Recognition And Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments In Turkey 2026

Abstract

This article examines the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in Turkey. It considers finality, reciprocity, jurisdiction, public policy, service, documentary requirements, security and the relationship between enforcement permission and actual collection. The discussion distinguishes foreign judgments from arbitral awards and from decisions eligible for a separate administrative registration route. The judicial authorities cited in the manuscript are considered within the limits of enforcement review. The analysis emphasises that the application should be built around the procedural history of the foreign case and the available Turkish assets, not an attempt to relitigate the underlying dispute.

Keywords foreign judgments, Turkey, recognition, enforcement, reciprocity, public policy

Introduction

Legal review date: 16 September 2026 Winning a case abroad does not, by itself, give the successful party access to a debtor’s Turkish bank accounts or property. A foreign judgment creditor must first establish that the judgment qualifies for enforcement in Turkey. That assessment is distinct from the question already decided abroad: whether the defendant owed the debt, breached the contract or incurred liability.

The governing framework is the Code on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure No. 5718, commonly referred to as MÖHUK. Its recognition and enforcement provisions permit qualifying foreign judgments to take effect in Turkey without a retrial of the original dispute. Applicable international treaties remain reserved. The correct route therefore depends on the judgment’s subject matter, the country and court that issued it, its finality and the result sought in Turkey.¹

For a foreign client, the first useful exercise is to examine the judgment alongside the available assets. A well-founded enforcement application can still be commercially disappointing if the debtor has no attachable property. Conversely, an identifiable asset may require urgent preservation before the Turkish proceedings have concluded. Legal admissibility and practical recovery should be assessed together.

Recognition and Enforcement: Which Procedure Do You Need?

Recognition, or tanıma, allows a qualifying foreign judgment to be treated as conclusive evidence or res judicata in Turkey. It can establish that a legal status or dispute has already been determined. Enforcement, or tenfiz, supplies the additional authority needed to execute an obligation through Turkish enforcement offices. A creditor seeking compulsory payment needs an enforcement decision; recognition alone does not authorise attachment of the debtor’s assets.²

Two distinctions matter. First, Article 58 expressly dispenses with the reciprocity requirement for recognition. Secondly, Article 59 dates the recognised judgment’s res judicata and conclusive evidentiary effects back to the date it became final abroad. It is therefore inaccurate to say that every foreign judgment is legally irrelevant until the day a Turkish recognition decision is delivered.³

There are also specific statutory alternatives to an ordinary recognition action. Article 27/A of the Population Services Law permits registration of certain foreign judicial or administrative decisions concerning the termination or existence of a marriage, subject to its requirements. This registration mechanism does not itself authorise collection of maintenance, compensation or other financial obligations in the foreign decision.⁴

Which Foreign Judgments Qualify?

Article 50 starts with a judgment given by a foreign court in a civil matter that has become final under the law of the country of origin. Contract claims, commercial debts and civil compensation awards may fall within this framework. The court’s label is not decisive: the nature of the adjudication and the particular relief must be examined. The civil or personal-rights provisions of a foreign criminal judgment may also be enforced under Article 50(2). A criminal sentence or public fine is a different matter.⁵

Finality requires particular attention. An order may be provisionally executable abroad while remaining subject to an ordinary appeal. That does not necessarily satisfy the finality required for judgment enforcement under Article 50. Foreign counsel should identify precisely what makes the judgment final, which parts are final and whether an appeal, reopening application or stay affects the requested relief.

The operative terms also matter. A declaration of liability, an interim freezing order and a final quantified money judgment are different instruments. A creditor should identify the obligation it seeks to execute, including the principal, awarded interest and costs, rather than assume that every page of a foreign decision is independently enforceable. Article 56 permits enforcement of all or part of a qualifying judgment.⁶

Reciprocity Under Article 54: Treaty, Legislation or Practice

For enforcement, Article 54(1)(a) requires one of three alternative bases: a treaty founded on reciprocity, a provision of foreign law permitting enforcement of Turkish judgments, or an established foreign practice permitting such enforcement. These are alternatives. The absence of a bilateral treaty does not end the inquiry, and a creditor does not always have to produce a previous foreign enforcement case if the relevant legislative basis is established.⁷

The evidence should address the particular legal system that would receive a comparable Turkish judgment. In a federal country, the relevant state or territorial rules may be material. The enquiry should also distinguish, where necessary, between different types of judgment. A provision dealing with commercial money judgments may tell the Turkish court little about recognition of a family status decision.

