This contribution presents the bilateral settlement treaty concluded between the Swiss Confederation and the Republic of Turkey on 13 December 1930 in its migration-law effects in 2026. The treaty is one of Switzerland’s oldest bilateral agreements still in force and contains — by analogy with the Switzerland–US Settlement and Trade Treaty of 1850 — a clause on national treatment as well as the basis for a reduced waiting period for the C settlement permit for Turkish nationals. The practical implementation reality of the privilege, however, diverges considerably from the US counterpart and is, in several respects, not publicly codified.

1. Overview — what the treaty regulates in legal-formal terms

The settlement treaty between the Swiss Confederation and the Republic of Turkey was signed on 13 December 1930 in Ankara and entered into force, after ratification, in both contracting states. In the Swiss Classified Compilation it bears the number SR 0.142.117.632. The exact current ELI URI of the consolidated version is to be obtained from Fedlex, since the Classified Compilation has adjusted the cross-reference structure of older treaties several times over the decades.

The treaty arose at a time of political consolidation of the young Republic of Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and forms part of a series of bilateral settlement and trade treaties that Turkey concluded at the time with European states in order to establish, after the end of the Ottoman Empire and the abolition of the capitulations, a modern web of relations under international law. In the Swiss treaty landscape it is a classic example of the national-treatment clause of the interwar period, comparable to the Switzerland–Persia (now Iran) or Switzerland–Siam (now Thailand) treaties of the same period.

At its core, the treaty contains three bundles of rules:

  • Settlement and residence rights for the respective nationals on the territory of the other contracting party.
  • Property, acquisition and business rights under national treatment.
  • Consular and judicial equal treatment in legal dealings between the two states.

For Swiss migration practice in 2026, the first bundle is primarily relevant, as it forms the point of connection for the five-year privilege regarding the C settlement permit (cf. section 3).

2. Legal status in Swiss law

Like all treaties under international law, treaty SR 0.142.117.632 becomes, under the monist principle of the Swiss legal order, a direct integral part of domestic law (Art. 5 para. 4 and Art. 190 of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation, Cst., SR 101). A unilateral abrogation by the Swiss legislature would not be permissible under international law; a consensual revision or termination would require the diplomatic channel.

In the hierarchy of Swiss migration law, the treaty thus in principle ranks above the FNIA insofar as a conflict arises. In practice, however, the privilege is embedded in the domestic implementation regime (FNIA, OASA, SEM directives) — and it is precisely at this implementation level that the gap arises which characterises this contribution: the treaty promises a privilege whose concrete application practice, by the SEM and the cantonal migration offices, is non-uniform and not publicly codified.

The exact scope of individual treaty provisions — and in particular the question of which provisions have been tacitly superseded or modified by later bilateral agreements or by the FNIA regime — can be conclusively clarified only against the consolidated text; authoritative are the Fedlex version of SR 0.142.117.632 as well as the information provided by the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) as the authority competent for treaties under international law.

3. The theoretical five-year C privilege — and its fragile implementation reality

The migration-law-most-significant theoretical effect of the treaty is the reduced waiting period for C settlement. The FNIA (SR 142.20) provides, in Art. 34 para. 2 let. a FNIA, for third-country nationals an ordinary waiting period of ten years of lawful residence; of these, the last five years must have been completed without interruption under a residence permit. On a bilateral treaty basis, this period may be reduced to five years — a privilege that SEM practice has long applied to US nationals along a publicly documented line (see the Switzerland–US Settlement Treaty of 1850). In legal-dogmatic terms, the reduced period connects to the national-treatment, respectively most-favoured-nation, logic of the relevant settlement treaty; it confers a temporal advantage, but does not found any unconditional entitlement to the grant of the settlement permit.

For Turkish nationals, by contrast, the implementation reality is considerably more non-uniform. This yields the picture below — insofar as it can be reconstructed from the publicly available sources and the published reporting of the lawyers’ review (Anwaltsrevue):

3.1 What is publicly published

  • Treaty SR 0.142.117.632 is formally in force.
  • A consolidated public SEM directive on the application of the treaty privilege to Turkish applicants is — as far as can be ascertained — not published. The relevant SEM directives “Foreign Nationals Area” (chapter III, settlement permit) typically list the states with a reduced waiting period; Turkey’s position in this list is not consistently documented and oscillates, according to several published practice reports, between full application, restrictive interpretation and de facto non-application. The respective current status is to be taken from the published SEM directive “Foreign Nationals Area”.
  • Swiss migration-law practice (Anwaltsrevue, Jusletter) has reported in several contributions on non-uniform cantonal application, without a consolidated overview of the case numbers being available.

