CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s9E354500 { height:38.7pt } .sFA6A4DF3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.85pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA05D2921 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.85pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s87D973DC { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt 2.85pt 5.4pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEBCD263B { height:28.6pt } .sEFE2FACD { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sC50AE8B1 { height:42.4pt } .sC465E8B1 { height:42.3pt } .s643A6CC2 { height:50pt } .s57BD5D7A { height:28.75pt } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sDB3B4500 { height:32.3pt } .s3A366575 { height:37.15pt } .sA6DB4500 { height:35.6pt } .sCBBE263B { height:29.8pt } .sFBA46575 { height:35.95pt } .sD024500 { height:36.6pt } .sFCF26575 { height:35.75pt } .sBCF36575 { height:36.95pt } .sF410263B { height:25.2pt } .sDD446575 { height:31.55pt } .sF4B5263B { height:25.7pt } .s120F263B { height:24.8pt } .sBB84500 { height:36.8pt } Published on 2 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 37814/21 David Kim WILSON and Pamela Lynn WILSON against Türkiye and 19 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 16 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are foreign nationals who self-identify as adherents of the Protestant faith. They have lawfully resided in Türkiye for extended periods, holding either residence or work permits (see Column Z of the appended table for specific durations). On various dates, the applicants have either been denied re-entry into Türkiye or informed that their admission to the country is subject to prior approval by the Ministry of Interior. Concurrently, their residence or work permits were either revoked or not extended. Certain applicants were further denied a visa, and in the case of applicant no. 8, a deportation order was issued (see Column Q of the appended table for the impugned measures). The applicants challenged these measures before the domestic courts. In the course of the domestic proceedings, it was established that these measures stemmed from the imposition of specific travel restrictions on the applicants (see Column Y of the appended table for the N-82 ‘istizan’ or the G-82 ‘milli güvenlik aleyhine faaliyet’ restriction codes). These codes had been issued on the basis of undisclosed information obtained from the National Intelligence Agency ( Milli İstihbarat Teşkilatı ). Ultimately, the applicants’ appeals were all dismissed by the domestic courts. The Turkish Constitutional Court, in its plenary decision of 15   February 2025 (no. 2019/40761), examined the applications of nine foreign nationals, including some of the present applicants. These individuals had similarly complained of the restriction imposed on them and the alleged interference with their rights, primarily under Articles 8, 9, 13 and 14 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. Addressing the complaints related to freedom of religion, the majority of the Constitutional Court declared them inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. Concerning the complaints regarding procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens, the majority held that there had been no violation, with the exception of applicant no. 7, whose specific claim under this head was also declared inadmissible as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Constitution. For the remaining applicants, their appeals were all dismissed by the Constitutional Court through summary decisions rendered on various dates. The applicants complain under Article 8, read in conjunction with Article   13 of the Convention, that the restrictions imposed on them disrupted their settled presence and family life in Türkiye and that no effective domestic remedies were available for these complaints. They additionally allege that the measures imposed targeted their religious activities as adherents of the Protestant faith, thereby constituting a breach of their freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles   13 and 14. They finally invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, contending that domestic authorities did not comply with their procedural obligations for the expulsion of residents lawfully present within their territory. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES (For all applicants save for applicants nos. 1, 3 and 5) 1.     (a) Were the applicants lawfully resident in Türkiye? If so, did the restrictions imposed on the applicants amount to expulsions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (compare Nolan and K. v. Russia , no. 2512/04, §§ 109-113, 12 February 2009; Ljatifi v.   the   former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 19017/16, §§   19-23, 17   May 2018; and Yildirim v. Romania (dec.), no. 21186/02, 20   September 2007)? (b)     Did the decisions to expel the applicants – as aliens who were lawfully resident in the territory of the respondent State – comply with the procedural requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (see Muhammad and Muhammad v.   Romania [GC], no. 80982/12, §§ 114-24, 15 October 2020, and Demirci v.   Hungary , no. 48302/21, §§ 37-62, 6 May 2025)? (For all applicants save for applicants nos. 8 and 19) 2.     Did the restrictions imposed on the applicants constitute an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Savran v. Denmark [GC], no.   57467/15, §§ 172-79, 7 December 2021)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no.   46410/99, §§   54-67, ECHR 2006-XII; Maslov v.   