A properly focused foreign-law opinion can assist considerably. It should identify the applicable legislation and decisions, explain the conditions imposed on Turkish judgments and address any actual obstacle to their enforcement. A general assurance that the foreign country has a reliable legal system is not evidence of reciprocity. Nor should a historical precedent be presented as a permanent guarantee that every judgment from that jurisdiction will be enforced.

The New York Example and the Position of UK Judgments

The New York litigation involving Turkey’s Savings Deposit Insurance Fund, TMSF, and Erol Aksoy provides a documented example. The official decision of 10 October 2019 records that New York orders made in 2004 and 2005 recognised and enforced a judgment of the First Commercial Court of Istanbul dated 14 April 2003. The 2019 court refused to vacate the resulting New York judgment on the grounds advanced concerning the later position of the Turkish enforcement file.⁸

This history supports an evidential argument about New York practice. It does not decide Turkish reciprocity for every US state, and the New York Supreme Court is a trial-level court despite its name. The Turkish application still needs the legal framework and evidence relevant to the judgment actually presented.

For a UK judgment, the enquiry should identify the relevant jurisdiction, such as England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Turkey’s framework does not depend on the EU’s internal system for circulating judgments. Brexit should therefore not be treated as either creating or eliminating a direct route for enforcing a UK judgment in Turkey.

The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention entered into force for the United Kingdom on 1 July 2025. However, the HCCH status table consulted for this article does not list Turkey as a contracting party. UK participation therefore does not, by itself, provide a Convention route to enforcement in Turkey. The applicable Turkish legislation and any relevant treaty must still be considered.⁹

Exclusive Jurisdiction and the Foreign Court’s Connection to the Dispute

Article 54(1)(b) addresses two different concerns. A foreign judgment cannot displace the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts. Separately, if the defendant objects, enforcement may be refused where the foreign court assumed jurisdiction despite having no genuine connection with the subject matter or the parties. The second ground is not established merely because a Turkish court could also have heard the dispute.¹⁰

Disputes concerning rights in rem over Turkish immovable property are a central example of exclusive jurisdiction. A foreign order transferring ownership of an apartment in Istanbul raises a different issue from a money judgment for damages under a property-related contract. The requested legal effect must be analysed carefully; the fact that Turkish property appears somewhere in the background does not answer the jurisdiction question.¹¹

For commercial creditors, the contract’s jurisdiction clause, the place of performance and the defendant’s participation in the foreign proceedings may be important parts of the file. They should be examined before litigation abroad where Turkish enforcement is foreseeable, rather than reconstructed after judgment.

Public Policy and the Prohibition on Retrying the Merits

Article 54(1)(c) requires that the judgment not be manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy. The threshold concerns fundamental legal values and the consequences of giving effect to the judgment. A difference between foreign and Turkish substantive or procedural law is not sufficient on its own. The enforcement judge is not an appellate court reviewing the foreign judge’s assessment of liability.¹²

An important authority is the Court of Cassation’s Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments, decision dated 10 February 2012, E. 2010/1, K. 2012/1. It held that the mere absence of reasons in a final foreign judgment does not, by itself, prevent enforcement or amount to a manifest public-policy violation. The decision rejects a mechanical assumption that a foreign judgment must reproduce the reasoning requirements of a Turkish judgment.¹³

That holding does not remove the public-policy safeguard or excuse a denial of the right to defend. It separates a particular formal feature from the wider statutory enquiry. A creditor facing a public-policy objection should identify the actual effect of the operative judgment and answer the alleged fundamental incompatibility, rather than attempt to prove the original claim a second time.

Service of Proceedings, Default Judgments and the Right to Defend

A default judgment is not automatically excluded from enforcement. Article 54(1)(ç) addresses failures of proper summons or representation, and judgments given in a party’s absence contrary to the relevant foreign procedural law, where that party relies on the defect before the Turkish court. Public-policy review remains a separate safeguard. The practical question is whether the record establishes a legally adequate opportunity to participate.¹⁴

Service on a defendant in Turkey must be planned with any applicable international service convention and declarations in mind. Counsel should preserve the originating papers, translations, service requests, certificates, delivery records and any appearance or defence filed abroad. A finality endorsement should not be treated as a substitute for this service history, especially where the defendant contests notice.

The 11th Civil Chamber’s decision of 23 January 2025, E. 2024/4669, K. 2025/363, illustrates a documented examination of these issues. The Court of Cassation upheld enforcement of a German judgment, from the Essen Regional Court, following findings that service had been effected in accordance with the Hague Service Convention and that the defendant, though properly notified, had chosen not to participate in the foreign proceedings. The decision also rejected the proposition that a default judgment entered under German procedural law, or the possibility that a Turkish court might have decided the same dispute differently, necessarily offended Turkish public policy.

