Introduction
An international arbitration does not necessarily end when the tribunal issues its award. Where the losing party does not pay voluntarily, the successful party must decide how to turn the award into recovery. That assessment should begin with the debtor's assets, the legal status of the award and the requirements of the jurisdiction in which enforcement will be sought.
For a foreign company holding an award against a Turkish counterparty, three questions should be addressed separately: whether the award can be recognised in Türkiye, whether it can be declared enforceable, and whether there are assets against which execution will produce a meaningful recovery.
The quality of the arbitral award matters. So does the quality of the enforcement preparation. A persuasive account of why the tribunal reached the right result will not necessarily answer an objection concerning service, the arbitration agreement or the award's binding effect. Enforcement counsel should therefore examine the procedural record as carefully as the award itself.
The Legal Framework for Foreign Arbitral Awards
The principal international instrument is the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly called the New York Convention.
Türkiye acceded on 2 July 1992, and the Convention entered into force for Türkiye on 30 September 1992. Türkiye applies the Convention subject to two reservations: the award must have been made in another contracting state, and the underlying legal relationship must be regarded as commercial under Turkish law.1
The reciprocity reservation concerns the country in which the award was made. It should not be confused with a requirement that the award creditor have the nationality of a contracting state.
Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure, known as MÖHUK, supplies the domestic statutory framework. Articles 60 to 63 address foreign arbitral awards, including the enforcement application, supporting documents and recognition. Applicable treaty provisions must be considered alongside that framework.2
The first step is therefore to classify the award correctly. The expression "international arbitration" alone does not establish which enforcement procedure applies.
A Türkiye-seated award is a different procedural category
Arbitration falling within International Arbitration Law No. 4686 follows its own framework. Domestic arbitration without the relevant foreign element is governed separately by the arbitration provisions of Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100.
Challenges to awards under those regimes must not be presented as though they were applications to enforce foreign awards. The distinction affects the competent court, available remedies and procedural route.3
The arbitral institution's name is not a substitute for this analysis. Counsel should examine the legal seat and applicable arbitration regime, rather than assume that an award is foreign merely because an international institution administered the proceedings.
Recognition, Enforcement and Collection Are Different
Recognition, tanıma, concerns the award's legal effect in Türkiye, including its use as a binding determination of matters already decided. Enforcement, tenfiz, concerns permission to use the Turkish execution system to compel performance of an obligation established by the award.
Collection is the subsequent practical recovery from the debtor. MÖHUK expressly addresses recognition of foreign arbitral awards and the execution of decisions declared enforceable.4
The distinction should shape the engagement with counsel. A party relying on an award to resist a second claim may need a different procedural strategy from a creditor seeking attachment and sale of assets. Likewise, a successful enforcement application does not answer whether the debtor is solvent or whether its assets are already subject to competing claims.
An enforcement assessment should consequently include both legal admissibility and recovery prospects.
The Enforcement Court Does Not Conduct a Second Arbitration
The New York Convention does not establish a general appeal against the tribunal's factual findings or legal reasoning. Its refusal grounds address matters such as incapacity or invalid agreement, lack of proper notice or opportunity to present a case, excess of the tribunal's authority, defective tribunal composition or procedure, and the award's binding status or annulment.
The resisting party generally bears the burden of establishing the grounds in Article V(1). The court may separately consider arbitrability and public policy under Article V(2).5
That limited review has an important practical consequence. An enforcement petition should not simply repeat the merits submissions made during arbitration. It should identify the applicable enforcement regime and address any genuine obstacle to recognition or execution.
Equally, an award debtor should not assume that describing a disagreement with the tribunal as "public policy" will turn it into an admissible enforcement defence.
What Public Policy Review Actually Requires
Public policy is an exceptional control, but it is not an empty formality. The relevant enquiry is whether recognising or enforcing the particular award would conflict with fundamental requirements of the Turkish legal order. It is not whether a Turkish judge would have interpreted the contract differently.
The following Court of Cassation decisions illustrate both the limits of public policy review and the need to examine the specific objection. The reporting sources are identified in the footnotes.
