Abstract
This article examines court-ordered interim relief in Türkiye where the underlying dispute is subject to arbitration. It distinguishes interim injunctions from interim attachments, explains the role of Article 6 of International Arbitration Law No. 4686, and addresses the separate statutory conditions under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. Particular attention is given to foreign-seated arbitrations, tribunal and emergency-arbitrator powers, security, procedural deadlines and the preservation of Turkish assets pending an award or enforcement proceeding. The article also analyses two Court of Cassation decisions concerning provisional attachment and objections to Turkish court measures. The central point is that an arbitration agreement does not remove access to urgent court protection. The correct strategy depends on the relief sought, the nature and maturity of the claim, the location of assets and the authority that must implement the measure.
Introduction
An arbitration agreement does not require a party to watch Turkish assets disappear while the tribunal is being constituted or while an award is still some distance from enforcement. Turkish arbitration law preserves access to court-ordered provisional measures and treats that access as compatible with the agreement to arbitrate. The important issue is therefore not whether a court may ever become involved. It is which measure is legally available, which authority should be asked for it, and what must happen afterwards to keep the protection alive.
For international clients, two Turkish concepts need to be separated from the beginning. An interim injunction, ihtiyati tedbir, is a flexible protective measure directed to the subject matter of a dispute or to the prevention of serious prejudice. An interim attachment, ihtiyati haciz, is a more specific asset-preservation mechanism for monetary claims. They are governed by different statutes and different conditions. Using the wrong label can obscure the legal test and delay an application that is supposed to be urgent.
1. Article 6 Preserves Court Relief Despite the Arbitration Agreement
Article 6 of International Arbitration Law No. 4686 states expressly that a party may ask a court for an interim injunction or interim attachment before or during the arbitration, and that the application, or the court order itself, does not breach the arbitration agreement. This rule is particularly important because Articles 5 and 6 of Law No. 4686 also apply where the seat of arbitration is outside Türkiye. A Geneva, Paris or Algiers seat therefore does not, by itself, remove the Turkish statutory gateway to urgent relief against assets or conduct located in Türkiye.1,2
The same provision also recognises a role for the arbitral tribunal. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the tribunal may order interim measures and may require security. Its authority is nevertheless limited. It may not issue a measure that requires execution by Turkish enforcement organs or another public authority, and it may not bind third parties. If a party does not comply with a tribunal-ordered measure, the other party may seek assistance from the competent Turkish court.3
This division of functions explains why court relief remains commercially important even where the selected arbitration rules contain sophisticated emergency procedures. A tribunal can regulate the parties before it. A Turkish court can produce an order capable of operating through the state enforcement system and, where the statutory conditions are met, against assets held by banks, registries or other third parties.
2. Interim Injunction and Interim Attachment Are Not the Same Remedy
An interim injunction under Articles 389 to 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure is available where a change in the existing situation may make obtaining the right significantly more difficult or impossible, or where delay may create a danger or serious loss. The applicant must identify the requested measure and establish its substantive position on an approximate-proof standard. If immediate protection is necessary, the court may decide without first hearing the opposing party.4
An interim attachment under Articles 257 and following of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law serves a different function. For a matured monetary debt that is not secured by a pledge, Article 257 permits provisional attachment of the debtor's attachable assets and receivables. A separate showing that the debtor is about to dissipate assets is not a statutory prerequisite for every matured unsecured monetary claim. For an unmatured debt, however, Article 257 restricts the remedy to the specified circumstances, including the debtor having no fixed residence or taking steps to conceal, transfer or remove assets in order to evade obligations.5
This distinction matters in arbitration. A claimant seeking preservation of a disputed machine, shareholding or contractual status may need an injunction. A claimant seeking security for a fixed, due monetary claim may need an interim attachment. The presence of an arbitration clause does not merge those two regimes into a general concept of freezing assets.
3. What an Applicant Must Show for an Interim Injunction
For an interim injunction, the court looks for a legally protected right, the risk identified in Article 389 and approximate proof of the applicant's position under Article 390(3). The application should therefore do more than state that the dispute is urgent. It should connect the requested order to a concrete risk, such as disposal of the disputed asset, interference with a contractual status or another change capable of frustrating meaningful relief later.
