According to Article 297(2) of the Turkish Code of Civil
"The ruling on each of the claims and the rights
granted and obligations imposed on the parties shall be stated in
the dispositive section of the [court] decision in a sequence and
clearly in a way to prevent any doubts or hesitation without
repeating any statements included in the legal
In short, dispositive sections of court decisions should be
The Turkish Court of Appeals has ruled in various decisions that
the above provision of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure is
mandatory and, thus, dispositive sections that are not stand-alone
and giving rise to hesitation are in breach of the law.
For example, the Turkish Court of Appeals in a decision dated
03.10.2011 overruled a court of first instance decision holding
that the court's order regarding the payment of interest does
not state its beginning date in the dispositive section contrary to
Article 297, and thus, may give rise to hesitation during the
The Turkish Court of Appeals also held in a decision dated
14.05.2012 that a court decision cannot refer to petitions, expert
reports or any other documents in the dispositive section and that
all the rights granted and obligations imposed on the parties
should be clearly declared.
At the execution of court decisions, the execution offices also
only consider the dispositive sections of the decisions and execute
only the rulings in such sections. If the dispositive section is
not stand-alone and refers to the other sections of the decision,
the execution officers refuse to interpret the ruling in the
dispositive sections based on such referrals.
Same principle applies to the enforcement of foreign arbitral
awards in Turkey. The Turkish courts and executive offices only
consider the dispositive sections of the arbitral awards and refuse
enforcement if such sections are not stand-alone.
Mechanisms such as 'interpretation of the award' as in
Article 35(2) of the 2012 ICC Rules may be utilized to correct
arbitral awards without stand-alone dispositive sections
However, such mechanisms may be time consuming for the parties
eager to enforce arbitral awards. Therefore, instead of
after-the-fact fixes, parties are advised to consider this issue
during the proceedings themselves.
1 Turkish Court of Appeals decision dated 03.10.2011 with
decision number 2011/12945 and case number 2010/3833.
2 Turkish Court of Appeals decision dated 14.05.2012 with
decision number 2012/13068 and case number 2012/9196.
Originally published on ILO, 2013.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
On 26 October 2016, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & 6 others v (1) Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus (2) Maksat Askaruly Arip (3) Shynar Dikhanbayeva  EWCA Civ 1036.
With high cost and inefficiency top of the list of party concerns about the arbitral process, institutions, arbitrators, practitioners and indeed legislators are keen to find ways to address those concerns.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).