KÜHEYLAN HUKUK
Case for Cancellation of the Appointment of the Candidate whose Security Investigation or Archive Research is Negative. The basis of the process according to the Law No. 7315, litigation in the Evaluation Commission and the administrative court. This guide has been prepared according to the current version of the Security Investigation and Archive Research Law No. 7315 and the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Council of State as of October 2026.
Failure to appoint a person who has passed the KPSS, TUS or another exam and has been placed on the staff due to the negative evaluation of the archive research or security investigation is an administrative procedure and may be subject to an annulment lawsuit in the administrative court within 60 days. The basis of the transaction is Law No. 7315, which entered into force on 17.04.2021. The law specifies what data to investigate, evaluate evaluation
It leaves it to the commission and requires the commission to provide an "objective and reasoned" written evaluation.
The decisions of the Council of State show that not every negative record automatically prevents the appointment, but when the administration can base its action on concrete facts and the nature of the task, the court finds the action lawful. This guide explains the litigation process and the criteria that stand out in the decisions.
1. What is Archive Research and Security Investigation?
For people who will be appointed to public office for the first time or re-appointed, records regarding the person's past are examined before the appointment is approved. There are two types of this review. According to Article 3 of Law No. 7315, archive research is carried out on everyone who will be appointed to civil service or public office, regardless of their status or type of employment. Security investigation, on the other hand, is applied to a narrower group. This group includes those who will work in classified units, personnel in the Ministry of National Defense, General Staff, gendarmerie, police, coast guard and intelligence agencies, those who will work in penal institutions, teachers who will work in public institutions and high-level public administrators. Archive research and security investigation are carried out together with these people.
Who is it about? Anyone who will be appointed to civil service or public office They will be assigned to the listed sensitive tasks (in addition to archive research)
Searched and threatened situation Whether he is wanted by the law enforcement or whether there is any restriction on him. Matters in archival research are also covered
criminal files Final decisions, decisions within the scope of CMK article 171/5 and article 231/13, facts in ongoing or concluded investigations and prosecutions Matters in archival research are also covered
Dismissal from public office Whether there is a penalty of dismissal from public service or final dismissal from civil service. Matters in archival research are also covered
Additional review None Factual data in law enforcement and intelligence units, relations with foreign state institutions and foreigners, unity of action, contact and affiliation with terrorist or criminal organizations; on-site research in addition to records
The investigation is carried out by the National Intelligence Organization, the General Directorate of Security and the local civil administration authorities (Art. 6). These units transmit the result to the Evaluation Commission in the relevant institution, not as a direct appointment decision, but as factual data without comment (Art. 7/2). The chief authorized to appoint decides upon the evaluation of the commission.
For a long time, the issue was carried out through Law No. 4045 and Regulations, with the condition that "the results of the security investigation and archive research should not be negative" in Article 48 of the Civil Servants Law No. 657. The Constitutional Court annulled these regulations with a series of decisions. The essence of the justification in these decisions is formal: the principles and guarantees of an investigation that amounts to interference with fundamental rights and freedoms must be determined by law.
Article 48/A-8 of Law No. 657: The Constitutional Court annulled it with its decision dated 24.07.2019 (E.2018/73, K.2019/65). The decision was published in the Official Gazette dated 29.11.2019.
Law No. 4045: The Constitutional Court annulled the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Law with its decision numbered E.2018/163, K.2020/13 (OG 28.04.2020), and part of the first paragraph with its decision numbered E.2020/24, K.2021/39.
Law No. 7315: The gap created by the annulment decisions was filled by Law No. 7315 dated 07.04.2021. The law entered into force on 17.04.2021 and repealed Law No. 4045 (Art. 13/8).
This transition period is important for the case. In its decision dated 09.12.2024 (E.2023/183, K.2024/3290, majority vote), the Council of State Administrative Case Chambers Board stated that the phrase "those who will be appointed to public services and duties for the first time or again" in the 2018 amendment of the old Security Investigation and Archive Research Regulation, the basis of which is Law No. 4045, is not lawful due to the removal of the basis law. accepted. Members who voted against came to a different conclusion, citing the provision of Article 14 of Law No. 7315 and the regulatory area of Article 3. It was also stated in the justification for the dissenting vote that the old Regulation was abolished in 2022 and that the new regulation was the Regulation dated 03.06.2022. Therefore, the legal regime applied must be determined by looking at the date on which an appointment was made.
The most important guarantee of Law No. 7315 is the commission stage. The commission consists of at least five and an odd number of members, including the chairman. Members include representatives of inspection or audit, personnel and legal units (Art. 7/1). The commission submits its objective and reasoned evaluation of the data transmitted to it in writing to the superior authorized to appoint. This evaluation is submitted to the court when the courts request it (Art. 7/3).
If there is no justification, there is no control: If the transaction is based only on the statement "security investigation is negative", the petition should ask for an explanation on which concrete fact this statement is based.
Data must be fact, not interpretation: The law requires units to submit “factual data without interpretation” to the commission. Abstract doubt or conviction does not fit this definition.
The person's right to be informed: The person may request information, access, correction and deletion of his personal data that are not subject to intelligence activity (Art. 8/1). Intelligence information regarding national defence, national security, public security, public order and economic security is not given to the person (Article 8/3).
Data retention period: Data is deleted after two years. However, if a lawsuit has been filed against the transaction, the decision cannot be deleted before it becomes final (Art. 10/3). This provision prevents evidence from being destroyed while the case is pending.