Security is also part of the analysis. Article 392 generally requires the applicant to provide security against potential loss suffered by the opposing party or third persons if the measure ultimately proves unjustified. The court may dispense with security where the request rests on an official document or other conclusive evidence, or where the circumstances justify doing so, but the reasons must be stated.6
Timing continues after the order is made. Article 393 requires implementation of the injunction to be requested within one week of notification or pronouncement to the applicant. Where the measure is granted before the merits proceeding, Article 397 contains a two-week completion rule tied to the request for implementation. In an arbitration file, those procedural deadlines should be coordinated immediately with commencement of the arbitral proceeding and the specific terms of Article 6, rather than left for later reconstruction.7
4. What an Applicant Must Show for an Interim Attachment
The interim attachment analysis begins with the debt. Article 257 asks whether the claim is monetary, unsecured and due, or, if it is not yet due, whether one of the special statutory grounds exists. Article 258 then requires the creditor to present evidence sufficient to persuade the court regarding the receivable and, where relevant, the ground for attachment. The application should establish the amount, maturity, contractual or award basis and the debtor's legal identity before turning to asset intelligence.
Security under Article 259 is not governed by a universal percentage. The creditor requesting attachment is generally required to secure the losses that the debtor or third persons may suffer if the attachment proves unjustified. No security is required where the claim rests on a judgment; where it rests on a document having the force of a judgment, the court has discretion. In other cases, the amount is determined judicially.8
A pre-action attachment also triggers short follow-up periods. Article 264 requires the creditor who obtained attachment before filing an action or starting enforcement to take the prescribed completion step within seven days from implementation of the attachment, or, where appropriate, notification of the attachment record. Arbitration counsel should plan that timetable before asking the court for relief.9
5. Tribunal Relief, Emergency Arbitrators and Turkish Courts
The existence of an emergency-arbitrator mechanism can be highly useful, but it does not make Turkish court relief redundant. ISTAC, for example, provides an emergency-arbitrator procedure before the file is transmitted to the sole arbitrator or arbitral tribunal. Its rules expressly preserve the parties' ability to seek interim measures from courts and treat that step as compatible with arbitration.10
The strategic choice should follow the objective. If the applicant needs an order directed only to the counterparty and the arbitration rules provide a rapid emergency mechanism, institutional relief may be attractive. If the measure must bind a bank, land registry, enforcement office or another third party, or requires coercive state implementation, Article 6 makes the role of the Turkish court materially more important.
A well-managed case can also use the two systems sequentially rather than treating them as rivals. Counsel should identify what the court must do, what the tribunal can do, and how each order will be presented to the other decision-maker without creating inconsistent requests.
6. Yargıtay on Interim Attachment Before Final Enforcement
Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2014/3906, K. 2014/4941, 14 April 2014, is frequently cited in this field. The lower court had refused an interim attachment because the Turkish enforcement decision concerning a foreign judgment had not yet become final. The Chamber held that although a non-final enforcement decision could not yet be executed as a final enforcement title, there was no legal obstacle to relying on it in support of interim attachment. Its reasoning stated more broadly that a receivable determined by a foreign court or arbitral tribunal does not require prior final tenfiz merely for the court to consider provisional attachment; the conditions in Article 257 must still be assessed.11
The distinction is important. Interim attachment does not itself convert the foreign decision into an executable Turkish judgment. It preserves assets while recognition, enforcement or the underlying proceedings continue. The creditor still needs the appropriate later procedure before the attachment becomes a route to final collection.
The published decision should also be read carefully on its facts. It is not authority for automatic attachment whenever a foreign award or judgment exists. The creditor must still establish the statutory basis for the provisional measure, and security may remain necessary.