3.2 What practice observation suggests (UNKNOWN status)

From the published legal reporting, tendencies can be derived which, in this contribution, are deliberately not aggregated into a consolidated statement:

  • Individual cases with a positive permit are documented — namely among particularly well-integrated Turkish nationals with long-standing residence, established gainful employment and an impeccable criminal record.
  • Refusals also occur — typically with reference to the discretion of the competent authority, to integration criteria not fully met, or to security-relevant considerations not publicly disclosed.
  • Cantonal differences are discernible; individual cantons tend towards more liberal application, others towards more restrictive application.

3.3 What remains unchanged — the substantive C requirements

Insofar as an authority applies the treaty privilege, it does not replace the substantive requirements of C settlement. A Turkish applicant who files a C application after five years must — by analogy with the US constellation — meet the full integration criteria under Art. 58a FNIA (SR 142.20) and the language requirements under Art. 60a OASA and Art. 77d OASA (Ordinance on Admission, Residence and Gainful Employment, SR 142.201). The treaty therefore acts solely on the temporal component of the waiting period, not on the substantive conditions for the grant. A detailed presentation of the requirements is found in the contribution on the C settlement permit and in the FNIA/OASA terminology glossary.

4. Turkish nationals in Switzerland — quantitative framework

According to the statistics of the Federal Statistical Office (FSO), Turkish nationals have for decades formed one of the largest third-country groups of persons within Switzerland’s permanent resident population. A frozen individual figure is deliberately not included in this contribution; the respective current order of magnitude is retrievable via the FSO statistic “Foreign resident population” linked below. Italian nationals historically formed the largest group; following the entry into force of the agreement on the free movement of persons (Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons Switzerland–EU, AFMP, SR 0.142.112.681) in 1999/2002, they fall under the EU/EFTA regime and are recorded separately for statistical purposes, which is why Turkey today typically ranks among the largest third-country communities.

The migration-historical development proceeds in several phases:

  • 1960s and 1970s: recruitment of guest workers from Turkey in the context of the Swiss labour shortage — by analogy with the recruitment of that time from Italy, Spain and the then Yugoslavia.
  • 1980s and 1990s: family reunification of the first guest-worker generation; birth of the second generation in Switzerland; gradual consolidation of residence situations from B to C.
  • 2000s: rise in naturalisations; at the same time, first waves of politically motivated asylum applications (PKK conflict, discrimination of Kurdish and Alevi minorities).
  • Post-2016: following the attempted coup in Turkey of 15 July 2016 and the subsequent phase of repression, the asylum applications of Turkish nationals increase perceptibly (cf. section 7).
  • 2020s: in addition, a highly-skilled profile (research, IT, medicine) increasingly emerges — based on the FNIA special provisions for particularly qualified third-country nationals.

5. First residence of Turkish nationals — legal framework

Turkey is not an EU/EFTA state and is not a contracting party to the AFMP. Turkish nationals are therefore subject, for first residence, fully to the third-country regime of the FNIA (in particular Art. 18 FNIA et seq. on gainful employment, Art. 28 FNIA et seq. on residence without gainful employment, and Art. 30 FNIA et seq. on derogations from the admission requirements).

5.1 Gainful employment under Art. 18-23 FNIA

A Turkish person who wishes to be gainfully employed in Switzerland needs a residence permit under Art. 18 FNIA et seq. The requirements comprise:

  • The economic interest of Switzerland (Art. 18 let. a FNIA) — an employer-side need that typically requires proof of priority for domestic workers (Art. 21 FNIA) and proof of wage and working conditions (Art. 22 FNIA).
  • The personal requirements (Art. 23 FNIA) — in particular for managers, specialists and qualified workers.
  • Quotas — the number of residence titles granted is subject to quotas at federal and cantonal level under Art. 19 OASA et seq. (SR 142.201).

In practice this means that Turkish first-residence applications are subject to the same strict standards as the applications of other third-country nationals. A bilateral privilege of the 1930 treaty for first residence is not discernible; the treaty unfolds its practical effect — insofar as it unfolds an effect — in connection with the C waiting period after several years of residence.