The useful lesson is evidential: the Turkish court needs the procedural record, not merely the creditor’s account of it. A party that chose not to defend after proper notice is in a different position from a party deprived of a lawful opportunity to defend. Those situations should not be conflated.

The Competent Turkish Court and the Documents Required

Article 51 places enforcement applications within the first-instance court system. Territorial jurisdiction ordinarily follows the respondent’s Turkish domicile, then the place of abode if there is no domicile. If neither exists in Turkey, the application may be brought in Ankara, Istanbul or Izmir. These alternative cities are not a general option where the respondent has a relevant Turkish domicile or place of abode.¹⁵

The correct court category must also be identified. Depending on the subject matter and applicable allocation rules, this may be a civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi), a commercial court (asliye ticaret mahkemesi) or a family court (aile mahkemesi). Family Courts Law No. 4787 expressly allocates recognition and enforcement of foreign family-law judgments to family courts.¹⁶

The statutory documentary foundation is the duly authenticated original judgment or a copy certified by the issuing judicial authority, its authenticated Turkish translation, and an authenticated document establishing finality with its Turkish translation. The petition must identify the parties, the issuing court, the judgment and the whole or part for which enforcement is requested.¹⁷

A well-prepared file will normally also include the service record, relevant appellate decisions, the basis for reciprocity, a calculation of the outstanding award and evidence of any payments already received. Corporate applicants should establish their legal identity and the authority of the person instructing Turkish counsel. Differences in company names, transliteration or registration details should be explained before they become a contested issue.

Authentication is a separate question from substantive enforceability. Depending on the originating country and applicable treaty, an apostille, consular legalisation or an exemption from further authentication may be relevant. An apostille does not establish that the judgment satisfies Article 54. Foreign official documents and their translations must meet the applicable Turkish procedural and treaty requirements.¹⁸

Most foreign clients can instruct a Turkish lawyer without travelling to Turkey for every procedural step. The power of attorney must be correctly executed and authenticated where required; its scope should cover the intended litigation and enforcement work. A foreign company should arrange its corporate authority documents at the same time.¹⁹

How the Turkish Proceedings Operate

Enforcement proceedings follow the simplified trial procedure under Article 55. The petition and hearing date are served on the opposing party, subject to the statutory treatment of non-contentious decisions without an adverse party. This remains a judicial process: simplified procedure does not mean an administrative stamp or an automatic approval.²⁰

The defendant can contest the applicable enforcement conditions. Article 55(2) also permits reliance on full or partial performance, or an obstacle to performance that has arisen. This is another reason to supply an accurate payment history. A tenfiz application should not seek collection of an amount already discharged, and the court’s limited review should not be confused with an inability to consider these statutory defences.²¹

A pure enforcement application is distinct from a new action for payment on the original claim. Where a tenfiz application is limited to the recognition and enforcement conditions under Articles 54 and 55, it does not itself become a commercial merits lawsuit. If additional substantive claims are joined, their procedural requirements, including any applicable mediation precondition, need separate analysis; the label attached to the petition is not conclusive.

Where only a separable part qualifies, partial enforcement may be appropriate. For example, counsel may need to distinguish the final principal award from a costs determination that remains unresolved abroad. Article 56 permits a partial order; it does not authorise the Turkish court to rewrite the foreign merits decision into a different award.²²

Protecting Assets While Enforcement Is Pending

A creditor concerned about asset dissipation should consider whether a Turkish provisional attachment, ihtiyati haciz, is available. This is a separate protective application under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. The statutory conditions, supporting evidence, jurisdiction and security requirements must be assessed for the particular claim. A foreign freezing order does not, by itself, freeze a Turkish account.²³

Protective measures should be considered early because they carry their own procedural timetable. Article 261 requires a provisional attachment order to be submitted for execution within ten days, and Article 264 regulates the steps needed to maintain the measure. Counsel must coordinate those requirements with the stage of the enforcement case. Obtaining a protective order is only useful if the subsequent steps preserve it.²⁴

Appeals and Actual Collection in Turkey

Article 57 provides that judgments admitted to enforcement are executed as Turkish judgments. It also contains a specific rule suspending execution upon appeal. The creditor should therefore establish the tenfiz decision’s procedural status before treating a first-instance success as authority for immediate collection. The availability of protective relief is a separate question.²⁵