7. Yargıtay on Who Controls a Turkish Court Measure During Foreign Arbitration
A second leading decision is Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/3529, K. 2022/4699, 12 October 2022. The Chamber resolved a conflict between regional appellate decisions concerning who should determine an objection to an interim measure that had been granted by a Turkish court while the merits were being pursued before a foreign arbitral tribunal.12
The Court of Cassation concluded that the objection remained for the Turkish court system. Reading Article 6 together with its purpose, the Chamber reasoned that the arbitral tribunal does not have authority to modify or lift a provisional measure issued by a Turkish court. The fact that arbitration had commenced abroad did not transfer procedural control over the Turkish court's own order to the tribunal.13
For cross-border practice, the decision supplies a valuable division of responsibility. The tribunal decides the merits within the arbitration. The Turkish court retains control of the provisional order it issued under Turkish procedural law. A party challenging or seeking modification of that order should therefore identify the Turkish procedural route instead of assuming that the foreign tribunal can simply replace the court's decision.
8. How Long Does a Turkish Court Measure Remain in Force?
Article 6 contains its own rule on the fate of court-ordered measures in international arbitration. A court injunction or interim attachment granted before or during the arbitration automatically ceases when the arbitral award becomes enforceable or when the arbitral claim is rejected. This special rule must be read together with the procedural rules governing implementation, objection, security and completion of the particular measure.14
The practical lesson is that interim relief is not a substitute for prosecuting the arbitration. A claimant should calendar the court deadlines, arbitral deadlines and enforcement milestones as one integrated timetable. A measure that is commercially valuable on day one can be lost through failure to complete the next procedural step.
9. Foreign-Seated Awards and the Later Enforcement Stage
The enforcement framework should also be described accurately. A foreign-seated arbitral award is not generally enforced in Türkiye merely by relying on the domestic enforcement mechanics of International Arbitration Law No. 4686. Recognition and enforcement ordinarily engage the 1958 New York Convention where applicable and, where the Convention does not govern, Articles 60 to 63 of Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure.15
That later enforcement analysis is separate from the provisional-measure application. A creditor may have a strong basis for preserving Turkish assets even though the award has not yet reached the stage of final Turkish enforcement. Conversely, obtaining an interim attachment does not eliminate the need to satisfy the applicable recognition and enforcement requirements.
For a foreign company, asset preservation and award enforcement should therefore be planned together. The file should identify the debtor's Turkish assets, the legal basis of the monetary claim, the arbitration status, any award challenge at the seat, the documents needed for tenfiz, and the procedural steps required to preserve the attachment until execution becomes available.
10. Drafting the Arbitration Clause and Preparing the Urgent File
Article 6 already protects the right to seek court measures, so an additional contractual carve-out is not legally necessary merely to create that right. It can nevertheless be useful drafting. A clause may state that seeking interim or conservatory relief from a competent court is not inconsistent with the arbitration agreement. The wording should complement, rather than narrow, the statutory protection and the selected institutional rules.
When urgency arises, counsel should assemble the provisional-relief file before filing. For an interim attachment, the file should establish the debt, maturity, absence of security, and the available asset information. For an injunction, it should explain the protected right, the threatened change or harm and the precise order requested. In both cases, the arbitration agreement, proof of commencement or intended commencement, corporate authority, translations and any foreign procedural documents should be organised so the Turkish court can understand the case without being asked to decide the merits of the arbitration.
Foreign clients should also budget for security, translation, notarisation or authentication where applicable, and the possibility of an objection or appellate review. Urgency does not reduce the importance of documentary discipline. It increases it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does applying to a Turkish court for interim relief waive arbitration?
No. Article 6 of Law No. 4686 states expressly that requesting an interim injunction or interim attachment, and the court granting it, is not inconsistent with the arbitration agreement.
Can I seek Turkish court relief when the arbitration is seated outside Türkiye?
Yes, in principle. Article 1 of Law No. 4686 expressly extends Articles 5 and 6 to cases in which the seat of arbitration is outside Türkiye. The competent court and the statutory conditions for the particular measure still need to be established.
Do I always have to prove that the debtor is hiding assets to obtain interim attachment?
No. For a matured monetary debt that is not secured by a pledge, Article 257 does not make asset dissipation a universal additional condition. The special risk grounds become central where the debt is not yet due.
Will the court require security?
Often. Security is generally required under both the interim-injunction and interim-attachment regimes, subject to the statutory exceptions. There is no single universal percentage that applies to every case.
