Editorial standards
Corrections and challenges
Corrections are a feature of this site, not an embarrassment. The rules we describe change often, the sources sometimes disagree, and we make mistakes. Every correction makes the record stronger, and every correction is published.
Who can challenge a claim
Anyone: the authorities whose documents we cite, lawyers, academics, people in the property industry, and readers. We particularly welcome challenges from institutions whose information we represent, because our aim is that their authoritative information is represented accurately and stays current; we are not asking anyone to endorse this site.
How to challenge
Write to editorial@northcyprusreference.com with the address of the page or the identifier of the record (every rule, claim and event shows its identifier), what you believe is wrong or out of date, and the evidence. A primary source, such as a gazette issue, a consolidated law text, a court decision or an official publication, carries the most weight; a professional or press source is welcome and will be tiered accordingly. A challenge to a translation is welcome too; if the English record is right and the translation is wrong, the translation is corrected and re-approved without touching the record.
What happens next
- The challenge is logged with the date received and the type of challenger. The record concerned is marked “under review” while it is open.
- We read the evidence against the primary texts and decide whether the challenge is accepted, partially accepted or rejected, and we write down the reason.
- An accepted challenge becomes a new dated version of the record, with the reason recorded as a correction or an evidence upgrade. The previous version stays visible in the record’s history. Translations of a corrected record are automatically marked outdated until they are refreshed.
- The challenge and its outcome are listed on this page. A rejected challenge is listed too, with the reason.
A challenge that shows a rule has changed is treated as a regulatory event: the old rule is marked superseded, a new rule is created, and the event links them. Nothing is silently overwritten.
What we do not do
We do not remove accurate information because someone finds it uncomfortable, and we do not add information because someone finds it convenient. The funder of this site has no special route and no veto; its challenges are handled and published like any other.
Record of corrections and challenges
- : Identified by the Mission 03 Knowledge Graph Integrity audit: event-2026-08-07-decree-89-2026.json's own rulesBefore/rulesAfter arrays already recorded that Decree 89/2026 superseded this Rule with decree-acquisition-limits, but the Rule itself still carried status: 'current' with no supersededBy — presenting two contradictory 'current' answers to the same question in the site's own machine-readable data. A second, related defect on the same record (research/reports/correction-readiness-audit-2026-09.md §3): lastVerified was '2026-09-14', five weeks after the 2026-08-07 decree that superseded it — the currentness date itself had not been touched when the supersession happened, so it could not be read as 'confirmed current as of this date' for this record. (rules/statutory-acquisition-limits, editorial, accepted)
Outcome: Set status to 'superseded', effectiveTo to '2026-08-06' (the day before the decree took effect), and supersededBy to decree-acquisition-limits, matching the pattern already applied to three sibling pairs from the same decree (statutory-tax-deadline-sixty-business-days, statutory-transfer-deadline-six-months, statutory-investment-purchases). lastVerified updated to 2026-09-23. The Rule's own statement, title and practicalImplication are unchanged — no legal conclusion was altered, only the record's standing relative to the decree that already superseded it. - : The same defect as decree-89-2026-supersession-link-statutory-acquisition-limits, on the other of the two remaining unlinked pairs the Mission 03 Knowledge Graph Integrity audit found: event-2026-08-07-decree-89-2026.json already recorded this Rule as superseded by decree-same-parcel-cap-eighty-percent, but the Rule itself still carried status: 'current' with no supersededBy. (rules/statutory-same-parcel-cap, editorial, accepted)
Outcome: Set status to 'superseded', effectiveTo to '2026-08-06', and supersededBy to decree-same-parcel-cap-eighty-percent, matching the three sibling pairs already corrected. lastVerified updated to 2026-09-23. The Rule's own statement and title are unchanged. - : The same class of defect as the two acquisition-limit/same-parcel-cap challenges, on one of the three pairs corrected earlier: this Rule and decree-transfer-deadline-one-year were both public and both marked 'current' for the same question (title-transfer deadline), though the 2026-08-07 decree had already recorded this Rule as superseded in event-2026-08-07-decree-89-2026.json's own rulesBefore/rulesAfter arrays. (rules/statutory-transfer-deadline-six-months, editorial, accepted)
Outcome: Founder-reviewed correction, 2026-09-20 (reviews/founder-sync-01-correction-statutory-transfer-deadline-six-months.json): status set to superseded, effectiveTo set to 2026-08-06, supersededBy linked to decree-transfer-deadline-one-year, and its answers[] entry for the title-transfer question removed so it no longer double-answers that question in public data. No underlying legal conclusion changed — the statement, statutory basis and practical-implication note are unchanged from the original text.
Review log
- : rules/foreign-company-branch-council-of-ministers-approval · Founder · Approved · Approved with narrow scope: only the existence of an additional Ministry-approval/Council-of-Ministers-permission process for a foreign company's TRNC branch is confirmed, using the exact terminology of the strongest current primary/official sources already cited on the Rule. Document requirements, exact capital amount, processing time and guarantee amount are NOT Founder-approved by implication and remain governed by their own evidence status.