Once the necessary enforcement authority is available, collection proceeds through the Turkish enforcement office. Asset attachment, exemptions, competing claims and sale procedures are governed by Turkish enforcement law. A successful tenfiz order does not give the creditor ownership of the debtor’s property or automatically displace secured creditors. Insolvency or restructuring proceedings may also affect the available route and timing.²⁶

The debtor named in the judgment must be matched to the person or entity holding the assets. A judgment against a foreign parent company does not, merely because of the corporate relationship, permit attachment of a Turkish subsidiary’s property. Ownership, liability and any separate basis for proceeding against another entity require their own legal analysis.

Delay should also be examined independently of finality. Limitation questions can involve the law governing the underlying relationship and the Turkish rules applicable to execution. A creditor should have counsel identify the relevant periods, their starting points and any interruption or suspension, rather than assume that a final foreign judgment remains collectible indefinitely.²⁷

Security Deposits, Costs and Managing the Case from Abroad

Foreign individuals and legal entities bringing proceedings or initiating enforcement may be required to provide security for procedural expenses and potential loss under Article 48. The court grants exemption on a reciprocity basis. Applicable treaties may also matter. This security enquiry is distinct from the Article 54 requirement for enforcing the foreign judgment: the evidence and purpose should be addressed separately.²⁸

An initial budget should distinguish legal fees from court fees, service expenses, certified translations, authentication, foreign-law advice, security and the later costs of execution. Security for a provisional attachment is a further issue. The amount paid to the lawyer under the engagement is not necessarily the amount recoverable from the opponent. A staged budget makes these distinctions visible before significant expenditure is incurred.

No responsible assessment can promise a fixed completion date without reviewing the file. Finality documents may be available immediately or require further steps abroad. Service, disputed reciprocity, supplementary evidence and appeals can materially extend the case. Clients should ask for an explanation of these variables and a reporting arrangement covering both the litigation and the recovery stage.

Foreign Arbitral Awards and Other Decisions

Foreign arbitral awards must be distinguished from foreign court judgments. Where applicable, the 1958 New York Convention governs their recognition and enforcement. Turkey applies the Convention to awards made in another contracting state and to disputes considered commercial under Turkish law. It is therefore misleading to say that arbitral awards involve no reciprocity limitation at all. The Convention reservation differs from the bilateral reciprocity enquiry under Article 54.²⁹

Law No. 5718 also contains provisions on foreign arbitral awards in Articles 60-63, subject to applicable treaties. A court judgment and an arbitral award should not be presented as interchangeable enforcement instruments merely because both resolve a commercial dispute. Similarly, foreign administrative acts, public penalties and criminal sanctions do not become ordinary civil judgments by being translated and authenticated.³⁰

A Legal Perspective for Foreign Clients Choosing Turkish Counsel

The strongest application begins with a disciplined assessment before filing. Counsel should be able to explain why the decision qualifies, which court should hear the case, how finality and service will be proved, whether reciprocity or a security exemption needs additional evidence, and what assets could realistically satisfy the award. These are concrete questions on which a foreign client can compare the proposed scope of legal work.

Coordination with the lawyer who conducted the foreign proceedings is often essential. That lawyer can obtain certified court records and explain local procedure, while Turkish counsel evaluates the material against the Turkish statutory conditions. Requesting a complete, targeted set of documents at the outset usually avoids repeated translations and authentication of papers that do not resolve the actual issue.

The engagement should also make clear who handles asset enquiries, protective applications, appeals and execution, and how settlement proposals will be assessed. For a creditor, the objective is an enforceable obligation supported by a credible recovery plan. For a respondent, the appropriate response is a timely, evidenced defence directed to the statutory grounds, rather than an attempt to reopen every argument made abroad.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I take a final foreign judgment directly to a Turkish enforcement office?

Not for ordinary compulsory execution of the foreign judgment itself. You generally need a Turkish enforcement decision under the applicable statutory or treaty framework. Finality abroad is a necessary part of the assessment, but it does not replace tenfiz.

Do I need reciprocity if I only want recognition?

No. Article 58 excludes the reciprocity condition for recognition. The remaining applicable conditions still need to be met. A request for recognition should not be used as a substitute for enforcement where the objective is compulsory payment.

Can judgments from the United States or the United Kingdom be enforced?

They can qualify, but there is no blanket answer for every judgment. The relevant jurisdiction, legal basis for reciprocity, finality, service and other statutory conditions must be examined. The documented New York example is useful evidence, rather than a guarantee covering every US court.