Can the arbitral tribunal order interim measures as well?
Yes, unless the parties agree otherwise, but Article 6 limits measures that require coercive implementation by public authorities or bind third parties. Court relief may therefore be necessary even after the tribunal has been constituted.
Can a foreign arbitral tribunal lift an interim measure already granted by a Turkish court?
The Court of Cassation's 12 October 2022 decision indicates that procedural control over the Turkish court's measure remains with the Turkish court rather than shifting to the foreign tribunal.
Does an interim attachment make a foreign award immediately enforceable in Türkiye?
No. Provisional attachment preserves assets. Recognition and enforcement of the award remain separate proceedings under the applicable treaty and Turkish private international law framework.
Conclusion
Turkish law does not treat arbitration and urgent court protection as mutually exclusive. Article 6 of International Arbitration Law No. 4686 expressly preserves court-ordered interim injunctions and interim attachments, including in foreign-seated arbitrations, while also recognising a more limited power for arbitral tribunals. The decisive issue is the legal character of the relief. Interim injunctions and interim attachments have different statutory tests, security rules and completion deadlines, and neither should be requested as a generic asset-freezing remedy.
The Court of Cassation decisions discussed above reinforce the same architecture. A provisional attachment can be considered without waiting for final enforcement of the underlying foreign decision, subject to the statutory conditions, and a Turkish court retains procedural control over the provisional measure it has issued even when the merits are before a foreign tribunal. For international parties, the strongest strategy is therefore integrated: preserve the asset, commence and prosecute the arbitration promptly, maintain the court measure correctly, and prepare the eventual recognition and enforcement file from the outset.
Legal Notice
This article provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice. The applicable arbitration agreement, seat, institutional rules, legislation, court and tribunal practice, asset location, security requirements, filing, notification or service dates and other deadlines, and the facts of the particular matter should be checked before any action is taken.
Bibliography
Legislation and Treaties
International Arbitration Law No. 4686, especially arts. 1, 3, 5 and 6, Official Gazette No. 24453, 5 July 2001. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.4686.pdf.
Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, especially arts. 389-399, Official Gazette No. 27836, 4 February 2011. https://cdn.tbmm.gov.tr/KKBSPublicFile/D23/Y2/T1/KanunMetni/4f31a7dc-5457-494d-81e2-266e2518a374.html.
Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, especially arts. 257-268. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Justice consolidated text. https://iidb.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/SayfaDokuman/2112020101941icra_kanun.pdf.
Private International and Procedural Law No. 5718, especially arts. 60-63, Official Gazette No. 26728, 12 December 2007. https://mgm.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/SayfaDokuman/181020191033445718%20M%C4%B0LLETLERARASI%20%C3%96ZEL%20HUKUK%20VE%20USUL%20HUKUKU.pdf.
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.
Judicial Decisions
Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2014/3906, K. 2014/4941, 14 April 2014. Official decision search: https://karararama.yargitay.gov.tr/. Published in İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, Vol. 88, Issue 6, 2014.
Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/3529, K. 2022/4699, 12 October 2022. Official decision search: https://karararama.yargitay.gov.tr/.
Institutional and Professional Materials
Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, Tahkime İlişkin Temel Kavramlar, Düzenlemeler ve Güncel Gelişmeler, Updated and Expanded 3rd Edition, 2026. https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5b97adc313b8781f604831d7/TAHK%C4%B0ME%20%C4%B0L%C4%B0%C5%9EK%C4%B0N%20TEMEL
%20KAVRAMLAR%2C%20D%C3%9CZENLEMELER%20VE%20G%C3%9CNCEL%20GEL%C4%B0%C5%9EMELER%20%28G%C3%BCncellenmi%
C5%9F%20ve%20Geni%C5%9Fletilmi%C5%9F%203.%20Bask%C4%B1%29.pdf.
Istanbul Arbitration Centre, Emergency Arbitrator Rules and official guidance. https://istac.org.tr/en/dispute-resolution/emergency-arbitrator/.
