“Sham” Marriages Involving Foreigners in Turkey

I. Introduction

Marriage, as a legal and social institution, occupies a central position in Turkish law. It is protected not only by statutory provisions of the Turkish Civil Code but also by constitutional principles and international human rights norms. However, when marriage becomes a means rather than an end — particularly in the context of migration — its legal characterization shifts from a private family matter to a public-order concern.

In Turkey, marriages involving foreign nationals are increasingly subjected to administrative and judicial scrutiny, especially when such marriages lead to applications for residence permits or Turkish citizenship. The phenomenon commonly referred to as muvazaalı evlilik (sham marriage) describes situations in which parties formally conclude a marriage without the genuine intention of establishing a marital union, instead aiming to obtain legal advantages such as residence rights, protection from deportation, or access to citizenship.

This article focuses on the practical legal assessment of sham marriages involving foreigners under Turkish law. Rather than limiting itself to abstract definitions, it analyzes how administrative authorities and courts identify sham marriages, what evidentiary indicators are considered decisive, and what legal consequences follow. Particular emphasis is placed on the interaction between family law and migration law, an area where legal uncertainty and inconsistent practice frequently arise.

II. Legal Nature of Marriage and the Concept of Sham Marriage

A. Marriage as a Legal Act under Turkish Law

Under the Turkish Civil Code (TCC), marriage is a formal legal act requiring mutual consent, legal capacity, and compliance with prescribed procedural requirements. The essence of marriage lies not merely in its formality but in the parties’ intention to establish a shared life characterized by mutual support, loyalty, and cohabitation.

Although Turkish law does not explicitly define “sham marriage” as a separate category, the concept emerges through the general doctrine of muvazaa and the rules governing invalidity and annulment of marriage. In this sense, a sham marriage is not one that is procedurally defective but one that is substantively inconsistent with the legal purpose of marriage.

B. Sham Marriage (

Muvazaalı Evlilik

) as a Doctrinal Construction

In private law theory, muvazaa refers to a discrepancy between the declared intent of the parties and their actual, hidden intent. Applied to marriage, the concept becomes more complex because marriage is not a purely contractual transaction but a status-creating act with public-law implications.

A sham marriage exists where:

• The parties outwardly express their consent to marry,
• Yet lack the genuine intention to establish a marital union,
• And pursue a different, concealed purpose, typically an immigration-related benefit.

Turkish courts approach sham marriage not as an automatic ground of nullity but as a factual circumstance that may justify annulment or administrative measures depending on the legal context.

III. Intersection of Family Law and Migration Law

A. Role of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection

The Law on Foreigners and International Protection (YUKK) constitutes the primary legal framework governing the entry, stay, and exit of foreign nationals in Turkey. While YUKK does not regulate marriage as such, it attaches significant legal consequences to marital status, particularly in relation to:

• Family residence permits,
• Short-term residence permits,
• Protection against deportation,
• Applications for Turkish citizenship under exceptional or general procedures.

As a result, marriage becomes a legally relevant fact not only in civil law but also in administrative migration law.

B. Administrative Suspicion and Preventive Logic

Migration authorities operate under a preventive logic aimed at safeguarding public order and preventing abuse of legal pathways. From this perspective, sham marriages are perceived as mechanisms for circumventing immigration controls.

This preventive approach often manifests in:

• Intensive document review,
• Separate interviews with spouses,
• Cross-checking residence and population records,
• Requests for additional proof of cohabitation.

While these measures are not inherently unlawful, their application raises questions concerning proportionality and respect for private and family life.

IV. Administrative Detection Mechanisms in Practice

A. Interviews and Behavioral Assessment

One of the most common administrative tools used to detect sham marriages is the interview process. Spouses may be questioned separately regarding:

• Daily routines,
• Living arrangements,
• Family members,
• Significant dates and personal details.

Discrepancies between statements are often cited as indicators of a non-genuine marriage. However, reliance on subjective assessments carries the risk of cultural bias, particularly in cross-cultural marriages.