Is a default judgment necessarily unenforceable?

No. The key issues include lawful notice, an opportunity to defend and compliance with the relevant procedural requirements. Preserve the service record. A defendant’s decision not to participate after proper notice does not automatically defeat enforcement.

Will the Turkish judge hear the underlying dispute again?

The court reviews the recognition or enforcement conditions rather than conducting a fresh merits trial. Statutory defences such as payment remain relevant. Public policy is not a general invitation to reconsider the foreign court’s view of the evidence.

Does an apostille make the judgment enforceable?

No. Authentication addresses the official character of the document. The court must still examine finality and the applicable enforcement conditions. A certified translation and the other required documents must also be supplied.

Can the case be handled without my travelling to Turkey?

Generally, a Turkish lawyer can conduct the proceedings under a properly prepared power of attorney. Corporate authority, authentication and translation requirements should be agreed in advance. A particular procedural step may require further instructions or documents.

Can assets be protected before the enforcement case finishes?

Potentially. Turkish provisional attachment should be considered separately, with evidence addressing its statutory conditions. Security and strict follow-up deadlines may apply. Neither the foreign judgment nor a foreign freezing order automatically secures Turkish assets.

Does winning the tenfiz case guarantee payment?

No. Collection depends on assets legally attributable to the judgment debtor, competing rights and the applicable enforcement or insolvency process. Asset assessment should begin before substantial litigation costs are incurred.

Are foreign arbitral awards governed by the same rules?

No. Applicable treaties, particularly the New York Convention, and the arbitration provisions of Law No. 5718 require a separate analysis. Turkey’s Convention reservations must be considered, rather than importing the court-judgment reciprocity test unchanged.

Conclusion

Recognition, enforcement and collection serve different purposes. The appropriate Turkish application depends on the foreign decision, its finality, the procedural safeguards observed abroad and the legal effect sought in Turkey. Reciprocity and the other enforcement conditions should be examined in their proper context rather than treated as a single general test for every foreign decision.

A creditor should connect that analysis to the debtor's recoverable assets and the practical cost of proceeding. An authenticated judgment is the beginning of the file, not a substitute for examining service, available objections, interim protection and the execution stage.

Footnotes

^1. Law No. 5718, arts. 1(2), 50 and 58. Official source.

2. Law No. 5718, arts. 50, 57 and 58. Official source.

3. Law No. 5718, arts. 58(1) and 59. Official source.

4. Population Services Law No. 5490, art. 27/A. Official source.

5. Law No. 5718, art. 50(1)-(2). Official source.

6. Law No. 5718, arts. 50, 52(1)(c), 53(b) and 56. Official source.

7. Law No. 5718, art. 54(1)(a). Official source.

8. Savings Deposit Ins. Fund of Turkey v Aksoy, 66 Misc. 3d 180, 2019 NY Slip Op 29337, 10 October 2019. Official New York decision.

9. HCCH, 2019 Judgments Convention, official status table, checked 16 September 2026. Official treaty status.

10. Law No. 5718, art. 54(1)(b). Official source.

11. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, art. 12; read with Law No. 5718, art. 54(1)(b). Official source.

12. Law No. 5718, art. 54(1)(c). Official source.

13. Yargıtay İçtihatları Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu, 10 February 2012, E. 2010/1, K. 2012/1. Official decision.

14. Law No. 5718, art. 54(1)(ç). Official source.

15. Law No. 5718, art. 51. Official source.

16. Family Courts Law No. 4787, art. 4(2). Official source.

17.  Law No. 5718, arts. 52 and 53. Official source.

18.  Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, arts. 223 and 224. Official source.

19. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, arts. 74 and 76. Official source.

20. Law No. 5718, art. 55(1). Official source.

21. Law No. 5718, art. 55(2). Official source.

22.  Law No. 5718, art. 56. Official source.

23. Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, arts. 257-259. Official source.

24. Law No. 2004, arts. 261 and 264. Official source.

25. Law No. 5718, art. 57. Official source.

26. Law No. 2004, arts. 32, 82, 100, 140 and 206; Law No. 5718, art. 57. Official source.

27. Law No. 5718, art. 8; Law No. 2004, art. 39. Official source.

28. Law No. 5718, arts. 1(2) and 48. Official source.

29. United Nations Treaty Collection, New York Convention, Türkiye’s declarations and reservations. Official treaty record.

30. Law No. 5718, arts. 1(2), 50 and 60-63. Official source.

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.