Historical agreement with continuing effect for Turkish nationals.
Last reviewed
03.06.2026
Statute as of
1930 (Niederlassungsvertrag in Kraft seit Ratifikation); AIG-Rahmen Stand 01.01.2024
Statute citations
9 linked
Reading time
22 min read
As of: 01.06.2026 · Snapshot
Settlement Agreement between Switzerland and Turkey 1930 — bilateral basis with limited transparency in its implementation
Frequently asked
4 answers on this topic.
Concrete questions people ask about Turkey — Settlement Agreement of 1930.
Yes, it is formally in force, but it has largely been superseded by the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration. Turkish nationals are third-country nationals and are subject to the ordinary provisions of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration. The agreement does not create any entitlement to a B or C residence permit outside the scope of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration. Its practical relevance today is very limited.
Statute citations
9 statute citations, each linked directly.
01Reviewed: Tier A · Info
Niederlassungsvertrag Schweiz–Türkei vom 13.12.1930, SR 0.142.117.632 — VERIFY exakte ELI-URI 2026
: As of 18.05.2026; takes into account the AIG SR 142.20 and VZAE SR 142.201 in the consolidated version of 2024, BüG SR 141.0, as well as the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons SR 0.142.117.632 as the basis in international law.
Status
: AI draft, pending review by the supervising lawyer of record (CLR — Lawyer-of-Record). Several factual issues – in particular, the actual SEM implementation practice of the five-year C permit privilege in 2026 – are in the status
UNKNOWN per ADR-015 L14
and are marked as such in the text.
This contribution illustrates the bilateral settlement agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the Republic of Turkey of 13 December 1930 and its effects on migration law in 2026. The agreement is one of the oldest bilateral agreements still in force in Switzerland and contains – similar to the Swiss-US Settlement and Trade Agreement of 1850 – a clause on equal treatment for nationals and the basis for a reduced period of residence before being granted the C settlement permit for Turkish nationals. However, the practical implementation of this privilege differs significantly from its US counterpart and is not publicly codified in several respects.
1. Overview — what the agreement legally governs
The Establishment Agreement 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 Systematic Collection, it bears the number SR 0.142.117.632 (old numbering; the exact current ELI-URI of the consolidated version must be verified before productive use, as Fedlex has changed the numbering of older treaties several times).
The agreement was concluded during a period of political consolidation of the young Turkish Republic under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and forms part of a series of bilateral settlement and trade agreements that Turkey concluded with European states at that time in order to establish a modern system of international law relations after the end of the Ottoman Empire and the abolition of the capitulations. In the Swiss treaty landscape, it is a classic example of the most-favoured-nation clause of the interwar period, comparable to the agreements between Switzerland and Persia (now Iran) or Switzerland and Siam (now Thailand) of the same period.
The agreement essentially comprises three sets of provisions:
Rights of residence and stay for the nationals of each contracting party in the territory of the other contracting party.
Property, acquisition and commercial rights subject to national treatment.
Equal treatment before consular and judicial authorities in legal proceedings between the two states.
For Swiss migration practice in 2026, the first package is primarily relevant, as it establishes the basis for the five-year privilege in connection with the C settlement permit (see section 3).
2. Legal status under Swiss law
As with all treaties under international law, the treaty SR 0.142.117.632 becomes part of federal legislation directly, in accordance with the monist principle of the Swiss Constitution (Art. 5 para. 4 and Art. 190 of the Federal Constitution). A unilateral revocation by the Swiss legislature would not be permissible under international law; a mutually agreed revision or termination would require diplomatic channels.
In the hierarchy of Swiss migration law, the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons generally takes precedence over the FNIA, to the extent that a conflict arises. In practice, however, this privilege is embedded in the national enforcement regime (FNIA, OASA, SEM directives), and it is precisely at this enforcement level that the gap arises, which is the focus of this article: the Agreement promises a privilege, the specific application of which is inconsistent and not publicly codified by the SEM and the cantonal migration offices.
