Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Awards In Turkey

Abstract

This article explains how a foreign arbitral award is recognised and enforced in Türkiye, with particular attention to the 1958 New York Convention, Türkiye's reciprocity and commercial reservations, the alternative regime in Articles 60 to 63 of the Code on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure No. 5718, and the distinction between enforcement and a forbidden review of the merits. It addresses the competent court, Article IV filing documents, Article V defences, public order, arbitrability, appeal, interim protection and execution against assets. It also identifies the separate position of awards seated in Türkiye under International Arbitration Law No. 4686. The analysis is designed for foreign companies, award creditors, in-house counsel and transaction teams that need a realistic Turkish enforcement plan.

Introduction

An arbitral award does not enforce itself. Even where the tribunal has finally determined liability, the successful party still needs the assistance of the courts in the jurisdiction where the debtor or its assets are located. In Türkiye, that assistance is normally obtained through an enforcement action, known as tenfiz, followed by execution under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004.¹

Türkiye has been a contracting state to the New York Convention since 1992. The Convention is therefore the principal route for eligible awards. It is deliberately enforcement-oriented: the applicant must produce a limited documentary file, while the party resisting enforcement carries the burden for most objections. The enforcement court does not sit as an appellate tribunal over the arbitrators. Its function is to decide whether the award may enter the Turkish legal order and be executed there.²

That favourable structure should not be confused with automatic enforcement. Turkish procedure, certified translations, proper service and the identification of attachable assets remain decisive. A creditor that begins with the wrong statutory regime, an incomplete Article IV file or an imprecise asset strategy can lose months before the merits of any defence are even considered.

1. The Governing Framework

Three legal tracks must be distinguished at the outset. First, the New York Convention governs an award falling within its territorial and commercial scope. Second, Articles 60 to 63 of Law No. 5718 govern foreign awards outside the Convention's scope or where the domestic regime is otherwise applicable. Third, an award seated in Türkiye is not treated as a foreign award merely because one or both parties are foreign; its status is determined principally under International Arbitration Law No. 4686 or, where that Law does not apply, the Code of Civil Procedure.³

The classification should be completed before drafting the petition. The same award should not be presented simultaneously as foreign and domestic, and the petition should expressly identify why the selected convention or statute governs. Where a treaty offers more favourable treatment, Article VII(1) of the Convention preserves the claimant's ability to rely on that route.⁴

2. Scope of the New York Convention in Türkiye

2.1 Reciprocity and commercial reservations

Türkiye applies the Convention to awards made in the territory of another contracting state and to disputes arising from legal relationships regarded as commercial under Turkish law. These reservations make two preliminary checks essential: the seat of arbitration and the legal character of the underlying relationship. The nationality of the arbitrators or parties is not the controlling test.⁵

If the Convention does not apply because the award originates in a non-contracting state or the relationship falls outside the commercial reservation, Law No. 5718 may still provide a route to enforcement. The absence of Convention coverage is therefore not the same as non-enforceability, but it changes the legal analysis and the required documents.

2.2 Recognition and enforcement are related but distinct

Recognition allows the award to be relied upon for its conclusive legal effect, for example as a defence or as a basis for res judicata. Enforcement adds the authority of the Turkish state to compel performance. A money award normally requires enforcement. A party seeking only to rely on an award defensively may require recognition alone. Article 63 of Law No. 5718 directs that the enforcement provisions also apply to recognition.⁶

3. Preparing and Filing the Application

3.1 Competent court and venue

The application is filed before the competent court of first instance. In a commercial dispute, this will ordinarily be the Commercial Court of First Instance. Under Article 60(2) of Law No. 5718, territorial venue first follows any written agreement between the parties. In the absence of such an agreement, the claimant may look to the respondent's domicile, habitual residence or the place where assets capable of execution are located.⁷

For a foreign creditor, asset location should be examined before filing. A jurisdiction clause that points to a city in which the debtor has no presence may be legally valid but commercially inefficient. Bank accounts, receivables, shares, real estate, vessels and intellectual property each require a different execution analysis.