Arbitration costs are not reconsidered merely because the debtor finds them excessive Yargıtay 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2020/2115, K. 2022/1276, 24 February 2022
This case concerned an ICC final award rendered in Switzerland addressing arbitration costs and
expenses. The merits had been determined in a separate partial award.
The Court of Cassation upheld recognition and enforcement despite objections that the costs were insufficiently justified and that enforcement would impose an intolerable financial burden on the Turkish economy or public institutions.6
The decision illustrates the distinction between reviewing an identified enforcement defect and reconsidering the tribunal's allocation of costs. Financial dissatisfaction with an award is not, by itself, a public policy objection.
A criminal acquittal does not necessarily contradict an arbitral finding
Yargıtay General Assembly of Civil Chambers, E. 2022/660, K. 2023/1066, 8 November 2023
The reported proceedings concerned separate ICC awards on liability and quantum. One objection alleged that the liability award conflicted with a Turkish criminal judgment acquitting a party of fraud for insufficient evidence.
The General Assembly rejected the proposition that this acquittal necessarily contradicted the arbitral determination. The criminal decision's evidentiary basis mattered. A lack of sufficient evidence for criminal conviction did not establish an irreconcilable conflict with the award.7
The decision should not be read as making Turkish criminal judgments irrelevant. Its value lies in requiring examination of what the domestic judgment actually decided, rather than treating the existence of parallel proceedings as sufficient to defeat enforcement.
These decisions do not justify promising that enforcement will succeed. They identify the questions counsel should investigate: what the award decided, what the domestic judgment decided, and whether the alleged conflict is legally material.
Which Turkish Court Should Receive the Application?
For the commercial awards addressed in this article, enforcement proceedings are ordinarily brought before the competent commercial court of first instance, asliye ticaret mahkemesi. Court competence should nevertheless be checked against the nature of the dispute.8
Territorial jurisdiction is a separate question. Under MÖHUK Article 60(2), the starting point is the place agreed by the parties in writing. In the absence of such an agreement, the statute refers successively to the respondent's domicile in Türkiye, its residence, and the location of assets capable of execution.9
A foreign creditor should therefore not assume that every application belongs in Istanbul. Before filing, counsel should confirm the debtor's legal identity, relevant address, any agreed Turkish enforcement venue and the asset position supporting the proposed application.
This review is particularly important where a group has several Turkish companies with similar names. The enforcement strategy should remain tied to the entity against which the award was rendered.
Preparing the Enforcement File
The core documentary requirements under Article IV of the New York Convention are the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy, together with the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy. Where necessary, certified translations into the enforcement forum's official language must accompany them.10
For proceedings in Türkiye, document preparation should distinguish the statutory application package from additional evidence that may answer anticipated objections.
A useful working file will normally include:
- The complete award record: relevant partial and final awards, together with any correction, interpretation or supplementary decision. · The arbitration agreement: the signed contract, amendments, incorporated terms and any documents relied upon to establish consent. · The procedural record: notices, delivery evidence, tribunal appointment communications and material procedural orders. · The current award status: information about any challenge, suspension, payment or settlement, together with the necessary corporate authority and representation documents.
The additional material is not necessarily something the court requires in every case. Its purpose is to make counsel ready to respond to the issues the debtor is likely to raise.
Translation should be treated as substantive preparation
The Turkish translation should preserve the distinction between the tribunal's reasoning and its operative orders. Names, currencies, interest periods, costs and the relationship between partial and final awards deserve particular attention.
Counsel should also determine the appropriate certification route before documents are sent abroad. A blanket instruction to "apostille everything" is not a substitute for analysing the documents and the applicable authentication requirements.
Binding Effect Must Be Distinguished From Court Approval at the Seat
The award's legal status requires a focused enquiry. Article V(1)(e) of the Convention refers to whether the award is binding and whether it has been set aside or suspended. This is not the same as imposing a universal requirement that the creditor first obtain a separate enforcement judgment from a court at the seat.11
For practical purposes, the creditor should ask arbitration counsel to identify the provisions governing the award's binding effect and provide an accurate statement of any post-award proceedings.
