Alper Arslan
Arslan Arslan, Istanbul

Introduction

In Turkey, the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards is principally governed by the International Private and Procedural Law No. 5718 (MÖHUK), supported by the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) and the Code of Execution and Bankruptcy (İİK).

Recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments

Scope and instruments

Foreign court judgments are addressed in MÖHUK Articles 50–59. ‘Recognition’ (tanıma) grants res judicata and evidentiary effect; ‘enforcement’ (tenfiz) authorises coercive execution as if it were a Turkish judgment.

Competent court (venue)

Applications are filed with the Court of First Instance at the debtor’s domicile in Turkey; if none, at their habitual residence or otherwise in a court in Ankara, Istanbul or Izmir. Parties may designate the venue within statutory limits.

Evidence and filing

Proceedings follow HMK’s simplified procedure (Articles 316–322). Filings include the final and binding judgment (or certified copy) and certified translations. Apostille suffices where applicable; otherwise consular legalisation is required. Service abroad proceeds under the Hague Service Convention or relevant bilateral instruments. No review on the merits.

Substantive conditions

• Finality/binding effect under the law of origin (finality certificates are often requested).
• Reciprocity – treaty‑based, statutory or de facto.
• Jurisdiction and exclusivity – no adjudication of matters within Turkish courts’ exclusive jurisdiction (eg, in rem rights over immovables in Turkey, certain status matters) and no manifestly incompatible assumption of jurisdiction.
• Due process – lawful service and a genuine opportunity to be heard.
• Public policy – no contravention of Turkish public policy applying a narrow, international public policy lens.
• No irreconcilable conflict with a prior final Turkish judgment between the same parties and cause of action, and no earlier‑filed Turkish case on the same dispute.

Effects and appeal

A recognition decision confers res judicata/issue preclusion; an enforcement decision authorises execution under the İİK. Appeal suspends execution until final. Execution office fees apply when collection begins after finality.

Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards

Framework

Turkey is a party to the 1958 New York Convention. Article III leaves procedure to local law; in Turkey, that is MÖHUK (Articles 60–63) with support from HMK and İİK. Where the award’s seat is not a Convention state and no bilateral treaty applies, Article 62 of MÖHUK additionally requires reciprocity – ie, the seat state must allow enforcement of Turkish awards.

Jurisdiction and venue

Under MÖHUK Article 60(2), the competent court is the Commercial Court of First Instance agreed by the parties; failing which the court at the debtor’s domicile; failing which the court of habitual residence; and if none the court where assets subject to enforcement are located. Where commercial courts are not established, civil courts of first instance hear the case. Venue clauses are respected unless they conflict with mandatory venue rules protecting weaker parties or undermine effective access to Turkish courts.

Applicable law and scope

Turkish courts do not sit as appellate tribunals over the tribunal’s merits findings. Review is confined to the refusal grounds exhaustively listed in the New York Convention and MÖHUK in the same direction.

Evidence and filing

Actions proceed under HMK’s simplified procedure (Articles 316–322). The claimant must submit:

• the arbitration agreement (original or certified copy);
• the final award (original or certified copy); and
• certified translations of both.

Apostille suffices where available; otherwise consular legalisation is required. Translations are ordinarily translated into Turkish by a sworn translator. If the respondent is abroad, service generally follows the Hague Service Convention or applicable bilateral instruments.

Procedure

The respondent has two weeks to answer (extendable up to four weeks for justified reasons). Evidence must be front‑loaded; iterative briefs are generally not permitted. Hearings may be held, but inquiry remains restricted to the statutory refusal grounds. Strict merits review is prohibited; issues of law or fact are examined only insofar as they intersect with a refusal ground (eg, arbitrability, due process or public policy).

Grounds for refusal

Article V of the New York Convention and MÖHUK Article 62 enumerate:

• invalid/inoperative arbitration agreement or lack of capacity;
• lack of proper notice or inability to present one’s case;
• excess of mandate/ultra petita;
• improper constitution of the tribunal or procedure;
• award not binding or set aside at the seat;
• non‑arbitrability under Turkish law; and
• public policy.