5.2 Highly skilled — Art. 23 FNIA

The access axis most significant in practice for Turkish nationals is Art. 23 FNIA in conjunction with the SEM directives on the highly skilled. Researchers at Swiss universities and higher education institutions, IT specialists with relevant training, and medical professionals with a recognised diploma have, according to publicly available reporting, become perceptibly more frequent from Turkey in recent years. The grant practice here is — insofar as the public reporting allows it to be discerned — comparatively well documented and tied to clearly delineated requirements; it nonetheless remains quota-dependent and subject to administrative discretion.

5.3 Residence without gainful employment

Turkish nationals who wish to reside in Switzerland without gainful employment (pensioners, wealthy private individuals, students) are subject to the special provisions of the FNIA: Art. 27 FNIA (education and continuing education), Art. 28 FNIA (pensioners) as well as Art. 30 FNIA (derogations from the admission requirements, namely hardship cases). The requirements — in particular secured means of subsistence from own resources, close ties to Switzerland and advanced age in the case of Art. 28 FNIA — apply in the ordinary manner; a bilateral privilege is likewise not apparent here.

6. Progression to C settlement — the axis on which the treaty was supposed to act

Once a Turkish national has successfully established first residence and consolidated it over several years (typically with a B permit), the question of the transition to C settlement arises. Here the 1930 treaty has its theoretical field of effect.

6.1 Theoretical privilege

The privilege acts — when it comes to apply — on the temporal axis: instead of ten years of ordinary residence under Art. 34 para. 2 let. a FNIA, the C application can be filed already after five years of lawful residence. The remaining requirements (integration under Art. 58a FNIA, language level under Art. 60a OASA and Art. 77d OASA, economic independence, no substantial grounds for revocation) remain unchanged.

In the implementation reality of 2026, the privilege is not consistently applicable. From the published lawyers’ practice, the following picture emerges:

  • Some cantonal migration offices apply the five-year period upon application and where the integration criteria are fully met.
  • Others require — explicitly or de facto — the full ten-year period and rely on the ordinary FNIA regime, without explicitly addressing the bilateral privilege.
  • The SEM participates in the approval procedure (Art. 99 FNIA [SR 142.20] in conjunction with Art. 85 OASA [SR 142.201]) and there has a discretion whose concrete exercise standards in the Turkish context are not publicly published.

Practical consequence: unlike in the US constellation, where the reduced period is reliably applied according to publicly documented practice, the application of the five-year period in the Turkish context is not assured. Whether, in which canton, and under what conditions it comes to apply is a question of the concrete individual case and of local implementation practice; this contribution makes no prognosis in this regard. The legal assessment of a concrete set of facts is reserved for a migration lawyer entered in the bar register.

7. Turkish asylum applications — post-2016 constellation

Following the attempted coup in Turkey of 15 July 2016 and the subsequent phase of repression, the number of asylum applications of Turkish nationals in Switzerland has increased perceptibly. The governing procedural law is the Asylum Act (AsylA, SR 142.31). Current recognition rates are publicly retrievable via the SEM asylum statistics; a frozen snapshot is deliberately not included in this contribution, since rates can fluctuate considerably from year to year.

7.1 Typical persecution constellations

Swiss recognition practice has — insofar as the published FAC decisions allow it to be discerned — treated several constellations as in principle worthy of recognition:

  • Presumed Gülen-movement affiliation (Hizmet) — persons whom the Turkish regime accuses of affiliation with the Gülen movement are criminally prosecuted in Turkey, with a considerable risk of long prison sentences, professional bans and asset confiscation.
  • Journalists, academics and activists with documented regime-critical activity.
  • Kurdish activists with connections to the HDP/DEM party or to civil-society movements, insofar as state persecution can be demonstrated on an individualised basis.
  • Alevis and other religious minorities in specific constellations — recognition typically requires an individualised presentation of persecution.

A systematic presentation of recognition practice and the relevant FAC case numbers is found — insofar as consolidated — in the glossary on the Asylum Act; for the respective current state of the case law, the published case law of the Federal Administrative Court is authoritative.

7.2 Procedural course and status documents

During the ongoing asylum procedure, applicants receive the N permit (asylum seeker — see the N residence permit). In the case of a positive asylum decision, recognition as a refugee follows with a B permit on asylum grounds (cf. the B permit for recognised refugees). In the case of rejection of the asylum application but the presence of obstacles to enforcement, provisional admission (F permit) may be granted.

7.3 Delimitation — anti-scope

This contribution presents the legal framework; it offers no asylum strategy for Turkish applicants (cf. section 13). Individual asylum advice is the task of specialised asylum-law counsel entered in the BfR bar register.