In its decision dated 16.09.2025 (E.2024/5226, K.2025/6881, unanimous), the 8th Chamber of the Council of State examined the non-appointment of a candidate placed in medical specialty training. It was decided to postpone the announcement of the verdict due to the candidate's posts on the website for "insulting a segment of the public". The regional administrative court annulled the transaction on the grounds that it was not demonstrated with concrete data what kind of obstacle these facts constituted to appointment to specialist training. The Council of State overturned this annulment decision. According to the justification, subparagraph (ç) of the 1st paragraph of Article 4 of Law No. 7315 also includes the facts in the decisions regarding the postponement of the announcement of the verdict within the scope of archive research. When the nature of the acts and the nature of the public service carried out by the staff to be appointed are evaluated together, no unlawfulness was observed in the transaction. This decision is noteworthy as it shows that the facts in the criminal file can prevent the appointment even if there is no conviction.
In its decision dated 09.07.2025 (E.2025/2352, K.2025/3725, majority vote), the 12th Chamber of the Council of State examined the file of a plaintiff who was placed as a health technician and was not appointed because the archive research was negative. The Chamber accepted that the person placed in a certain position established a legal connection with the public office through the placement process, that failure to make the appointment subsequently resulted in removal from the status, and therefore, the appeal was open against the decisions of the regional administrative court. In the file of the first instance court, facts such as a Bylock signal whose content was not determined and staying in dormitories close to the organization were evaluated. The Chamber did not go into the merits of these facts, but only ruled that an appeal was open. In practice, this means that the file does not end in the regional administrative court but can be transferred to the Council of State.
The action in question: Non-appointment, cancellation of appointment approval or not starting to work, and rejection of the administrative objection against this action.
Duration: The lawsuit is filed within 60 days from the notification of the action (Law No. 2577, Art. 7). If an administrative objection application has been made, the period starts again upon notification of the response to the objection or upon the rejection being deemed after the 30-day period has passed (Art. 11).
Competent court: As a general rule, it is the administrative court where the administration that established the transaction is located (Art. 32). Separate authority rules regarding appointment should be examined separately.
Stay of execution: If there is a requirement to start working within the recruitment period, a stay of execution must be requested by showing that there is irreparable damage and that the action is clearly against the law.
Monetary rights: If an annulment decision is made, a request for full jurisdiction must also be made for the personal and monetary rights deprived of due to the transaction.
Reason element: Which record is relied on, whether the record is included in the census in Articles 4 and 5 of Law No. 7315 and whether it constitutes factual data.
Form and procedure: Whether the Evaluation Commission is duly formed and whether it presents a written, objective, reasoned evaluation.
Proportionality: The connection of the phenomenon with the task to be assigned. Unless the task to be assigned is sensitive, an old and minor incident is a weaker reason for rejection.
Status of the criminal file: Has the prosecution been concluded, is there a decision of acquittal, dismissal or non-prosecution? The finalized outcome affects the cause element of the transaction.
The following scenario is fictional; It has been prepared to explain a typical situation in practice.
In a fictional example, a candidate who was placed in the contracted health personnel position according to the KPSS result was found "negative" as a result of the archive research conducted before the appointment. No appointment was made, and the candidate was only informed in a short letter sent to the relevant institution. An investigation opened against the candidate in the past was closed with the decision that there was no need for prosecution.
First, the record that is the basis of the transaction must be determined. Closing the investigation with the decision that there is no need for prosecution does not prevent the facts from being evaluated within the scope of Article 4 of Law No. 7315. However, the administration must reveal the connection of this fact with the task to be assigned and the justified evaluation of the Evaluation Commission. The candidate must file an annulment lawsuit in the administrative court within 60 days, request the commission's written evaluation and request a stay of execution.
My appointment was not made on the grounds that "archive research was negative". How soon can I file a lawsuit?
An annulment lawsuit may be filed in the administrative court within 60 days from the notification of the transaction.
There is no final conviction against me. Can my appointment still be blocked?
Yes. Article 4 of Law No. 7315 allows the examination of facts in ongoing or concluded investigations and prosecutions, as well as finalized decisions. However, the connection and justification of this fact with the task to be appointed is checked in court.
Does the decision to postpone the announcement of the verdict prevent the appointment?
In its decision dated 16.09.2025, the 8th Chamber of the Council of State accepted that the facts in such decisions can be evaluated within the scope of archive research and found the procedure lawful in the concrete file. Each file is examined separately according to the nature of the act and the nature of the task.
Missing the deadline: A negative result is often communicated in a short text. Duration cannot be calculated without determining the notification date.
Relying solely on administrative appeal: Administrative appeal may not result in a new deadline in all cases. The duration of the lawsuit and the means of objection should be evaluated together.
Neglecting the criminal file: Developments in the criminal file that are the subject of archive research (acquittal, dismissal, no prosecution) should be added to the petition and evidence.
Security investigation and archive research disputes require striking a balance between the reliability of the public service, on the one hand, and the protection of one's access to public office and fundamental rights, on the other hand. Law No. 7315 tries to establish this balance by regulating the scope of the research, the commission's obligation to make a reasoned evaluation, and the retention period of the data. The decisions of the Council of State show that it is checked whether the action is based on concrete facts and the nature of the task. For candidates who encounter negative results, Küheylan Law Firm plans the application to the administrative court and prepares the request for stay of execution by examining the scope of the underlying record, the justification of the commission evaluation, the status of the criminal file and the duration of the case.
Important Legal Notice: The legal explanations contained in this guide have been prepared by Küheylan Law Firm for general information purposes and do not constitute legal advice. Since the unique circumstances of each file may change the outcome, it is recommended to seek support from an administrative law attorney from the beginning of the process.
KÜHEYLAN HUKUK