Istanbul Bar Association, İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, Vol. 88, Issue 6, November-December 2014, Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber decisions section. https://www.istanbulbarosu.org.tr/files/Yayinlar/Dergi/doc/ibd20146.pdf.
Rıfat Erten, “Tahkimde Geçici Hukuki Koruma Önlemleri: Hakem Kurulunun ve Mahkemelerin Yetkisine İlişkin Türk Mahkemeleri Hakkında Değerlendirmeler,” in Tahkimde Güncel Sorunlar (I-IV), Istanbul, 2022, pp. 53-69.
Footnotes
1 International Arbitration Law No. 4686, art. 1. The statute expressly provides that arts. 5 and 6 apply where the seat of arbitration is outside Türkiye. See Ministry of Trade, Tahkime İlişkin Temel Kavramlar, Düzenlemeler ve Güncel Gelişmeler, 3rd ed., 2026, p. 165.
2 International Arbitration Law No. 4686, art. 6, Official Gazette No. 24453, 5 July 2001. Current text reproduced in Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, Tahkime İlişkin Temel Kavramlar, Düzenlemeler ve Güncel Gelişmeler, Updated and Expanded 3rd ed., 2026, pp. 168-169. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.4686.pdf.
3 International Arbitration Law No. 4686, art. 6, paras. 2-4. The tribunal may order interim relief unless the parties agree otherwise, but may not issue measures requiring execution by enforcement organs or other public authorities, or measures binding third parties; court assistance remains available.
4 Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, arts. 389 and 390. Art. 390(3) requires the applicant to identify the ground and type of relief and approximately prove its substantive entitlement. Official enacted text: https://cdn.tbmm.gov.tr/KKBSPublicFile/D23/Y2/T1/KanunMetni/4f31a7dc-5457-494d-81e2-266e2518a374.html.
5 Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, arts. 257 and 258. Ministry of Justice consolidated text: https://iidb.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/SayfaDokuman/2112020101941icra_kanun.pdf.
6 Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, art. 392, concerning security for an interim injunction and the circumstances in which the court may dispense with it.
7 Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, arts. 393 and 397. Art. 393 requires timely implementation; art. 397 regulates completion steps where relief was obtained before the merits proceeding.
8 Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, art. 259. The statute generally requires security for loss caused by an unjustified attachment, subject to its judgment and judgment-like-document exceptions.
9 Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, art. 264, concerning the steps and short time limits that complete a provisional attachment obtained before the underlying action or enforcement proceeding.
10 Istanbul Arbitration Centre, Emergency Arbitrator Rules and official guidance. The Rules preserve recourse to courts for interim measures and state that court relief is not incompatible with the arbitration agreement. https://istac.org.tr/en/dispute-resolution/emergency-arbitrator/.
11 Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2014/3906, K. 2014/4941, 14 April 2014. Official decision search: https://karararama.yargitay.gov.tr/. The decision is also published in İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, Vol. 88, Issue 6, 2014, in the Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber section.
12 Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/3529, K. 2022/4699, 12 October 2022, decision resolving conflicting final regional appellate decisions concerning an objection to a Turkish court interim measure in a dispute proceeding before a foreign arbitral tribunal. Official decision search: https://karararama.yargitay.gov.tr/.
13 Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/3529, K. 2022/4699, 12 October 2022. See also Rıfat Erten, “Tahkimde Geçici Hukuki Koruma Önlemleri: Hakem Kurulunun ve Mahkemelerin Yetkisine İlişkin Türk Mahkemeleri Hakkında Değerlendirmeler,” in Tahkimde Güncel Sorunlar (I-IV), Istanbul, 2022, pp. 53-69.
14 International Arbitration Law No. 4686, art. 6, final paragraph. A court-ordered interim injunction or attachment made before or during arbitration ceases automatically when the arbitral award becomes enforceable or when the arbitral claim is rejected.
15 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 1958; Private International and Procedural Law No. 5718, arts. 60-63. Ministry of Justice text: https://mgm.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/SayfaDokuman/181020191033445718%20M%C4%B0LLETLERARASI%20%C3%96ZEL%20HUKUK%20VE%20USUL%20HUKUKU.pdf; UN status record: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXII-1&chapter=22&clang=_en.
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.