8. Family reunification of Turkish nationals

Family reunification is governed by the third-country regime of the FNIA — Turkey is not a contracting party to the AFMP. This means that the stricter requirements of Art. 43 FNIA and Art. 44 FNIA (SR 142.20) apply, not the more liberal family-reunification rules of the AFMP (SR 0.142.112.681).

8.1 Requirements

In overview (with cross-link to family reunification under the B permit and to marriage between two foreign nationals resident in Switzerland):

  • The residence status of the reuniting person — C settlement permit (Art. 43 FNIA) or B residence permit (Art. 44 FNIA).
  • A shared dwelling (Art. 43 para. 1 let. a FNIA, Art. 44 para. 1 let. a FNIA).
  • A dwelling appropriate to needs for the family members.
  • Secured means of subsistence without dependence on social assistance (Art. 43 para. 1 let. c FNIA, Art. 44 para. 1 let. c FNIA).
  • The language requirement — the reuniting spouse must as a rule demonstrate language level A1 in a national language or at least submit a corresponding registration for a language course (Art. 43 para. 1 let. d FNIA, Art. 44 para. 1 let. d FNIA).
  • The application deadlines — family reunification must be applied for within the statutory deadlines (typically five years, one year for children over twelve years of age); late applications are in principle to be rejected except where important grounds are present.

8.2 Practice observation

The granting of visas via the competent Swiss representation abroad in Turkey follows — according to public reporting — the ordinary third-country standards. Processing times and document requirements are governed by the regular procedure; a specific, publicly codified post-2016 tightening of family reunification is not apparent. For the currently competent representation and the concrete modalities, the official page of the Swiss representation in Turkey is authoritative.

9. Naturalisation of Turkish nationals

The ordinary requirements of the citizenship act (Federal Act on Swiss Citizenship, Swiss Citizenship Act, SCA, SR 141.0) apply to Turkish applicants unchanged — a bilateral privilege in the naturalisation area is neither laid down in the 1930 treaty nor observable in Swiss practice. The language-competence requirements for naturalisation are, moreover, regulated not in the act itself but in the Ordinance on Swiss Citizenship (Swiss Citizenship Ordinance, SCO, SR 141.01, in particular Art. 6 SCO). A detailed presentation of the naturalisation paths is found in the contribution on naturalisation in Switzerland and in the glossary on the Swiss Citizenship Act 2018.

9.1 Paths to naturalisation

  • Ordinary naturalisation under Art. 9 SCA: in total ten years of residence in Switzerland, of which three of the last five years before submission of the application. The additional cantonal and communal residence duration is governed by Art. 18 SCA and the relevant cantonal citizenship law and varies from canton to canton.
  • Facilitated naturalisation under Art. 21 SCA for spouses of Swiss nationals: in the case of residence in Switzerland, three years of marital union and in total five years of residence (including the year before submission of the application); in the case of residence abroad, six years of marital union and close ties to Switzerland.
  • Facilitated naturalisation under Art. 24a SCA for persons of the third foreign generation under the conditions stated therein (inter alia own birth in Switzerland, schooling in Switzerland, settlement permit, as well as corresponding requirements for parents and grandparents).

9.2 Dual nationality

Turkey accepts dual nationality since the 1980s without restrictions in principle; a Turkish national does not automatically lose Turkish nationality by acquiring Swiss nationality. In practice, Switzerland–Turkey dual nationality is very widespread; a considerable number of naturalised persons of originally Turkish nationality hold both passports.

Practice note: the specific modalities — application, retention forms with the Turkish authorities — are matters of external law (Turkish side) and are not the subject of Swiss naturalisation. A Turkish national who naturalises in Switzerland should contact the competent Turkish representation before and after naturalisation in order to formally secure Turkish nationality.

9.3 Practice observation

Swiss naturalisation of Turkish nationals has been widespread since the 1990s; Turkish nationals regularly rank, over the years, among the numerically more strongly represented origin groups in naturalisations. Concrete annual figures are subject to fluctuations; the respective current figures are retrievable via the FSO naturalisation statistics.

10. Double taxation and economic interfaces

The double taxation agreement Switzerland–Turkey (DTA, SR 0.672.976.31) is in force and has been revised several times. It regulates the allocation of taxing sovereignty for income and wealth taxes between the two contracting states and contains provisions on the exchange of information (OECD standard, automatic exchange of information [AEOI]).