3.2 The Article IV document package

Article IV requires the authenticated original award or a duly certified copy, the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy, and a duly certified Turkish translation where the documents are not in Turkish. The Convention does not make a separate certificate of finality a universal filing requirement. Binding status becomes relevant under Article V(1)(e), where the resisting party may show that the award has not yet become binding or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority.⁸

3.3 Service, translation and security for costs

The respondent must be served in accordance with the applicable Turkish and international service rules. If the respondent is abroad, the Hague Service Convention or a bilateral instrument may govern. Service planning should therefore begin with the petition, not after the first hearing date.⁹

A foreign claimant may also encounter a request for security for costs under Article 48 of Law No. 5718. Treaty protection or reciprocity may provide an exemption. Counsel should verify this by reference to the claimant's nationality and the current treaty and reciprocity position rather than assuming that every foreign company must provide security.¹⁰

4. Article V: Exhaustive Grounds for Refusal

The refusal grounds are exhaustive. They are not invitations to reconsider whether the tribunal interpreted the contract correctly or weighed the evidence persuasively. Five grounds must be proved by the party resisting enforcement. Two further grounds, arbitrability and public policy, may be considered by the court on its own motion.¹¹

4.1 Due process objections require substance

A respondent does not establish an Article V(1)(b) defence merely by identifying a procedural imperfection. The question is whether the party lacked proper notice or was genuinely unable to present its case. A party that received notice, participated and declined available procedural opportunities will face difficulty converting tactical choices into an enforcement defence.

The enforcement file should therefore include the procedural chronology: notices of arbitration, tribunal constitution, hearing invitations, key submissions and proof of delivery. A concise chronology often answers a due process objection more effectively than extensive argument about the merits.

4.2 Excess of mandate and partial enforcement

Where an award contains both matters submitted to arbitration and matters outside the submission, Article V(1)(c) permits enforcement of the separable portion that falls within the tribunal's mandate. Drafting the requested relief and the operative section with distinct heads of relief improves the prospect of severability.

5. Public Order, Arbitrability and the Prohibition on Merits Review

5.1 Public order is a safety valve, not an appeal

Turkish public order protects the fundamental legal, economic and moral values of the forum. It should not be equated with every mandatory rule of Turkish law. If any error in applying a mandatory rule were enough, Article V(2)(b) would become an appeal on the merits and the Convention's enforcement structure would be defeated.¹²

The correct inquiry is outcome-focused: would giving effect to the award in Türkiye produce a result manifestly incompatible with a fundamental principle of the Turkish legal order? A disagreement about contractual interpretation, interest calculation, evidentiary weight or the tribunal's reasons ordinarily does not meet that standard.

5.2 Arbitrability is tested under Turkish law

Even a valid arbitration agreement cannot remove from Turkish courts or public authorities a dispute that Turkish law treats as non-arbitrable. Rights in rem in immovable property located in Türkiye are a standard example under International Arbitration Law No. 4686. The enquiry should be directed to the subject matter decided, not the label attached to the contract.¹³

5.3 No revision au fond

The prohibition on revision au fond is central. The Turkish enforcement court may interpret the award and the arbitration agreement to decide whether an Article V ground exists, but it may not replace the tribunal's evaluation with its own. A public policy analysis must not be used as an indirect route to rehear liability or quantum.

6. Judicial Guidance and Practical Lessons

Court of Cassation decisions show both the narrow architecture of the Convention and the seriousness of the limited safeguards that remain. In its 11th Civil Chamber decision E. 2006/7396, K. 2007/6672, dated 1 May 2007, the Court refused enforcement where the award's treatment of value added tax conflicted with a final Turkish tax court judgment involving the same underlying issue. The case is exceptional rather than routine: it concerned a direct conflict with a final domestic judgment and was analysed through public order.¹⁴

The 11th Civil Chamber's decision E. 2019/3469, K. 2019/4259, dated 11 June 2019, concerned an attempted enforcement of an arbitral measure that had not acquired the required binding and enforceable character under the applicable domestic framework. Its practical lesson is that interim, procedural and final decisions must be classified carefully before an application is filed. Calling a tribunal document an 'award' does not establish that it is presently capable of enforcement.¹⁵

Recent published Court of Cassation materials continue to frame the task by reference to Law No. 5718 and the applicable treaty, and not as a review of the underlying contract claim. The safest use of precedent is therefore proposition-specific. Counsel should match each authority to the precise refusal ground raised and check the full official text, chamber, date and procedural posture before filing.¹⁶

7. Decision, Appeal and Execution

If the court grants enforcement, the foreign award becomes executable in Türkiye in the manner of a Turkish judgment. Recognition alone does not authorise coercive collection. The creditor must commence or continue execution proceedings under Law No. 2004 and identify the appropriate method for the relevant asset.