It is unhelpful to discover during Turkish proceedings that the original arbitration team used "final" to mean the tribunal had finished its work, while the enforcement team understood the word to mean every possible challenge had been exhausted.
The procedural position should be documented, not assumed.
What Happens if the Debtor Challenges the Award Abroad?
A pending challenge at the seat does not automatically require refusal of enforcement. Under Article VI of the New York Convention, the enforcement court may adjourn its decision where an application to set aside or suspend the award has been made before the relevant authority. On the creditor's application, the court may also order the opposing party to provide suitable security.12
The debtor's application, any actual suspension order and the progress of the challenge should therefore be distinguished. For the creditor, the practical questions include whether delay would endanger recovery, whether security should be requested, and how developments at the seat will be communicated promptly to Turkish counsel.
An enforcement team should not discover a foreign suspension decision from the debtor's submission.
Security, Costs and Interim Protection
Security required from a foreign claimant
Under MÖHUK Article 48, foreign natural and legal persons bringing proceedings, intervening or commencing enforcement in Türkiye may be required to provide security for procedural expenses and potential losses of the opposing party.
The statute provides for exemption on the basis of reciprocity. The Ministry of Justice's guidance explains that treaty arrangements, foreign legislation and established practice can be relevant to that assessment.13
Security should be investigated before the engagement budget is finalised. It is not the same as the lawyer's fee or an ordinary filing charge.
Budget the work in stages
A sensible proposal should separate document review and preparation, first-instance enforcement proceedings, potential appeals, interim applications and execution.
Translation, certification, service, expert assistance and other external expenses should be identified separately where relevant. A quotation covering only the first application can give a misleading impression of the total recovery cost.
Address asset protection early
Where there is a credible concern about dissipation, counsel should assess whether Turkish provisional relief is available and what evidence and security would be required.
The application should identify the asset and the legal basis for protection. Possession of a foreign award should not be treated as automatically answering every requirement for an interim measure.
Procedure, Appeals and Timing
MÖHUK provides for service of the enforcement application on the respondent and examination under the simplified procedure. A limited merits enquiry does not mean that the application is uncontested or administrative.14
The creditor should also distinguish obtaining a favourable first-instance decision from having a decision ready for execution. The appeal framework for foreign-award enforcement differs from the challenge framework for Turkish arbitral awards. Appeals can delay execution, and MÖHUK Article 57(2), applied through Article 61(2), gives an appeal suspensive effect.15
A reliable timetable should therefore be expressed in stages rather than as an unconditional promise of payment within a specified number of months.
Counsel should discuss document readiness, service, likely objections, proceedings at the seat, potential appellate review and the work needed after the enforcement decision becomes executable.
From Enforcement to Actual Recovery
Before substantial costs are incurred, the creditor should ask for an asset-focused assessment. That review should consider available information about the debtor's bank accounts, receivables, real estate, shares and other assets. It should also identify known insolvency proceedings, security interests and competing creditors.
These are not reasons to abandon an otherwise sound application. They are reasons to choose the sequence of steps carefully. For example, a creditor may prefer to investigate identifiable receivables before pursuing an asset whose ownership is disputed. A negotiated payment arrangement supported by suitable security may be commercially preferable to an extended execution process.
The same discipline applies to settlement after an award. The agreement should address payment dates, currency, interest, default, security, costs and the point at which enforcement rights will be released or suspended.
An award should not be surrendered merely in exchange for another unsecured promise without a considered assessment of that trade-off.
Choosing an Enforcement Lawyer in Türkiye
A foreign company should look for experience in Turkish court proceedings concerning arbitral awards, not merely general familiarity with international arbitration.
Conducting an arbitration and enforcing its result involve related but different work. The enforcement lawyer should be able to analyse the Convention, prepare Turkish pleadings, address service and documentary objections, coordinate with counsel at the seat and plan execution.
Before instructing counsel, the client should establish who will handle the matter and what the engagement covers. Does it include only recognition and enforcement, or also appeals, interim measures, settlement and recovery? Who will supervise the Turkish translations? How will costs be approved?