Austria   [GC], no.   1638/03, §§   61-101, ECHR 2008; Nolan and K. v. Russia, cited above, §§   83-89; and Dzhurayev and Shalkova v. Russia , no.   1056/15, §§   30-45, 25   October 2016)? (For all applicants save for applicant no. 9) 3.     Did the restrictions imposed on the applicants constitute an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of religion within the meaning of Article   9 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in a democratic society in terms of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Perry v. Latvia , no. 30273/03, §§ 62-66, 8 November 2007; Nolan and K ., cited above, §§ 61-75; and Corley and Others v. Russia , nos.   292/06 and 43490/06, §§ 77-89, 23 November 2021)? (For all applicants) 4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 8 and 9, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia , no. 71156/01, §§ 126-37, 3   May 2007; and Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, § 99, 26 July 2011)? In particular; (i)     What was the scope of review of the administrative courts and the Turkish Constitutional Court which examined the applicants’ complaints in connection with the restrictions imposed? Was the judicial review limited to ascertaining that the restrictions had been imposed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and, in particular, that the materials which formed the basis for the restrictions had been issued within the administrative competence of the National Intelligence Agency? In this respect, did the domestic courts conduct a balancing exercise between the need to protect national security and the applicants’ rights under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7? (ii)     Were the classified materials from the National Intelligence Agency disclosed to the applicants or their representatives? Was the applicant given a fair and reasonable opportunity to refute the facts and findings contained in those materials? In particular, did the courts examine other pieces of evidence to confirm or refute the allegations against the applicant? (For all applicants save for applicant no. 1) 5.     In their exercise of the freedoms protected under Article 9 of the Convention, were the applicants victims of discrimination in relation to their religion, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 9 (see, mutatis mutandis , Centre of Societies for Krishna Consciousness in Russia and Frolov v. Russia , no. 37477/11, §§   35-44, 23   November 2021; and Ossewaarde v. Russia , no. 27227/17, §§   48-57, 7   March 2023)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case title Nationality Impugned measures (Q) Applicable restriction code (Y) Duration of residence in Türkiye (Z) 1 37814/21 Wilson v. Türkiye United States of America Prohibited re-entry into Türkiye G-82 Since 1988 2 14006/22 Hoard v. Türkiye United States of America Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye and subsequent visa application rejected N-82 Since 1989 3 31888/22 M.Z. v. Türkiye United Kingdom Requirement of prior authorization for re-entry into Türkiye and non-renewal of existing residence permit N-82 Since 2009 4 5509/23 Watson v. Türkiye United States of America Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye, non-renewal of existing residence permit and subsequent visa application rejected N-82 Since 2009 5 21827/23 R.Z. v. Türkiye United Kingdom Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye N-82 Since 2009 6 19796/24 Wood v. Türkiye United States of America Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye and subsequent visa application rejected N-82 Since 2009 7 25845/24 Bradtke v. Türkiye Australia Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye and non-renewal of existing residence permit N-82 Since 2016 8 26450/24 Feulner v. Türkiye Germany Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye, revocation of residence permit and issuance of a deportation order N-82 Since approximately 2005 9 31884/24 Horn v. Türkiye United States of America Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye and revocation of work permit N-82 Since 2011 10 8962/25 Helsby v. Türkiye United States of America Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye and non-renewal of existing residence permit N-82 Since 2020 11 9095/25 De Busk v. Türkiye United States of America Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye and non-renewal of existing residence permit N-82 Since 2012 12 10123/25 Buckland v. Türkiye United States of America Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye and revocation of residence permit N-82 Since 2019 13 11446/25 Madrigal Mir v. Türkiye Spain Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye, non-renewal of existing work permit and subsequent visa application rejected N-82 Since 2001 14 11648/25 Banker v. Türkiye Germany Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye N-82 Since 1982 15 13304/25 Zewge v. Türkiye The Netherlands Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye and non-renewal of existing residence permit N-82 Since 2016 16 15686/25 Siegrist v. Türkiye United States of America Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye and revocation of residence permit N-82 Since 2013 17 16316/25 Cassise v. Türkiye United States of America Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye N-82 Since 2014 18 20950/25 Foreman v. Türkiye United States of America Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye N-82 Since 2000 19 23008/25 Regez v. Türkiye Switzerland Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye and non-renewal of existing residence permit N-82 Since 2009 20 24965/25 Helsby v. Türkiye United States of America Requirement of prior authorisation for re-entry into Türkiye and non-renewal of existing residence permit N-82 Since 2020