The enforcement judgment is subject to appellate review under the applicable procedural rules. Law No. 5718 provides that an appeal suspends execution of an enforcement judgment. Timelines should therefore distinguish between the first-instance decision, appellate finality and the separate pace of execution against assets.¹⁷

Court of Cassation practice treats the enforcement action as subject to a fixed court fee rather than a fee calculated on the value of the award. The claimant should nevertheless budget for translation, certification, service abroad, expert work where needed, counsel and execution expenses. Fee practice and amounts must be checked at the filing date.¹⁸

7.1 Interim protection and asset preservation

An enforcement application is not a substitute for asset preservation. Depending on the evidence and the type of asset, provisional attachment or another protective measure may be available under Turkish law. The applicant must satisfy the statutory conditions and should avoid assuming that the award itself automatically freezes assets.

Asset tracing should be lawful and targeted. Registry searches, corporate records, land records, vessel and vehicle registries, receivables and bank relationships may each inform the strategy, but access rules differ. The petition and the execution plan should be designed together.

8. Turkey-Seated Awards

A Turkey-seated international award is not enforced through the New York Convention as a foreign award. International Arbitration Law No. 4686 provides the principal framework for arbitration with a foreign element where the seat is Türkiye or the statute has been validly selected. The principal judicial remedy is an action to set aside on the limited grounds stated in Article 15.¹⁹

The statute also regulates the document establishing enforceability. The procedural route and the effect of a pending set-aside action must be reviewed under the current version of Article 15 and the relevant court rules. It is inaccurate to say that every Turkey-seated award needs a foreign-award recognition action; equally, it is too broad to say that no court document is ever required before execution.

The Istanbul Arbitration Centre is an institutional option for parties choosing Türkiye as the seat. Whether ISTAC, ICC, ad hoc rules or another institution is selected, the seat remains legally distinct from the institution and the place of hearings. That distinction affects set-aside jurisdiction and enforcement planning.

9. Planning for Enforcement Before a Dispute

The strongest enforcement position is usually created in the contract and during the arbitration, not after the award. Foreign parties should treat the following points as transaction terms.

Choose a seat in a Convention state with reliable court supervision and identify where the counterparty's assets are likely to be located.

Draft one clear arbitration agreement covering the intended contractual and non-contractual claims, and avoid conflicting jurisdiction clauses.

Use a method of tribunal appointment that can operate even if one party refuses to cooperate.

Preserve proof of notice, delivery and procedural opportunity throughout the arbitration.

Request a clearly structured operative section stating currency, interest, costs, dates and the precise debtor and creditor.

Check sanctions, insolvency, public-law restrictions and non-arbitrability issues before assuming that a monetary award will be collectible.

Start Turkish asset analysis before the award is issued if dissipation risk is credible.

10. Frequently Asked Questions

Is a foreign arbitral award automatically enforceable in Türkiye?

No. The creditor generally needs a Turkish recognition or enforcement judgment under the Convention or Law No. 5718 before using compulsory execution measures. Voluntary compliance requires no court order.

Must the award carry a separate finality certificate?

Not as a universal Article IV requirement under the New York Convention. Article IV identifies the award, arbitration agreement and certified translation. The respondent may rely on Article V(1)(e) if the award is not yet binding or has been set aside or suspended. Under Law No. 5718, the domestic wording and Article 61 document requirements must be examined separately.

Can the Turkish court reconsider whether the tribunal was correct?

No. The enforcement court does not retry the dispute. It may examine only the Convention or statutory refusal grounds. Public order cannot properly be used as a general merits appeal.

What if the respondent never participated in the arbitration?

Non-participation does not itself prevent enforcement. The decisive question is whether the respondent received proper notice and had a genuine opportunity to present its case. Proof of service and the procedural chronology are therefore critical.

Can only part of an award be enforced?

Yes, where the enforceable part is separable from a part that exceeds the submission to arbitration or is otherwise affected by a refusal ground. Clear drafting of the operative section materially assists severability.

Does filing for annulment at the seat automatically stop Turkish enforcement?

Not automatically in every case. Article VI of the Convention allows the Turkish court to adjourn the enforcement decision where a set-aside or suspension application is pending and to order security on the applicant's request. The court evaluates the circumstances.²⁰

How long does enforcement take?

There is no reliable universal period. Service abroad, objections, appeals, translation disputes and court workload can materially extend the timetable. A complete filing and early asset strategy reduce avoidable delay but cannot eliminate contested stages.

Must the award creditor travel to Türkiye?

Usually not. Turkish counsel can normally act under a properly executed, apostilled or legalised power of attorney. The required wording and formalities should be confirmed before signature abroad.

Can the creditor seek interest and costs awarded by the tribunal?