For migration-law advice, the DTA is of indirect relevance: in the case of Turkish nationals with cross-border income or wealth situations, the question of tax residence regularly arises. This can differ from migration-law residence; the civil-law concept of domicile is governed by Art. 23 CC et seq. (Swiss Civil Code, SR 210), while tax residence follows its own criteria. The two points of connection can diverge in the individual case.

Anti-scope: SwissImmigrationPro offers no tax advice (cf. section 13). DTA application questions fall within the competence of tax advice and fiduciary services.

11. Political sensitivity and diplomatic context

The 1930 treaty has been in force for almost a century and has — as far as can be ascertained — not been formally terminated or comprehensively revised. In the bilateral relationship Switzerland–Turkey there have been, over the decades, phases of tension (in particular regarding genocide-recognition questions, press freedom, extradition requests), without these having affected the formal validity of the treaty.

The current diplomatic status is to be obtained via the official channels (FDFA, Federal Council); notably open, respectively not publicly assured, are the following questions:

  • Whether in more recent times (post-2020) a bilateral initiative for the modernisation or abrogation of the treaty has been brought forward.
  • Whether the situation report of the Federal Intelligence Service (FIS) contains a threat analysis specifically related to Turkey, which feeds into the practice of background checks in the context of permits and naturalisations (by analogy with the Russia constellation, cf. Russia and Belarus since 2022).
  • Whether current Federal Council communications or FDFA statements have affected the application of the five-year C privilege.

A political assessment of CH–TR relations is not the subject of this contribution (anti-scope, cf. section 13).

  1. Actual SEM implementation practice of the five-year C privilege for Turkish applicants in 2026 — as far as can be ascertained, no consolidated public directive; case-by-case and cantonally non-uniform.
  2. Recognition rate of Turkish asylum applications in 2026 — available via the SEM asylum statistics, but volatile as a snapshot; not frozen in this contribution.
  3. Consolidated Federal Supreme Court / FAC leading decision on the five-year C privilege based on SR 0.142.117.632 — as far as known to the drafter, not issued; individual decisions exist without leading-precedent character.
  4. Security-relevant background-check standards for Turkish applicants — probably internal to the administration, not publicly published.
  5. Cantonal practice differences in the application of the treaty privilege — anecdotally observable, but not systematically documented.
  6. Current revision status of the Switzerland–Turkey DTA and of the OECD AEOI application in 2026 — ongoing adjustments; the exact status is to be taken from the respective current Fedlex version.
  7. Bilateral diplomatic topicality — whether Turkey launched a bilateral initiative on the 1930 treaty in 2025 or 2026 is not publicly assured.

This list is not exhaustive; it marks the knowledge gaps identified at the time this contribution was prepared. An update takes place at each refresh trigger pursuant to provenance.refresh_trigger.

13. Anti-scope — what this contribution does not provide

The Turkey constellation touches on several politically and legally sensitive thematic areas. The contribution therefore delimits itself clearly:

  • No asylum-strategy advice for Turkish applicants: this contribution explains the legal framework; it offers no individual tactical strategy for maximising the recognition probability of an asylum application. Asylum mandates belong to specialised asylum-law counsel entered in the BfR bar register.
  • No strategy for the five-year C application: due to the publicly uncodified SEM practice and the case-by-case fluctuating chances of success, this contribution formulates no generic strategy for the five-year C application of Turkish nationals. A serious application strategy requires an individual practice assessment in the concrete canton of residence.
  • No tax advice: DTA application, domicile tax planning and wealth-transfer advice are not the subject of this platform and are referred to specialised fiduciary services or tax advice.
  • No political statement: the contribution describes the law in force and the observable practice strictly factually, without political assessment of CH–TR relations, Turkish domestic politics or Swiss recognition practice. A use of these contents for political argumentation is not intended.

SwissImmigrationPro (SIP) explains the law; SIP represents no one and provides no individual legal advice. This limitation of the task follows the professional rules of lawyers’ law (Federal Act on the Freedom of Movement of Lawyers, Lawyers Act, LLCA, SR 935.61), namely Art. 12 LLCA. For individual sets of facts, a mandate with a migration lawyer entered in the cantonal bar register (BFR entry) is required. In asylum-law constellations, additional specialisation of counsel in asylum procedures is recommended.

14. References and cross-links

The following contributions of the SwissImmigrationPro platform are related to this contribution:

This contribution is updated upon each new SEM directive, each relevant FAC / Federal Supreme Court leading decision, and upon diplomatic status changes between Switzerland and Turkey. The stale-threshold SLA is ordinarily 90 days, but may be shortened ad hoc upon political status changes.