In short
A restriction code is the short form of the ground relating to an entry ban. Its meaning is in the sentence in the text of the decision that belongs to the person. The code is the sign beside the sentence. The sign does not become a statutory provision by itself. This article does not build a code table. An abbreviation that looks the same is not put in place of another file's sentence. The sections of an objection petition are not written here either.
The code is the short form of the sentence
The administration may build the ground with a sentence in the act about the foreigner, and may mark the same ground with a short code. The code is the sign beside the sentence. If the heading of the decision is an entry ban, the code is read as the short form of the ground of that ban. If the heading is another act, the code does not turn that heading into an entry ban by itself. The abbreviation may be used to distinguish the file. Distinguishing is not completing the ground.
If only the code appears on the screen, on a stamp, or in an oral account, what appears is the sign. The whole of the ground is in the sentence on the copy of the decision. If the sentence and the sign do not stand side by side, a sentence is not produced from the sign. The letter on the stamp has not written the operative part of the decision by itself either. The operative part writes whether the ban was imposed and what the act is. That the code passes in the operative part does not mean the operative part will not be read. First the operative part, then the sentence of the ground, and last the abbreviation are read. If the order is reversed, the sign passes in front of the ruling.
The person may have heard the code in a message, in an appointment note, or in an oral meeting. What was heard is not the text that was served. If the abbreviation that passed in what was heard also passes on the copy of the decision, the meaning is still in the sentence on the copy. If it does not pass on the copy, what was heard does not build a new act. Which paper is in hand is separated from the heading line. Before the heading is read, the code does not by itself announce the type of the act.
The copy of the decision, and the screen
The document that is read is the copy of the decision that was served, or given to the person. The decision writes the code, and a sentence stands in the ground section. That sentence is the counterpart of the code in this file. The sentence is not looked for as the counterpart of the code in a general dictionary. There is no dictionary in this article. The counterpart a relative or an intermediary said does not stand in for the sentence of the decision. If the printout in the intermediary's hand and the copy served on the person differ, what is taken as the basis is the text that has a service record. If there is no record, which printout is the basis is not chosen from here either.
If the copy of the decision and the screenshot conflict, what is taken as the basis is the text that was served. If the image has the code and the decision writes the ground differently, the ground is in the decision. The two papers are left side by side. An incomplete printout does not fill the incomplete sentence. If there is no copy of the decision at all, a meaning is not built either. In that case it is not announced what result the code produces. The date in the corner of the printout is not made the date of the ground while there is no sentence. When the sentence stands, the date stays as the record beside the sentence.
The operative part also stands apart from the code. If the operative part has only the code and there is no sentence, a result of a ban is not announced from here either. If the operative part writes the name of an act, the act is that name. If the code shortens the ground of the name, the abbreviation does not stand in for the name. If the two lines conflict, both are left as they are. The conflict is not closed in this article by choosing one line. When the full text stands, which line is the basis of the act is seen.
A list, and a similar abbreviation
Codes may appear with a letter and a figure. This appearance is not a table to be memorised by the public. This text does not list which letter produces which result. A listing would pass in front of the sentence of the decision in hand. Another person's code is not made the ground of this file. A brochure, a forum post, or a ready list on the screen is not put in place of the decision that was served. Even if a line of the list resembles the sentence in the person's decision, what is read is the person's own sentence.
That a similar abbreviation is seen in two decisions does not mean the two grounds are the same. Each decision carries its own sentence. Even if the sentence is short, that is what is read. If there is no sentence, this article does not invent a meaning. If there is no operative part, the result is not completed from here either. Saying how the code will end by looking at a list would produce an ending that is not written in the decision. An ending exists only if it is written in the decision. A written ending is not changed with another file's ending.
The same code may be seen tied to an entry ban in one file and only to a record mark in another file. The tie is in each decision's own sentence. This page does not join the two ties in a single explanation. The code passing in the person's passport, or on a query printout, does not build a new ban either while the decision that was served is absent. If the printout refers to the copy of the decision, the reference is as far as it was written. If there is no reference, the printout is not treated as a sentence of the ground.
The old decision and the new decision
Two separate codes may also be seen in the same person's old and new decisions. The old code does not update the sentence of the new decision by itself. If the new decision carries a code, that decision's sentence is read. The old paper is not pasted in place of the new operative part. Which decision is in hand is separated from the date and heading lines of the copies. This separation is not a catalogue of codes either. The old decision has a sentence. The new decision has only a code. The code in the new decision is not completed from the old sentence. If the old sentence is expressly mentioned in the new decision, the part that is mentioned is read.
Even if the two decisions carry the same abbreviation, the operative parts are read separately. If one imposes the ban and the other says another act, each operative part stays in its own place. If the person was told orally that "the old code was lifted", this word is not treated as a record if it is not the sentence of the new decision. Lifting is read only if it stands in a writing. If there is no writing, the old operative part is not treated as erased by the word. If the new writing mentions the old operative part and says it brought it to an end, what is said is that sentence.
The service record is also separate for each decision. If the old decision was served and the new decision has no record, it is not assumed the new text arrived. If the copy that went to the lawyer and the copy that went to the person carry different codes, the two copies are left side by side. Which is the basis comes out of the service line. If there is no line, this page does not choose one.
The deportation clause is a separate heading
The code is read as the short form of the ground of the entry ban. An entry ban may not be the same paper as the deportation decision built about a person who is in the country. The code line is not read as the operative part of the deportation decision. If the two acts stand side by side in the same notice, each is separated from its own heading. The ground of one is not pasted onto the other from memory. That the notice is a single envelope does not join the headings. If there are two writings in the envelope, there are two acts.
An entry-ban decision reads this separation. The article on objection to a deportation decision is the place of the reading against the removal decision. The meaning of the code does not build the petition sections of that objection. Non-extension of a residence permit and refusal of a work permit do not say the meaning of the code either. The refusal sentence in the permit writing is not the counterpart of the restriction code. Which paper is in hand is understood from the heading. If a code passes in the permit-refusal writing, the code is read with that writing's sentence. If there is no sentence, an entry ban is not completed from the permit refusal.
The frame stands on the international law page. The basis is the text of the Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection. The name of the statute does not produce the dictionary counterpart of the code on this page. The counterpart is in the sentence of the decision that belongs to the person.
The objection text is not on this page
What the code said in the decision, and how the route against that decision is built, are separate questions. The route is read from the type of the act that was served, and the objection text is not written on this page. If the period is written on the decision's own line, it is read from there. If there is no line, this text does not produce a period. A petition section, a request for a stay, and the choice of court are not the subject of this heading. A draft asking for the code to be corrected is not built here either.
This article does not tell of the decision not being applied. The reading ends in the sentence of the decision in hand. The copy of the decision needs to stand in the file. While there is no copy, a result is not announced from the abbreviation. Another person's similar code is not made the ground of the objection in this file. The ground is only the sentence written in this decision.
Conclusion
A restriction code is the short form of the ground of the entry ban. The meaning is not the memorised item on a list. It is the sentence in the text of the decision. There is no code table in this article. A similar abbreviation does not carry another file's result. The petition of the deportation objection is not built here. The period and the result of the act are read from the decision's own line.