VERIFY (as of 2026): The precise scope of individual contractual provisions – and in particular the question of which provisions have been implicitly superseded or modified by subsequent bilateral agreements or by the FNIA regime – must be verified with the EDA or in the consolidated Fedlex version of SR 0.142.117.632.
3. The theoretical five-year C settlement permit privilege — and its fragile practical application.
The most significant theoretical effect of the agreement from a migration law perspective is the reduced waiting period for the C settlement permit. The Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration provides for an ordinary waiting period of ten years of lawful residence for third-country nationals in Art. 34 para. 2 lit. a; of these, the last five years must be completed continuously with a residence permit. On the basis of the bilateral agreement, this period can be halved to five years — a privilege that the SEM has consistently applied to US citizens for decades (see bilaterals/bi_us_1850_settlement_treaty.md).
For Turkish nationals, however, the actual enforcement is significantly inconsistent. This is illustrated by the following – as far as can be reconstructed from publicly available sources and the published reports in the lawyers’ review:
3.1 What has been published publicly
The agreement SR 0.142.117.632 is formally in force.
A consolidated public SEM instruction on the application of the treaty privilege to Turkish applicants has – as far as can be seen – not been published. The relevant SEM instructions on “Foreign Nationals” (Chapter III, Settlement Permit) typically list the states with a reduced waiting period; the position of Turkey on this list is not consistently documented and, according to several practice reports, varies between full application, restrictive interpretation and de facto non-application. VERIFY the current SEM instruction status in 2026.
The Swiss Migration Law Practice (Anwaltsrevue, Jusletter) has published several articles on inconsistent cantonal application, without providing a consolidated overview of the case numbers.
3.2 What observations of practice suggest (UNKNOWN status)
From the published legal commentary, trends can be identified, which are not summarised in this article into a consolidated statement:
Individual cases with a positive outcome are documented – in particular, cases involving Turkish nationals who are particularly well integrated, have a long-term residence, stable employment and a clean criminal record.
Refusals also occur – typically with reference to the discretion of the competent authority, to integration criteria that have not been fully met, or to security-related considerations that have not been made public.
Cantonal differences are apparent; some cantons tend towards a more liberal application, while others adopt a more restrictive approach.
It is not possible, based on publicly available sources, to make a causal statement about which factors influence the SEM’s decision in individual cases. This is the core of the UNKNOWN status per ADR-015 L14 in this subject area.
3.3 What remains unchanged — the substantive requirements for a C permit
Where an authority applies the treaty privilege, it does not replace the substantive requirements for a C settlement permit. A Turkish applicant who applies for a C permit after five years must — by analogy to the US situation — meet the full integration criteria of Art. 58a AIG and the language requirements under Art. 60a and 77d VZAE. A detailed description of the requirements can be found in permits/permit_c_settled.md and in the glossary entry framework/fw_aig_vzae_glossary.md.
4. Turkish nationals in Switzerland — quantitative context
According to publicly available statistics from the Federal Office of Statistics (BFS), approximately 70,000 Turkish nationals reside in Switzerland as permanent residents (as of the latest available publication – VERIFY the current 2026 date). This makes the Turkish community one of the largest non-EU national groups in Switzerland. Historically, Italy was the largest national group; however, following the entry into force of the FZA 1999/2002, Italian nationals fall under the EU regime and are recorded separately in statistics, which is why Turkey now typically ranks among the largest non-EU national communities.
The historical development of migration has taken place in several phases:
1960s and 1970s: Recruitment of guest workers from Turkey in the context of Swiss labour shortages – similar to the recruitment at the time from Italy, Spain and the former Yugoslavia.
1980s and 1990s: Family reunification of the first generation of guest workers; birth of the second generation in Switzerland; gradual consolidation of residence status from B to C.
2000s: Increase in naturalisations; at the same time, the first wave of politically motivated asylum applications (PKK conflict, discrimination against Kurdish and Alevi minorities).
