Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments In Türkiye – Q&A

General framework

Q1: Can a foreign court judgment be directly enforced in Türkiye?

No. A foreign civil judgment can only be enforced after a competent Turkish court issues an enforcement (exequatur) decision under Articles 50 et seq. of Law No. 5718 on International Private and Civil Procedural Law (IPCPL).

Q2: What is the legal basis for enforcing foreign judgments in Türkiye?

The enforcement of foreign court decisions in civil matters is governed by Articles 50–59 of Law No. 5718 (IPCPL), which set out the procedural rules and substantive conditions such as reciprocity, finality, jurisdiction and public policy.

Q3: What is an "enforcement judgment" (exequatur) under Turkish law?

It is a decision rendered by a Turkish civil court confirming that a foreign judgment meets the statutory conditions and granting it enforceability in Türkiye; once granted, the foreign judgment is executed like a domestic judgment.

Basic conditions for enforcement

Q4: What are the core conditions to enforce a foreign judgment in Türkiye?

Key conditions include:

• The foreign judgment must be final under the law of the rendering state.
• Reciprocity (treaty, de jure or de facto) must exist between Türkiye and that state.
• The matter must not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts.
• The foreign court must not have exercised excessive jurisdiction without a real connection.
• The judgment must not clearly violate Turkish public order.
• The defendant's right to be heard and proper service must have been respected.

Q5: What does "finality of judgment" mean in this context?

A judgment is "final" if it is no longer subject to ordinary legal remedies under the law of the state where it was rendered; Turkish courts look to that foreign law and require documentary proof (certificate, stamp, or similar) evidencing finality.

Q6: Why is reciprocity so important for enforcement?

Because Article 54/a IPCPL makes enforceability conditional on either a reciprocity treaty or the existence of de jure or de facto reciprocity, showing that the other state also enforces Turkish judgments under broadly equivalent conditions.

Jurisdiction and public policy limits

Q7: What happens if the case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts?

If the subject matter lies within Turkish courts' exclusive jurisdiction (for example actions concerning real property located in Türkiye, certain bankruptcy matters, or some labour disputes), the foreign judgment cannot be enforced.

Q8: What is "excessive jurisdiction" of the foreign court and why does it matter?

Excessive jurisdiction arises where the foreign court assumes jurisdiction without a genuine connection to the dispute or parties; if the defendant raised this objection in the foreign proceedings, it can be used as a ground to resist enforcement in Türkiye.

Q9: How do Turkish courts apply the public order (public policy) exception?

Enforcement is refused if the foreign judgment clearly and seriously contradicts Turkish public order, particularly fundamental rights, due process, and basic principles of international law; minor or indirect conflicts are not enough, as Article 54 requires an explicit incompatibility.

Q10: Does the absence of reasoning in the foreign judgment automatically breach Turkish public order?

No. The Court of Cassation's General Assembly on the Unification of Judgments has held that a lack of reasoning alone does not bar enforcement, unless it leads to a clear violation of basic procedural guarantees.

Right to be heard and service

Q11: When can the defendant invoke violation of the right to be heard?

The defendant may resist enforcement if they were not duly summoned under the foreign state's law, were not represented, or the judgment was rendered in a way that deprived them of the opportunity to present their case; however, the defendant must raise these objections in the Turkish enforcement proceedings, as courts do not examine them ex officio.

Q12: How does Turkish law view differences in foreign service of process rules?

What matters is compliance with the procedural law of the foreign state and respect for the right to be heard; differences from Turkish service rules alone do not bar enforcement, provided the defendant had a fair opportunity to participate.

Satisfaction, impediments, and competent court

Q13: Can enforcement be refused if the judgment has already been satisfied?

Yes. The defendant may object that the judgment has been fully or partially executed, or that another impediment (such as the debtor's dissolution) makes execution impossible, in which case Turkish courts may deny or limit enforcement.

Q14: Which courts are competent to hear enforcement actions in Türkiye?

Enforcement suits are filed before the civil courts of first instance (asliye mahkemesi); where the underlying dispute is commercial, the commercial court of first instance is competent.

Q15: How is territorial jurisdiction determined for an enforcement lawsuit?

As a rule, jurisdiction lies with the court where the defendant is resident in Türkiye; if the defendant has no residence, the court where they are domiciled or located is competent, and failing that, courts in Ankara, Istanbul or Izmir may hear the case.

Russian judgments specifically

Q16: Are Russian court judgments, especially from Arbitrazh Courts, enforceable in Türkiye?

In principle yes, Russian commercial judgments (including those of Arbitrazh Courts) can be enforced in Türkiye, provided the IPCPL conditions are met and reciprocity (primarily de jure, but also de facto) exists between the two states.

Q17: Why is the term "Arbitrazh Court" potentially confusing in Turkish practice?

Because "Arbitrazh" is sometimes mistranslated as "arbitration court," which may mislead Turkish judges into treating the decision as an arbitral award; correct translations should clarify that these are state commercial courts, not arbitral tribunals, so the foreign judgment, not award, regime applies.

Q18: How is finality of Russian Arbitrazh Court decisions evidenced for Turkish courts?

