Turkish Citizenship by Investment (CBI Turkey) under Article 12(1)(b)

A. The Statutory Chain

The investment route rests on three linked provisions. Law No. 6735 of 2016 added a new short-term residence permit to Article 31(1)(j) of Law No. 6458 for foreigners who do not work in Türkiye but who invest in the scope and amount determined by the President, and it added Article 12(1)(b) to Law No. 5901, bringing holders of that permit within exceptional citizenship.^[8] Article 20(2) of the Implementing Regulation then provides that a foreigner who satisfies any one of the investment conditions listed there may acquire Turkish citizenship by presidential decision within the scope of Article 12(1)(b).^[9]

In practice the sequence is: the investment is made; the competent authority for that investment type issues a certificate of conformity (uygunluk belgesi); the investor obtains the Article 31(1)(j) residence permit; and the citizenship application is filed and examined, including the security and archive inquiry.

B. Investment Options and Current Thresholds

The Regulation currently recognises seven Turkey CBI routes:

The thresholds, holding periods and documentary requirements are set by the Regulation, not by the Law, and can be changed by presidential decision without an amendment of Article 12. Investors should confirm the figures in force on the date of their investment.

C. How the Regulation Has Changed, 2017 to 2022

The investment categories were first written into Article 20 of the Regulation with effect from 12 January 2017, at USD 1,000,000 for real estate, USD 2,000,000 for fixed capital, USD 3,000,000 for deposits and government debt instruments, and 100 jobs. On 19 September 2018 the thresholds were reduced to USD 250,000 for real estate, USD 500,000 for the other financial routes and 50 jobs, and the investment fund route was reduced to USD 500,000. An amendment of 7 December 2018 extended the real estate route to notarised promissory sale contracts under specified conditions. On 6 January 2022 the option of investing the Turkish lira equivalent was removed and the routes were tied to foreign currency. Finally, the amendment published on 13 May 2022 raised the real estate threshold to USD 400,000 with effect from 13 June 2022 and added the private pension route.^[10]

The date of the investment therefore determines which threshold applies. A property bought between 19 September 2018 and 12 June 2022 is assessed against USD 250,000; one bought on or after 13 June 2022 against USD 400,000.

D. Family Members

Article 12(1)(b) extends to the investor’s foreign spouse and to the minor or dependent foreign children of the investor and the spouse. Whether a child’s age is assessed on the application date or on the date of the presidential decision is not settled by the text; the issue reached Danıştay in the case discussed in Section VI.C but was not decided.

IV. Legislative Background and Development of Article 12

A. The Original 2009 Design

Law No. 5901 was adopted on 29 May 2009 and published in the Official Gazette on 12 June 2009. The bill was registered in Parliament as Esas No. 1/458, and the Interior Affairs Committee report was published as Sıra Sayısı 90.^[11]

The 2009 provision stated that, provided there was no impediment in terms of national security and public order, three categories of foreigners could acquire citizenship upon the proposal of the Ministry and the decision of the Council of Ministers: persons bringing industrial facilities or providing outstanding services; persons whose naturalisation was considered necessary; and persons accepted as immigrants. Two features that remain fundamental were therefore present from the start: exceptional categories and a security condition.

The original article reasoning (madde gerekçesi) explains the structure enacted in 2009. It cannot explain elements introduced later, in particular the investment category and Article 12(2), and should not be cited as if it did.

B. The 2016 Expansion

Article 27 of Law No. 6735 inserted the present subparagraph (b) into Article 12(1). This is the amendment that gave Article 12 its modern practical weight: it is the statutory hook on which the whole of CBI Turkey hangs, with the operative categories and amounts supplied by the Regulation as described in Section III.^[12]

C. The Addition of Article 12(2) in 2017

Article 29 of Law No. 7039 added the second paragraph. The original article already made absence of a security impediment a condition; the new paragraph added an express consequence where the impediment exists and identified the Ministry as the rejecting authority. The provision now works at two levels: paragraph 1 sets the condition, paragraph 2 regulates what happens when it is not met.^[13]

D. From the Council of Ministers to the President

Article 188 of Decree-Law No. 700 replaced the reference to the Ministry’s proposal and the Council of Ministers’ decision with “the President”, with effect from the transition to the presidential system in July 2018.^[14] Older judgments and legislative materials remain useful, but their institutional terminology must be read according to the law in force at the relevant time. The change also has a procedural consequence: annulment actions against presidential decisions are heard by Danıştay at first instance, whereas ministerial rejections go to the administrative courts.^[15]