Post-2016: Following the attempted coup in Turkey on 15 July 2016 and the subsequent period of repression, the number of asylum applications from Turkish nationals increased noticeably (see section 7).
2020s: In addition, there is an increasing trend towards a highly qualified profile (research, IT, medicine) – based on the special provisions of the FNIA for highly qualified third-country nationals.
5. First-time stay of Turkish nationals — legal framework
Turkey is not an EU/EFTA state and is not a contracting party to the FZA. Turkish nationals are therefore fully subject to the third-country regime of the FNIA for their initial stay (Art. 18 et seq., 28 et seq., 30 et seq. FNIA).
5.1 Gainful employment pursuant to Articles 18-23 LEI/LStrI/FNIA
A Turkish national who wishes to work in Switzerland requires a residence permit under FNIA Art. 18 et seq. The requirements include:
Economic interest of Switzerland (Art. 18 lit. a FNIA) — an employer’s need, which typically requires proof of priority for Swiss or permanent resident workers (Art. 21 FNIA) and proof of wages/working conditions (Art. 22 FNIA).
Personal requirements (Art. 23 FNIA) — in particular for managers, specialists and qualified workers.
Contingency — the number of residence permits issued is subject to quotas at both federal and cantonal level, as stipulated in OASA Art. 19 ff.
In practice, this means that initial applications for residence from Turkish nationals are subject to the same strict criteria as applications from other third-country nationals. No bilateral privilege for the 1930 Agreement in relation to initial residence can be identified; the Agreement has its practical effect – insofar as it has any effect – in connection with the entitlement to a C permit after several years of residence.
5.2 Highly qualified individuals — FNIA Art. 23
The most important route for Turkish nationals in practice is Art. 23 AIG in conjunction with the SEM guidelines on highly qualified individuals. Researchers at Swiss universities and higher education institutions, IT specialists with relevant qualifications and medical professionals with recognised qualifications have increased noticeably from Turkey in recent years. The granting of permits in this area is – as far as can be ascertained from public reporting – comparatively predictable and well documented.
VERIFY the current SEM practice in 2026 regarding applications from highly qualified Turkish nationals, in particular the use of quotas and the typical processing time.
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 AIG Art. 27 (Study), Art. 28 (Pensioners) and Fedlex·Art. 30 AIG. The requirements – in particular, the secure means of support from their own resources, the close connection to Switzerland and the advanced age in the case of Fedlex·Art. 28 AIG – apply as a matter of course; no bilateral privilege is apparent in this case either.
6. The path to C settlement — the key area where the agreement should take effect
If a Turkish national has successfully established and maintained their initial residence for several years (typically with a B residence permit), the question arises as to the transition to a C settlement permit. In this case, the 1930 Agreement has its theoretical scope of application.
6.1 Theoretical Privilege
The preferential treatment applies – when it is used – on the time axis: instead of after ten years of ordinary residence according to Art. 34 para. 2 lit. a AIG, the application for a C permit can already be submitted after five years of lawful residence. The other requirements (integration according to Fedlex·Art. 58a AIG, language level according to Art. 60a and 77d OASA, economic independence, no significant grounds for revocation) remain unchanged.
6.2 Practical reality — UNKNOWN per ADR-015 L14
In practical terms for 2026, the privilege is not consistently applicable. The published legal practice reveals the following:
Some cantonal migration offices apply the five-year period on application and when all integration criteria have been fully met.
Others demand – explicitly or de facto – the full ten-year period and rely on the ordinary AIG regime, without explicitly mentioning the bilateral privilege.
The SEM reserves the right to exercise discretion in the approval procedure (Fedlex·Art. 99 AIG i.V.m. Fedlex·Art. 85 VZAE), and the specific criteria for the exercise of this discretion are not publicly available.
A formalised SEM instruction that governs the application of the treaty privilege to Turkish applicants in a general and uniform manner has – as far as can be seen – not been published. Nor has a consolidated ruling by the FAC or the Federal Supreme Court that definitively clarifies the issue, as far as the drafter is aware, been issued. Both are in the status UNKNOWN per ADR-015 L14 (see section 11).