B. Documentary Evidence and Cohabitation

Authorities frequently request documents demonstrating a shared life, such as:

• Joint rental contracts,
• Utility bills,
• Shared bank accounts,
• Photographs and communication records.

In practice, the absence of such documents may be interpreted as evidence of a sham marriage, even though Turkish family law does not impose a legal obligation of cohabitation in every circumstance.

C. Field Investigations and Third-Party Statements

In some cases, administrative authorities rely on neighborhood inquiries or third-party statements. While such methods may provide contextual information, they raise concerns regarding privacy and evidentiary reliability.

V. Judicial Review and Evidentiary Standards

A. Civil Court Proceedings: Annulment of Marriage

Civil courts assess sham marriage claims primarily within the framework of annulment actions. The claimant bears the burden of proof and must demonstrate that the marriage lacked genuine matrimonial intent from the outset.

Courts typically consider:

• Duration of the marriage,
• Conduct of the spouses,
• Consistency of testimonies,
• Presence or absence of a shared household.

Importantly, Turkish courts emphasize that motive alone is insufficient; the decisive element is whether the parties genuinely assumed the obligations of marriage.

B. Administrative Courts and Judicial Review

Administrative courts review decisions concerning residence permit refusals or cancellations based on alleged sham marriages. In this context, the court examines:

• Whether the administration conducted a sufficient investigation,
• Whether the decision is adequately reasoned,
• Whether proportionality and fundamental rights were respected.

Judicial practice demonstrates that courts are increasingly critical of decisions based solely on generalized suspicion or stereotypical assumptions.

VI. Legal Consequences of a Sham Marriage Finding

A. Residence Permit Revocation

If a marriage is deemed non-genuine, family residence permits granted on that basis may be revoked. This often results in:

• Loss of lawful stay,
• Obligation to leave the country,
• Risk of deportation proceedings.

B. Citizenship Applications

Turkish citizenship acquired or sought through marriage is particularly vulnerable to sham marriage allegations. Where fraud is established, citizenship applications may be rejected or, in certain circumstances, citizenship may be annulled.

C. Civil Status and Private Law Effects

Annulment of marriage affects:

• Property regimes,
• Inheritance rights,
• Social security entitlements.

However, Turkish law seeks to protect good-faith parties and third persons, limiting retroactive effects in certain situations.

VII. Human Rights Dimension: Family Life vs. Public Order

A. Constitutional and International Standards

The Turkish Constitution and international instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights protect the right to respect for family life. Any interference with this right must be:

• Prescribed by law,
• Pursue a legitimate aim,
• Be necessary and proportionate.

B. Balancing Test in Practice

Courts increasingly apply a balancing test, weighing:

• The state’s interest in preventing abuse,
• Against the individual’s right to family life.

Particularly where children or long-term cohabitation are involved, courts tend to scrutinize administrative actions more closely.

VIII. Critical Evaluation and Practical Recommendations

A. Need for Clearer Standards

The absence of a statutory definition of sham marriage leads to inconsistent practice. Clearer legislative or regulatory guidance would enhance legal certainty.

B. Evidentiary Proportionality

Authorities should avoid treating the absence of certain documents as conclusive proof. Cultural diversity and socio-economic realities must be considered.

C. Role of Legal Representation

Early access to legal counsel significantly improves procedural fairness. Lawyers play a crucial role in framing evidence and challenging unfounded assumptions.

IX. Conclusion

Sham marriages involving foreign nationals present a complex legal challenge at the intersection of family law and migration control. While preventing abuse of legal institutions is a legitimate state interest, measures taken must respect the fundamental nature of marriage and the right to family life.

A balanced, evidence-based, and rights-oriented approach is essential. Turkish legal practice is gradually evolving toward more nuanced assessments, but further doctrinal clarification and consistent judicial oversight remain necessary. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the legal response to sham marriages depends not on suspicion alone, but on the careful application of law, evidence, and fundamental rights.