V. Administrative Discretion and Its Limits

Citizenship establishes a legal bond between the individual and the State, and the legislature has assigned the decision to admit a foreigner to the highest level of the executive. That is why the administration has broad discretion and why satisfying formal requirements is not an enforceable claim to naturalisation. Academic commentary likewise treats Article 12 as a distinct exceptional route and stresses the breadth of discretion created by the security condition; Şit Köşgeroğlu’s study is particularly useful on the history of the institution and the 2016 expansion.^[16]

Broad discretion is not unlimited discretion. In its judgment of 4 February 2026 concerning citizenship acquired under Article 12, the Tenth Chamber, having recognised the State’s sovereign discretion, held that an administrative act must rest on a lawful cause (sebep): the reason relied upon must be real, meaning established through proper findings, and it must be one capable in law of supporting the measure.^[17]

The distinction that follows is between a court substituting its own view on who should become a citizen, which is not the function of judicial review, and a court examining whether the decision has a sufficient factual and legal basis, which is. For applicants this means that a rejection on security grounds is reviewable, but the review concerns the existence and legal relevance of the reason, not the merits of the applicant’s investment.

VI. Article 12 in Danıştay Case Law

Not every judgment that mentions Article 12 answers the same question. Some concern jurisdiction or appellate procedure, some the family wording of subparagraph (b), and some arise after citizenship has been acquired. Each is described below for what it decides and what it does not.

A. Rejection of an Article 12 Application and the Competent Court: E. 2023/2013, K. 2023/2321, 27.04.2023

Yemeni nationals whose exceptional citizenship applications had been rejected by the Ministry of Interior brought an annulment action directly before Danıştay. The Tenth Chamber did not examine whether the rejection was lawful. It held that the dispute was not among those Danıştay hears at first instance, declined jurisdiction and transferred the file to the Ankara Administrative Court.^[18]

The judgment shows that a ministerial rejection under Article 12 is open to judicial challenge and identifies the first-instance forum. It does not lay down a substantive test for reviewing the rejection.

B. A Security-Based Refusal under Article 12(1)(c): E. 2024/5165, K. 2024/4102, 17.10.2024

Syrian nationals had applied under Article 12(1)(c) and were refused on the ground that circumstances constituting a public-order and national-security impediment existed. The administrative court dismissed their action and the Regional Administrative Court rejected their appeal. The Tenth Chamber held that the regional court’s decision was final under the applicable procedural rules and could not be appealed to Danıştay.^[19]

The case illustrates how central the security condition is in refusal litigation, and that such disputes may end at the regional administrative court. It should not be cited for any substantive proposition on the security assessment, which the Chamber did not reach.

C. Article 12(1)(b), Minor Children and Timing: E. 2019/12203, K. 2023/6981, 16.11.2023

A parent applied under Article 12(1)(b) for himself, his spouse and their minor children. One child was under eighteen on the application date but had reached majority by the date of the presidential decision and was left out of it. The question was whether age is to be assessed at the application or at the decision. During the proceedings the claimant acquired citizenship separately under Article 12(1)(c), and the Chamber held that the action had become devoid of subject matter.^[20]

The decision identifies a real interpretive issue for investor families but does not resolve it. Until it is resolved, families with a child close to eighteen should plan the timing of a Turkish citizenship by investment application accordingly.

D. Withdrawal under Article 40 on Security Grounds: E. 2024/3835, K. 2026/324, 04.02.2026

Article 40 concerns withdrawal of a citizenship decision that is later understood to have been taken without the legal conditions being met.^[21] It is not part of Article 12, but where citizenship was acquired under Article 12 an Article 40 judgment shows what the Article 12 conditions required at the moment of acquisition.

The claimant had acquired citizenship under Article 12(1)(c) by presidential decision. The decision was later withdrawn after intelligence information suggested a national-security or public-order concern. The Chamber drew a temporal distinction: withdrawal on the ground that the legal conditions had not been fulfilled requires the impediment to have existed at or before the date of acquisition, even if it became known only later. Facts arising after acquisition cannot ordinarily be treated as proof that the conditions for the original decision never existed.^[22]

On the material before it, the Chamber found that a sufficient security basis at the relevant time had not been established, held the withdrawal unlawful as to its cause and annulled the relevant part of the presidential decision.