Practical consequence: A Turkish applicant who submits the C permit application after five years is in a weaker negotiating position than a US applicant in the same situation. Reputable legal advice will assess the chances of success based on the patterns observed in practice in the specific canton of residence – and will generally have to protect the applicant from unrealistic expectations.
Following the attempted coup in Turkey on 15 July 2016 and the subsequent period of repression, the number of asylum applications from Turkish nationals in Switzerland has increased noticeably. The exact recognition rates of 2026 are publicly available via the SEM Asylum Statistics; a snapshot at a specific point in time is not included in this article (VERIFY).
7.1 Typical persecution scenarios
Swiss practice regarding recognition has – as far as can be ascertained from the published decisions of the FAC – treated several scenarios as being, in principle, worthy of recognition:
Alleged affiliation with the Gülen movement (Hizmet) — Individuals whom the Turkish regime accuses of affiliation with the Gülen movement are subject to criminal prosecution in Turkey, with a significant risk of lengthy prison sentences, professional bans and confiscation of assets.
Journalists, academics and activists with documented activities critical of the regime.
Kurdish activists with links 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 circumstances — recognition typically requires an individualised account of persecution.
A systematic presentation of the practice concerning the recognition of asylum claims and the relevant case numbers of the FAC can be found – as far as consolidated – in framework/fw_asylg_glossary.md. VERIFY the current case law referenced there, dated 2026.
7.2 Procedure and status documents
During the ongoing asylum procedure, applicants receive the N permit (asylum-seeker permit – see permits/permit_n_asylum_pending.md). If the asylum application is approved, the applicant is recognised as a refugee and receives a B permit with asylum status (see permits/permit_a_recognised_refugee.md). If the asylum application is rejected, but there are obstacles to enforcement, provisional admission (F permit) may be granted.
7.3 Abgrenzung — Anti-Scope
This contribution sets out the legal framework; it does not offer an asylum strategy for Turkish applicants (see section 13). Individual asylum advice is the responsibility of specialist asylum lawyers registered on the cantonal bar register.
8. Family reunification for Turkish nationals
Family reunification is governed by the third-country regime of the FNIA – Turkey is not an AFMP-EU country. This means that the stricter requirements of FNIA Articles 43 and 44 apply, not the more liberal family reunification rules of the AFMP.
8.1 Requirements
In summary (with cross-links to permits/permit_b_family_reunification.md and life-events/le_marriage_to_foreigner.md):
Residence status of the person applying for family reunification — C settlement permit (Art. 43 FNIA) or B residence permit (Art. 44 FNIA).
Joint accommodation (Art. 43 para. 1 lit. a, Art. 44 para. 1 lit. a LEI/LStrI/FNIA).
Accommodation appropriate to their needs for the family members.
Sufficient means of support without reliance on social welfare (Art. 43 para. 1 lit. c, Art. 44 para. 1 lit. c LEI/LStrI/FNIA).
Language requirement — the spouse applying for family reunification must generally demonstrate language level A1 in one of the national languages or at least provide proof of registration for a language course (Art. 43 para. 1 lit. d, Art. 44 para. 1 lit. d LEI/LStrI/FNIA).
Application deadlines — family reunification must be applied for within the statutory deadlines (typically five years, one year for children over twelve); late applications are generally rejected unless there are important reasons.
8.2 Monitoring of Practice
The granting of visas at the Swiss embassy in Ankara or the consulate-general in Istanbul follows the standard third-country criteria, following public reporting. Processing times and document requirements are standard; any specific tightening of regulations after 2016 is not publicly codified. VERIFY the current consular practice in 2026.
9. Naturalisation of Turkish nationals
The standard requirements of the Swiss Citizenship Act (Federal Act on the Swiss Nationality, SR 141.0) apply to Turkish applicants without change – a bilateral privilege in the area of naturalisation is not provided for in the 1930 treaty and is not observable in Swiss practice. A detailed description of the naturalisation paths can be found in permits/permit_naturalisation_paths.md and in framework/fw_bug_2018_glossary.md.