Russian decisions typically bear a stamp or notation, often on the first page, confirming that the judgment has become final; this must be correctly translated so Turkish courts understand that no ordinary appeal is pending.

Q19: Is there a reciprocity treaty between Türkiye and Russia on court judgments?

There is no specific bilateral treaty on mutual enforcement of court judgments between Türkiye and the Russian Federation, so Turkish courts examine whether legal (de jure) or factual (de facto) reciprocity exists based on Russian domestic law and practice.

Q20: How does Russian law (Arbitrazh Procedure Act) support de jure reciprocity?

Section 244 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Act lists limited refusal grounds (non‑finality, improper notice, exclusive jurisdiction, lis pendens, time-bar, and public policy), which are not stricter overall than Turkish enforcement conditions, leading Turkish courts and commentators to accept de jure reciprocity in commercial matters.

Q21: How is service of process handled in Russian Arbitrazh proceedings and why does it matter in Türkiye?

Russian courts generally serve only the initial notice of proceedings; afterwards, parties must actively obtain documents themselves, and failure to do so is their responsibility; Turkish courts accept this as a legitimate foreign procedural rule, but detailed explanations are often needed to show that the right to be heard was respected.

Reciprocity in depth (de jure, de facto, political)

Q22: What does "reciprocity" mean under Article 54 IPCPL?

Reciprocity means that Turkish judgments are in principle enforceable in the foreign state either under a treaty (political reciprocity), under that state's laws (de jure reciprocity), or in practice through court decisions (de facto reciprocity).

Q23: What is political reciprocity and when is it relevant?

Political reciprocity arises when Türkiye and the other state are parties to an international treaty that provides for mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments; if such a treaty exists, Turkish courts rely on it as evidence that reciprocity is satisfied.

Q24: How is de jure reciprocity assessed between Türkiye and another state?

De jure reciprocity exists when the foreign state's legislation allows enforcement of foreign judgments, including Turkish ones, under conditions that are at least equivalent, and not significantly more stringent, than those in Articles 50 and 54 IPCPL.

Q25: Must the enforcement conditions in both states be identical to find de jure reciprocity?

No. What is required is functional equivalence, not identical wording; differences that do not materially complicate enforcement or discriminate against Turkish judgments generally do not preclude de jure reciprocity.

Q26: Why is the foreign "revision on the merits" system problematic for de jure reciprocity?

If foreign courts, at the enforcement stage, re‑examine the merits of the case and reassess the correctness of the judgment, this normally conflicts with Turkish law, which prohibits revision of the merits in enforcement proceedings and limits review to the Article 54 conditions; such a system makes de jure reciprocity difficult to establish.

Q27: What is positive de facto reciprocity?

Positive de facto reciprocity exists when at least one Turkish judgment of a similar nature has actually been enforced by the courts of the foreign state, demonstrating in practice that Turkish decisions receive enforcement there.

Q28: What is negative de facto practice and how does it affect enforcement?

Negative de facto practice is when foreign courts systematically refuse to enforce Turkish judgments despite legal or treaty grounds to do so; if the refusals cannot be justified under that country's law, Turkish courts may conclude that reciprocity is absent and reject enforcement.

Q29: Does the absence of any prior enforcement of Turkish judgments abroad automatically mean there is no reciprocity?

No. If no Turkish judgment has yet been presented for enforcement in the foreign country, the mere lack of precedents does not defeat reciprocity; Turkish courts look instead to the foreign law and potential openness to enforcing Turkish decisions.

Q30: Is reciprocity assessed by subject matter (e.g. family vs commercial judgments)?

This is debated: one view requires reciprocity for judgments of the same subject type, while another argues that any demonstrated enforcement of a Turkish judgment, whatever its subject, suffices; Turkish scholarship and practice have not fully unified on this point.

Procedure and practical issues

Q31: Does Türkiye require recognition and enforcement proceedings to examine the merits of the foreign judgment?

No. Turkish courts do not re‑try the case; they check only whether the statutory conditions (finality, jurisdiction, reciprocity, public order, and defence rights) are satisfied, and do not review the substantive correctness of the foreign decision.

Q32: Who bears the burden of proving reciprocity in an enforcement action?

Although the judge must investigate reciprocity ex officio, in practice parties submit foreign legislation, case law and expert opinions; courts frequently seek information from the Ministry of Justice or diplomatic channels, but these sources are not always up to date or conclusive.

Q33: At what time is reciprocity assessed: filing date or decision date?

There is doctrinal debate: some argue reciprocity should be checked as of the date of the Turkish enforcement judgment, others as of the filing date of the action; courts may consider both the legal framework and practice as they exist during the proceedings.

Q34: Does Türkiye's political recognition of a foreign state matter for reciprocity?

For de jure and de facto reciprocity, what matters is the foreign state's legal framework and practice; political recognition is mainly relevant for treaty‑based (political) reciprocity, not for the existence of de jure or de facto reciprocity.

Q35: What happens if no form of reciprocity exists with the foreign state?

If there is no reciprocity treaty, no de jure reciprocity in that state's law, and no positive de facto practice, Turkish courts must reject the enforcement request under Article 54/a IPCPL.

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.