Ordinarily the enforcement request should reproduce the operative relief accurately, including currency, interest basis and costs. Ambiguity in the award cannot safely be repaired by inviting the enforcement court to decide the merits. Calculations should therefore be transparent and consistent with the award.

Conclusion

The New York Convention gives foreign award creditors a disciplined and comparatively predictable route to enforcement in Türkiye. Its value lies in limited court review, a defined documentary threshold and exhaustive refusal grounds. Success nevertheless depends on more than obtaining the award. The creditor must select the correct legal framework, present a flawless Turkish filing package, answer Article V objections without reopening the merits and connect the judgment to a realistic execution strategy.

For foreign businesses, the practical rule is simple: plan for enforcement when drafting the arbitration clause, preserve due process during the arbitration and investigate Turkish assets before commencing the court process. That approach protects both legal validity and commercial recovery.

Bibliography and References

Legislation and treaties: Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 1958. Code on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure No. 5718. International Arbitration Law No. 4686. Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004. Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. Hague Service Convention, 1965.

Official sources: United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Status of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (2016), https://uncitral.un.org. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Justice, UYAP Legislation and Case Law Programme, https://mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Justice, Directorate General for Foreign Relations and European Union, official treaty materials, https://diabgm.adalet.gov.tr. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, Tahkime İlişkin Temel Kavramlar, Düzenlemeler ve Güncel Gelişmeler, updated and expanded 3rd ed. (2026), https://ticaret.gov.tr.

Selected judicial authorities: Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2006/7396, K. 2007/6672, 1 May 2007. Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2019/3469, K. 2019/4259, 11 June 2019. Full official texts and later treatment should be checked in UYAP before reliance.

Selected legal books and scholarship: Çelikel, Aysel and Erdem, B. Bahadır, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, Beta. Ekşi, Nuray, Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizi, Beta. Kalpsüz, Turgut, Türkiye'de Milletlerarası Tahkim, Yetkin. Nomer, Ergin; Ekşi, Nuray; Öztekin Gelgel, Günseli, Milletlerarası Tahkim Hukuku, Beta. Şanlı, Cemal; Esen, Emre; Ataman-Figanmeşe, İnci, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, Beta.

Academic authority: Ekşi, Nuray, “Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tenfizinde Kamu Düzeni,” Public and Private International Law Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 1 (2020), pp. 143-201.

Footnotes

^{1 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 10 June 1958, Articles III to V; Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004.}

^{2 The Convention entered into force for Türkiye on 30 September 1992. Türkiye applies the reciprocity and commercial reservations permitted by Article I(3). See UNCITRAL, Status: Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.}

^{3 Code on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure No. 5718, Articles 60 to 63; International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Articles 1 and 15; Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Articles 407 to 444.}

^{4 New York Convention, Article VII(1), often described as the more-favourable-right provision.}

^{5 New York Convention, Article I(3); Türkiye's declarations recorded in the United Nations treaty status materials.}

^{6 Law No. 5718, Article 63.}

^{7 Law No. 5718, Article 60(2). The allocation between civil and commercial courts must also be tested under the Turkish Commercial Code and the procedural legislation.}

^{8 New York Convention, Articles IV and V(1)(e). Compare Law No. 5718, Articles 60 and 61, which refer to an award that is final and enforceable or binding under the applicable law.}

^{9 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 15 November 1965, where applicable.}

^{10 Law No. 5718, Article 48; Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Justice, Directorate General for Foreign Relations and European Union, guidance on foreigners' obligation to provide security.}

^{11 New York Convention, Article V; UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 2016.}

^{12 Ekşi, Nuray, “Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tenfizinde Kamu Düzeni,” Public and Private International Law Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 1 (2020), pp. 143-201.}

^{13 International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Article 1(4), excluding disputes concerning rights in rem over immovable property situated in Türkiye and disputes not subject to the parties' disposition.}

^{14 Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2006/7396, K. 2007/6672, 1 May 2007. The decision is discussed in Ekşi (2020), pp. 187-188.}

^{15 Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2019/3469, K. 2019/4259, 11 June 2019, concerning the enforceability of the arbitral disposition presented to the Turkish courts.}

^{16 Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Justice, UYAP Legislation and Case Law Programme, published Court of Cassation decisions concerning enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.}

^{17 Law No. 5718, Articles 57 and 61(2).}

^{18 See published Court of Cassation materials in the Ministry of Justice UYAP database on the application of a fixed fee in foreign arbitral award enforcement actions.}

^{19 International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Articles 1 and 15.}

^{20 New York Convention, Article VI.}

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.