Professional registration can be checked through the official Türkiye Barolar Birliği Baro Levhası / Avukat Arama service.16 For a substantial award, the initial advice should identify both strengths and obstacles. A useful assessment may conclude that the Convention position is strong but that the debtor's asset position requires urgent investigation.
That is more informative than a general assurance that Türkiye recognises foreign awards. A good engagement should also provide a reporting structure. The client needs timely advice about decisions affecting recovery, not simply a list of procedural events.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a foreign arbitral award automatically enforceable in Türkiye?
No. The creditor ordinarily needs a Turkish enforcement decision before using the award through the judgment-enforcement route. Recognition or enforcement and actual collection remain separate stages.17
Can the Turkish court reconsider whether the tribunal reached the correct result?
Enforcement is not a merits appeal. The court examines the applicable recognition and enforcement requirements rather than retrying the underlying contractual dispute.18
Does an award debtor's absence from the arbitration prevent enforcement?
Not necessarily. The relevant issue includes whether proper notice and a genuine opportunity to present the case were provided. A procedural chronology and delivery evidence should be reviewed carefully.19
Will enforcement stop if the debtor applies to set aside the award?
Not automatically. Article VI permits the enforcement court to adjourn its decision and, on application, require suitable security. The specific status of the foreign proceedings matters.20
Can a Turkish criminal judgment be used to resist enforcement?
It may be relevant, but its existence alone does not resolve the issue. The reported 2023 General Assembly decision distinguishes an acquittal for insufficient evidence from an actual incompatibility with the arbitral determination.21
How long will the proceedings take?
A dependable estimate requires review of the documents, service requirements, anticipated objections and appeal position. The client should request separate estimates for enforcement proceedings and subsequent recovery rather than a single guaranteed completion date.
Should Turkish counsel be instructed before the award is issued?
That is advisable where Turkish assets are likely to be important. Early coordination can help preserve service records, identify document requirements and assess whether protective measures should be considered.
What should be sent for an initial assessment?
Send the award, arbitration agreement and amendments, a short procedural chronology, information about challenges or suspension, the debtor's identifying details, known assets and any payment or settlement history. Counsel can then identify the further documents required.
Conclusion
The New York Convention and Turkish legislation provide a structured route for recognising and enforcing foreign arbitral awards. Their practical value depends on preparing the application around the legal questions an enforcement court is entitled to examine. The award must be classified correctly. The competent court and venue must be identified. The documentary record should support consent, notice and the award's status. Public policy objections should be assessed against the actual award and any relevant domestic judgment. Security, appeals and recovery costs should be considered before the creditor commits to a timetable. Above all, enforcement planning should remain connected to the debtor's assets.
A favourable award establishes an important legal position. A properly prepared enforcement and recovery strategy determines how that position can be used.
Legal Notice
This article provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice. The applicable legislation, regulations, administrative and judicial practice, documentation requirements, filing, notification or service dates and other deadlines where relevant, and the facts of the particular matter should be checked before any action is taken.
Bibliography
Legislation and Treaties
Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. Official Gazette No. 27836, 4 February 2011. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6100.pdf.
Code on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure No. 5718. Official Gazette No. 26728, 12 December 2007. https://mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr/mevzuat/104035.
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 1958. United Nations Treaty Collection, status record and Türkiye declarations. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXII-1&chapter=22&clang=_en.
International Arbitration Law No. 4686. Official Gazette No. 24453, 5 July 2001. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.4686.pdf.
Judicial Decisions
Yargıtay 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2020/2115, K. 2022/1276, 24 February 2022. Reported in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, 2025, country report “Turkey 8”. https://karararama.yargitay.gov.tr/.
Yargıtay General Assembly of Civil Chambers, E. 2022/660, K. 2023/1066, 8 November 2023. Reported in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, 2025, country report “Turkey 9”. https://karararama.yargitay.gov.tr/.
Institutional and Official Materials
Ministry of Justice, Hukukî Konularda Uluslararası Adlî İş Birliği Mevzuatı.
Ministry of Justice, “Yabancıların Teminat Yatırma Yükümlülüğü,” official guidance on foreign parties' security obligations and reciprocity.