9.1 Paths to Naturalisation
Ordinary naturalisation after ten years of residence in Switzerland (SCA Art. 9), of which three years must be in the last five years in the canton (cantonal residence requirements vary).
Facilitated naturalisation under Art. 21 SCA for spouses of Swiss nationals (five years of residence and three years of marriage; alternatively, six years of residence and three years of marriage for couples living abroad).
Facilitated naturalisation under Art. 24 SCA for young people of the second and third generation with documented educational background in Switzerland.
9.2 Dual Nationality
Turkey has accepted dual citizenship since the 1980s without any fundamental restrictions; a Turkish national does not automatically lose Turkish citizenship by acquiring Swiss citizenship. In practice, dual citizenship between Switzerland and Turkey is very common; a significant number of naturalised persons who originally held Turkish citizenship hold both passports.
Practical note: The specific procedures – application, retention forms with Turkish authorities – are a matter of external law (Turkish side) and not subject to Swiss naturalisation. A Turkish national who is naturalised in Switzerland should contact the relevant Turkish representation before and after naturalisation in order to formally secure Turkish nationality.
9.3 Monitoring of Practice
The naturalisation of Turkish nationals in Switzerland has been common since the 1990s; according to the Swiss Federal Statistical Office, the annual naturalisation figures regularly reach the higher four-digit range, with some fluctuations over the years. VERIFY the current BFS data for 2026.
10. Double taxation and economic interfaces
The Double Taxation Agreement between Switzerland and Turkey (DTA, SR 0.672.976.31 — VERIFY the exact ELI-URI and the revision status of 2026) is in force and has been revised several times. It governs the allocation of taxing rights for income and wealth taxes between the two contracting states and contains provisions on the exchange of information (OECD standard, AIA).
For immigration law advice, the DTA is of indirect relevance: in the case of Turkish nationals with cross-border income or assets, the question of tax residence regularly arises, which, in combination with the concept of habitual residence in the AIG (Fedlex·Art. 25 AIG, Art. 23 ff. ZGB), can lead to different results.
Anti-Scope: SwissImmigrationPro does not offer tax advice (see section 13). Questions regarding the application of double taxation agreements fall within the remit of tax advisory and fiduciary services.
11. Political sensitivity and diplomatic context
The 1930 treaty has been in force for almost a century and, as far as can be ascertained, has not been formally terminated or comprehensively revised. In the bilateral relationship between Switzerland and Turkey, there have been periods of tension over the decades (in particular regarding the recognition of genocide, freedom of the press, and extradition requests), without this affecting the formal validity of the treaty.
VERIFY the current diplomatic status for 2026, namely:
Whether a bilateral initiative to modernise or repeal the agreement has been launched in recent times (post-2020).
Whether the NDB situation report (VBS) contains a specific threat analysis relating to Turkey, which is incorporated into the practice of background checks for permits and naturalisations (analogous to the Russia situation, see bilaterals/bi_russia_belarus_post_2022.md).
Whether recent Federal Council communications or EDA statements have affected the application of the five-year C settlement permit.
A political assessment of the CH–TR relations is not the subject of this article (out of scope, see section 13).
12. What is unknown — transparency according to ADR-015 L14
In line with the transparency requirements set out in ADR-015 L14, the following issues are explicitly identified as UNKNOWN – they have not been verified, codified or made reliably available to the public:
Actual SEM enforcement practice regarding the five-year C permit privilege for Turkish applicants in 2026 – as far as can be seen, there is no consolidated public directive; it is handled on a case-by-case basis and is inconsistent across cantons.
Recognition rate for Turkish asylum seekers in 2026 — available via the SEM asylum statistics, but as a snapshot, it is subject to change; not fixed for the purposes of this article.