E. Withdrawal of Investment-Based Citizenship: E. 2024/405, K. 2026/361, 05.02.2026

The following day the same Chamber decided a case concerning citizenship acquired under Article 12(1)(b) through the investment route. The foreign-exchange purchase documents underlying the investment were found to have been falsely prepared and the certificate of conformity was cancelled. Danıştay upheld the withdrawal under Article 40.^[23]

The two judgments address different defects. In E. 2024/3835 an alleged security impediment was not shown to exist at the relevant time; in E. 2024/405 an investment condition that had to exist at acquisition did not. For CBI Turkey applicants the second judgment is the practical warning: a Turkish passport obtained on defective investment documents remains exposed to withdrawal after it is issued. Article 40 withdrawal should also be distinguished from annulment under Article 31, which applies where the acquisition resulted from the person’s own false statement or concealment of material facts.^[24]

VII. Assessment and Conclusion

Article 12 has developed from a compact 2009 provision into one of the most practically significant mechanisms in contemporary Turkish citizenship law. Its original architecture is still visible: a specially identified category, and no impediment concerning national security and public order. The amendments added the investment and Turquoise Card category, expressly regulated rejection, and moved the final decision to the President. None of them turned exceptional citizenship into an automatic right.

Three conclusions follow from the case law. First, eligibility and acquisition are not the same thing; an investment that meets the Regulation places the foreigner within Article 12 but citizenship still depends on the presidential decision and the security condition. Second, the State’s discretion is broad, but the reason for a refusal or a withdrawal must be real and legally sufficient and is open to review. Third, the judgments must be read for what they decide: E. 2023/2013 concerns the competent court, E. 2024/5165 the finality of the regional court’s decision, and E. 2019/12203 became moot; only the Article 40 judgments of February 2026 engage with the substance of the Article 12 conditions.

Turkish citizenship by investment is therefore neither a mechanical entitlement triggered by a USD 400,000 purchase nor an area closed to legal review. It is a discretionary form of acquisition established and bounded by statute. The practical lesson for investors is that a CBI Turkey file has to be sound at three points: the investment and its documentation, the security and archive inquiry, and the continued validity of the conditions on which the citizenship decision was based.

VIII. Frequently Asked Questions on CBI Turkey and Article 12

What is the legal basis of Turkish citizenship by investment?

Article 12(1)(b) of Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901, read with Article 31(1)(j) of Law No. 6458 and Article 20(2) of the Implementing Regulation. CBI Turkey is a branch of exceptional citizenship, not a separate law.

What is the minimum investment for CBI Turkey in 2026?

USD 400,000 for real estate, held for three years, and USD 500,000 for fixed capital investment, bank deposits, government debt instruments, investment fund units or private pension contributions. The employment route requires at least 50 jobs.

Is a Turkish passport guaranteed once the investment is made?

No. Article 12 provides that qualifying foreigners may acquire citizenship by presidential decision, and only where there is no impediment in terms of national security and public order. The investment creates eligibility, not an entitlement.

Do investors have to live in Türkiye or speak Turkish?

No. The five-year residence and Turkish language conditions of Article 11 do not apply to exceptional acquisition under Article 12.

Can a rejected Article 12 application be challenged in court?

Yes. A ministerial rejection is an administrative act and can be challenged by an annulment action before the administrative court. The court reviews whether the reason relied upon is real and legally sufficient.

Can Turkish citizenship by investment be withdrawn later?

Yes. Under Article 40, a citizenship decision is withdrawn if it is later understood that the legal conditions were not met when it was granted, for example where the investment documents prove to be false. Danıştay upheld such a withdrawal in February 2026.