Türkiye Barolar Birliği. Baro Levhası and Avukat Arama. https://www.barobirlik.org.tr/AvukatArama/.
United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, discussion of adjournment pending a challenge at the seat and security.
United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, introductory note on the Convention.
Books and Academic Commentary
International Council for Commercial Arbitration. Yearbook Commercial Arbitration (2025), country reports “Turkey 8” and “Turkey 9”, as cited in the text.
Mine Tan Dehmen, “Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tenfizi İstemi Hakkında Türk Mahkemelerince Verilen Kararlara Karşı Kanun Yolları,” Public and Private International Law Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2020, pp. 1433 to 1476.
Footnotes
1 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 10 June 1958, art. I. UNCITRAL, official status record, confirming Türkiye's accession, entry into force and reservations.
2 Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure, particularly arts. 55 to 57 and 60 to 63. Official statutory reproduction published by TKGM; Ministry of Justice, Hukukî Konularda Uluslararası Adlî İş Birliği Mevzuatı.
3 International Arbitration Law No. 4686; Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, arbitration provisions. Statutory text recorded in WIPO Lex. See also Mine Tan Dehmen, cited in the note on appellate procedure below.
4 Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure, particularly arts. 55 to 57 and 60 to 63. Official statutory reproduction published by TKGM; Ministry of Justice, Hukukî Konularda Uluslararası Adlî İş Birliği Mevzuatı.
5 New York Convention, arts. III and V. Official United Nations treaty text; United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, introductory note on the Convention.
6 Yargıtay 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2020/2115, K. 2022/1276, 24 February 2022. Reported in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, 2025, country report “Turkey 8”.
7 Yargıtay General Assembly of Civil Chambers, E. 2022/660, K. 2023/1066, 8 November 2023. Reported in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, 2025, country report “Turkey 9”.
8 Mine Tan Dehmen, “Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tenfizi İstemi Hakkında Türk Mahkemelerince Verilen Kararlara Karşı Kanun Yolları,” Public and Private International Law Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2020, pp. 1433 to 1476, particularly jurisdiction and the effect of appeals on execution.
9 Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure, particularly arts. 55 to 57 and 60 to 63. Official statutory reproduction published by TKGM; Ministry of Justice, Hukukî Konularda Uluslararası Adlî İş Birliği Mevzuatı.
10 New York Convention, art. IV, concerning the award, arbitration agreement and certified translations; MÖHUK art. 61 concerning domestic application documentation. Official United Nations treaty text.
11 New York Convention, arts. III and V. Official United Nations treaty text; United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, introductory note on the Convention.
12 New York Convention, art. VI. United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, discussion of adjournment pending a challenge at the seat and security.
13 MÖHUK art. 48. Ministry of Justice, “Yabancıların Teminat Yatırma Yükümlülüğü,” official guidance on foreign parties' security obligations and reciprocity.
14 Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure, particularly arts. 55 to 57 and 60 to 63. Official statutory reproduction published by TKGM; Ministry of Justice, Hukukî Konularda Uluslararası Adlî İş Birliği Mevzuatı.
15 Mine Tan Dehmen, “Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tenfizi İstemi Hakkında Türk Mahkemelerince Verilen Kararlara Karşı Kanun Yolları,” Public and Private International Law Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2020, pp. 1433 to 1476, particularly jurisdiction and the effect of appeals on execution.
16 Türkiye Barolar Birliği, Baro Levhası / Avukat Arama, official professional registry.
17 Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure, particularly arts. 55 to 57 and 60 to 63. Official statutory reproduction published by TKGM; Ministry of Justice, Hukukî Konularda Uluslararası Adlî İş Birliği Mevzuatı.
18 New York Convention, arts. III and V. Official United Nations treaty text; United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, introductory note on the Convention.
19 New York Convention, arts. III and V. Official United Nations treaty text; United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, introductory note on the Convention.
20 New York Convention, art. VI. United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, discussion of adjournment pending a challenge at the seat and security.
21 Yargıtay General Assembly of Civil Chambers, E. 2022/660, K. 2023/1066, 8 November 2023. Reported in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, 2025, country report “Turkey 9”.
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.