Consolidated Federal Supreme Court/Federal Administrative Court decision regarding the 5-year C settlement permit, based on SR 0.142.117.632 — to the best of the drafter’s knowledge, no such decision has been issued; individual decisions exist but do not have the character of a leading case.
Security-relevant criteria for background checks of Turkish applicants — probably an internal administrative document, not publicly available.
Differences in cantonal practice in the application of the treaty privilege — observed anecdotally, but not systematically documented.
Current revision status of the Switzerland–Turkey double taxation agreement and the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations 2026 — ongoing adjustments, exact status to be verified.
Bilateral diplomatic developments — it is not publicly confirmed whether Turkey launched a bilateral initiative regarding the 1930 treaty in 2025 or 2026.
This list is not exhaustive; it indicates the knowledge gaps identified at the time this entry was created. It will be updated each time the refresh trigger in provenance.refresh_trigger is activated.
13. Anti-Scope — what this contribution does not achieve
The situation in Turkey touches upon several politically and legally sensitive areas. This contribution therefore clearly defines its scope:
No asylum strategy advice for Turkish applicants: This post explains the legal framework; it does not offer individual tactical advice on how to maximise the chances of an asylum application being successful. Asylum cases should be handled by specialist asylum lawyers who are registered on the cantonal bar register.
No strategy for the 5-year C permit application: Due to the SEM’s practice, which is not publicly codified, and the varying success rates on a case-by-case basis, no generic strategy for the five-year C permit application for Turkish nationals will be formulated in this article. A serious application strategy requires an individual assessment of the practice in the specific canton of residence.
No tax advice: The application of double taxation agreements, tax planning relating to residence, and advice on asset transfers are not covered by this platform and users will be referred to a specialist trust or tax advisory service.
No political statement: The contribution describes the current law and the observable practice in a strictly factual manner, without any political assessment of the CH–TR relations, Turkish domestic policy or Swiss recognition practice. The use of this content for political arguments is not intended.
For individual cases, it is advisable to engage a migration lawyer registered in the cantonal bar register. In asylum law cases, it is recommended that the lawyer also have additional expertise in asylum proceedings.
14. References and Cross-Links
The following contributions from the SwissImmigrationPro platform are related to this contribution:
framework/fw_aig_vzae_glossary.md — Third-country nationals regime under the FNIA, requirements for B, L, G and C permits.
framework/fw_asylg_glossary.md — Glossary of the Asylum Act, recognition practice, key decisions of the Federal Administrative Court (referencing the post-2016 Turkey context).
framework/fw_bug_2018_glossary.md — Swiss Citizenship Act, requirements for naturalisation.
framework/fw_sem_directives_index.md — Index of publicly available SEM directives.
permits/permit_c_settled.md — C settlement permit; substantive requirements.
permits/permit_b_resident.md — Third-state B residence permit.
permits/permit_b_family_reunification.md — Family reunification under the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration, Articles 43/44.
permits/permit_n_asylum_pending.md — Status during asylum proceedings.
permits/permit_a_recognised_refugee.md — Status after asylum has been granted.
permits/permit_f_provisional_admission.md — Provisional admission in the event of obstacles to enforcement.
permits/permit_naturalisation_paths.md — Paths to naturalisation: ordinary and facilitated.
life-events/le_marriage_to_foreigner.md — Marriage across national borders, with consequences under the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration.
bilaterals/bi_us_1850_settlement_treaty.md — similar bilateral five-year privilege with consistent enforcement practice (comparative axis).
bilaterals/bi_russia_belarus_post_2022.md — Methodology for determining UNKNOWN status in politically sensitive bilateral matters (methodological reference).
This entry will be updated each time there is a new SEM directive, any relevant FAC/Federal Supreme Court leading decision, or when there are changes in diplomatic status between Switzerland and Turkey. The stale-threshold SLA is normally 90 days, but can be shortened ad hoc in the event of political status changes.
As of: 01.06.2026 · Snapshot
Reflects the cited law as of the snapshot — not a check of current force.