Notes

1. [1] Law No. 5901 on Turkish Citizenship (Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu), adopted 29 May 2009, Resmî Gazete, 12 June 2009, No. 27256. ↩
2. [2] Law No. 5901, Arts. 10–12. ↩
3. [3] Law No. 5901, Art. 12(1)(a)–(d). On immigrant status see Law No. 5543 on Settlement (İskân Kanunu). ↩
4. [4] Law No. 5901, Art. 11(1). ↩
5. [5] Law No. 5901, Art. 12(2), added by Law No. 7039, Art. 29. ↩
6. [6] Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu Tasarısı ve İçişleri Komisyonu Raporu, Esas No. 1/458, Sıra Sayısı 90, 23rd Legislative Term, 3rd Legislative Year; original Article 12 and its madde gerekçesi (hereinafter “TBMM Report”). ↩
7. [7] Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2024/3835, K. 2026/324, T. 04.02.2026. ↩
8. [8] Law No. 6735 on International Labour Force (Uluslararası İşgücü Kanunu), Art. 27; Law No. 6458, Art. 31(1)(j). ↩
9. [9] Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik, Resmî Gazete, 6 April 2010, No. 27544, Art. 20(2), as amended (hereinafter “Regulation”). ↩
10. [10] Council of Ministers Decision No. 2016/9601, Resmî Gazete, 12 January 2017, No. 29946; Presidential Decision No. 106, Resmî Gazete, 19 September 2018, No. 30540; Presidential Decision No. 418, Resmî Gazete, 7 December 2018; Presidential Decision No. 5072, Resmî Gazete, 6 January 2022; Presidential Decision No. 5554, Resmî Gazete, 13 May 2022, No. 31834. ↩
11. [11] See supra note 1; TBMM Report, supra note 6. ↩
12. [12] Law No. 6735, Art. 27; Regulation, supra note 9, Art. 20(2). ↩
13. [13] Law No. 7039, Art. 29. ↩
14. [14] Decree-Law No. 700 (KHK No. 700), Art. 188, replacing “Bakanlığın teklifi, Bakanlar Kurulunun” with “Cumhurbaşkanı” in Article 12(1). ↩
15. [15] Law No. 2575 on the Council of State (Danıştay Kanunu), Art. 24(1)(a); see also Sections VI.A and VI.D. ↩
16. [16] Banu Şit Köşgeroğlu, “İstisnai Yoldan Vatandaşlığın Kazanılmasına İlişkin Genel Esaslar ve Son Değişiklikler Çerçevesinde Türk Vatandaşlığının İstisnai Yoldan Kazanılması,” Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 7, No. 1 (2017), pp. 169–198. ↩
17. [17] Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2024/3835, supra note 7. ↩
18. [18] Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2023/2013, K. 2023/2321, T. 27.04.2023. ↩
19. [19] Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2024/5165, K. 2024/4102, T. 17.10.2024. ↩
20. [20] Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2019/12203, K. 2023/6981, T. 16.11.2023. ↩
21. [21] Law No. 5901, Art. 40. ↩
22. [22] Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2024/3835, supra note 7. ↩
23. [23] Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2024/405, K. 2026/361, T. 05.02.2026. ↩
24. [24] Law No. 5901, Art. 31. ↩

Selected Bibliography

1. Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi (TBMM), Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu Tasarısı ve İçişleri Komisyonu Raporu, Esas No. 1/458, Sıra Sayısı 90, 23rd Legislative Term, 3rd Legislative Year.
2. Law No. 5901 on Turkish Citizenship (Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu), Resmî Gazete, 12 June 2009, No. 27256.
3. Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu), Art. 31(1)(j).
4. Law No. 6735 on International Labour Force (Uluslararası İşgücü Kanunu), Art. 27.
5. Law No. 7039, Art. 29.
6. Decree-Law No. 700 (KHK No. 700), Art. 188.
7. Law No. 5543 on Settlement (İskân Kanunu).
8. Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelik, Resmî Gazete, 6 April 2010, No. 27544, Art. 20, as amended.
9. Şit Köşgeroğlu, Banu, “İstisnai Yoldan Vatandaşlığın Kazanılmasına İlişkin Genel Esaslar ve Son Değişiklikler Çerçevesinde Türk Vatandaşlığının İstisnai Yoldan Kazanılması,” Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 7, No. 1 (2017), pp. 169–198.
10. Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2023/2013, K. 2023/2321, T. 27.04.2023.
11. Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2019/12203, K. 2023/6981, T. 16.11.2023.
12. Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2024/5165, K. 2024/4102, T. 17.10.2024.
13. Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2024/3835, K. 2026/324, T. 04.02.2026.
14. Danıştay 10. Daire, E. 2024/405, K. 2026/361, T. 05.02.2026.