Reviewed by the Founder, who confirmed this Rule already existed (published earlier). The Founder signed off on and linked the existing Rule rather than have a duplicate Rule created for the same finding. - : rules/work-permit-initial-duration · Founder · Approved · Approved as it stands: this Rule confirms a 6-month-to-1-year initial duration range for the Süreli Çalışma İzni (ordinary time-limited work permit) specifically, per Tüzük Article 15(3). It does NOT confirm the same range for the İş Kurma İzni (Business Establishment Permit) — a distinct permit category under the same Tüzük's Article 6 whose own duration provision was not read with comparable rigor. Founder approval here does not extend this Rule's scope to the İş Kurma İzni; see the new open question q-invest-work-iskurma-izni-initial-duration for that distinct, unresolved point.
Reviewed by the Founder, who had asked about the initial Business Establishment Permit duration. The existing published Rule covers the same 6-month-to-1-year figure, but for a different permit category (Süreli Çalışma İzni) under a different provision. Rather than create a duplicate Rule, the Founder signed off on the existing Rule for what it actually confirms, and a new, precisely scoped question was opened for the still-unconfirmed İş Kurma İzni duration point, recorded as an unverified lead. - : rules/decree-transfer-deadline-one-year · Founder · Approved · the text has changed since this review
Approved, 20 September 2026 — correction (companion to a related record). Added the supersedes back-link to statutory-transfer-deadline-six-months, completing the correction. No change to this rule's own statement, status or validity window (still current, effectiveTo 2026-11-05). Flag for a future review: if that date passes without a renewal or a permanent Assembly amendment, a human must decide whether the statutory six-month rule should be relinked as the live answer. - : rules/statutory-transfer-deadline-six-months · Founder · Approved
Applies a correction, approved 2026-09-20: this rule and decree-transfer-deadline-one-year were both public and both marked current for the same question, though the 2026-08-07 decree (event-2026-08-07-decree-89-2026) had already superseded it. Corrected: status set to superseded, effectiveTo set to 2026-08-06, supersededBy linked to decree-transfer-deadline-one-year, and its answers entry for the title-transfer-pathway question removed so it no longer double-answers that question in public data. No underlying legal conclusion changed — the statement, statutory basis and practical-implication note are unchanged from the original text; verified directly against the published data export after the build that only decree-transfer-deadline-one-year now answers that question. - : rules/income-tax-period-calendar-year · Founder · Approved
Approved as published, 20 September 2026. Confirms the tax period is the calendar year, within the narrow scope this Rule already states — it does not address tax residency, domicile, or any 183-day test, and must continue not to be combined with those separate, unapproved questions. - : rules/personal-deduction-amount-2026 · Founder · Approved
Approved as published, 20 September 2026. Confirms the 2026 personal deduction amount of 655,000 TL as already stated, sourced to Council of Ministers Decision Ü(K-I) 132-2026. - : rules/social-security-agreement-legal-concept · Founder · Approved · Approved with scope: only the defined legal concept of a Social Security Agreement, and the Ministry's statutory authority to conclude one, are confirmed. No country or specific agreement is confirmed as concluded by this Rule. · the text has changed since this review
Approved with scope limits, 20 September 2026. Only rights/countries actually evidenced by a specific concluded agreement may ever be stated — this Rule already correctly avoids naming any country or asserting Turkiye has a concluded Social Security Agreement, and that scope limitation must be preserved in any future edit or in any new content that cites this Rule. - : rules/social-security-health-service-eligibility-and-coverage · Founder · Approved · Approved with scope: this is eligibility under the statutory Social Security framework for insured persons and their dependants/pensioners only — not a universal entitlement for foreign residents generally.
Approved with scope limits, 20 September 2026. Must NOT be phrased or summarised anywhere as a universal free-healthcare entitlement for every foreign resident. This Rule's own exceptions field already states this limitation explicitly; that limitation must be preserved in any future edit or in any new content that cites this Rule. - : rules/work-permit-initial-duration · Founder · Approved
Approved as published, 20 September 2026. Confirms an initial Time-limited Work Permit runs 6 months to 1 year, within the stated scope (first-time application only; renewal mechanics and cumulative duration remain unestablished). - : rules/work-permit-preliminary-permit-standard-process · Founder · Approved · the text has changed since this review
Approved as published, 20 September 2026. Confirms the standard route requires the employer to obtain a Preliminary Permit before the foreign worker enters the TRNC and to complete registration afterward, within the scope this Rule already states (the standard employer-sponsored route for a worker currently abroad; other conversion routes remain separately unapproved). - : rules/work-permit-termination-cancellation-legal-effect · Founder · Approved
Approved as published, 20 September 2026. Confirms an employer-linked work permit becomes legally invalid when the employment relationship ends, within the narrow legal-effect-only scope this Rule already states — administrative processing timing and immigration-status consequences remain explicitly not established, as already noted.