Non‑arbitrability

Matters not subject to party disposition and areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts (eg, certain status matters, bankruptcy, and in rem rights over immovables in Turkey) are non‑arbitrable. Commercial disputes are generally arbitrable unless a statute provides otherwise.

Public policy

Modern jurisprudence applies a narrow construction, reserved for fundamental procedural defects or violations of core legal principles. Differences in penalty amounts or interest rates normally do not trigger public policy unless they yield outcomes that are clearly unjust or incompatible with constitutional values. The focus is on international public policy principles rather than every domestic mandatory rule.

Court fees and expenses

Court fees derive from the Law on Fees (Harçlar Kanunu, Law No. 492) and are updated annually. For 2025 the fees are:

• application fee: around TRY615.40;^[1]
• decision and award fee at 6.831 per cent of the claim amount – one‑quarter on filing,^[2] the balance from the losing party if enforcement is granted;
• advance on costs typically around TRY10,000^[3] (service, courier, expert fees, translation, and incidentals), adjustable for complexity and number of respondents.

If the claim is dismissed, courts generally order the losing party to bear costs and a statutory attorney fee in favour of counsel for the prevailing party. After an enforcement judgment, collection at the execution office entails additional execution fees (payment order, attachment, and third‑party garnishment‑related outlays). Given annual adjustments and inflation, practitioners should verify the latest Official Gazette tables before filing.

Security for costs (guarantee)

Under MÖHUK Article 48, foreign claimants may be ordered to deposit security for costs unless exempted by a bilateral treaty or the 1954 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure. In practice, courts often set security between 15–20 per cent of the claim, calibrated to likely recoverable costs and any potential loss to the respondent. This is distinct from security that may be required for interim measures.

Interim measures pending enforcement

Purpose and tools

Interim measures help prevent asset dissipation while the enforcement case is ongoing. Two routes are used:

• Interim attachment (ihtiyati haciz) for monetary claims under the İİK. Creditors must show a prima facie receivable and risk to recovery, and courts often require security (often around 15 per cent of the claim). Turkish case law accepts that even a foreign arbitral award before a final enforcement decision can justify attachment.
• Interim injunctions (ihtiyati tedbir) for non‑monetary obligations. These preserve the status quo until enforcement concludes. Courts typically require security (often around 15 per cent of the claim), calibrated to potential harm if the injunction later proves unjustified.

Courts assess the strength of the claim, risk to assets, and overall fairness. Because chambers may differ in practice, counsel should align requests with local expectations, justify urgency and security, and match the relief to the nature of the award (monetary vs non‑monetary).

Appeals

Enforcement decisions undergo two‑tier review: first by the Regional Courts of Appeal (BAM), then the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay). An appeal must be filed within 15 days of service. Under MÖHUK Article 57(2), enforcement is suspended during appeal; execution may begin only once the decision is final. Access to the Court of Cassation may depend on monetary thresholds: practitioners should verify current limits. Appellate review is confined to legal and procedural issues; the merits remain off‑limits.

Execution of enforcement decisions

Once final, an enforcement judgment is executed like a domestic judgment under the İİK. The execution office issues a seven‑day payment order; absent payment or a stay, assets may be attached. Personal service triggers the obligation to file a timely asset declaration, with potential penal consequences for failure. If the award debtor had counsel in the underlying case, service of the payment order should also be made on counsel of record to forestall service objections.

Creditors may also use parallel tools such as attachment of assets, garnishment of receivables, third‑party disclosure orders (where available), and coordinated cross‑border enforcement to maintain pressure and deter asset flight.

Conclusion

Turkey provides a clear and reliable system for enforcing foreign arbitral awards and foreign court judgments. Notable features include:

• well‑defined jurisdictional rules and reciprocity requirements for states outside the New York Convention or without bilateral treaties;
• regularly updated court fee structures, with the losing party responsible for fees, litigation costs, and enforcement expenses and a statutory attorney fee in favour of counsel;
• a narrow and principled view of public policy;
• availability of interim attachment and injunctions supported by case law; and
• a two‑level appeal process that safeguards procedure but can extend timelines when used strategically.

These features align practice with international standards while seeking a balance between efficiency, fairness and legal certainty.