Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Turkey: Requirements, Documents and Procedure

A final foreign civil judgment has no automatic effect in Turkey: it can be executed only after an enforcement decision (tenfiz), and it needs recognition (tanıma) to serve as res judicata, conclusive evidence or the basis of an administrative act. As a rule, the action is filed before a court of first instance (asliye mahkemesi) where the person against whom enforcement is sought is domiciled in Turkey (failing that, where they reside; otherwise in Ankara, Istanbul or Izmir). The Turkish court does not review the merits; it checks only reciprocity (not required for recognition), exclusive jurisdiction, public policy and the right of defense.

What Is Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Judgment?

A judgment given by a foreign court has no automatic effect in Turkey. As the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) stated in its decision of 13 January 2025 (Case No. 2024/12327, Decision No. 2025/346), “For a foreign court judgment to produce effects and consequences outside the country in which it was given, that judgment must be recognized or enforced.” (Turkish citations write these numbers as E. 2024/12327, K. 2025/346: esas is the case number and karar the decision number. All quotations from Turkish statutes and court decisions in this article are unofficial translations.) As a rule, recognition and enforcement are sought in a separate action; according to the Chamber, with the decision given in that action, “the foreign court judgment acquires the force and character of a local court judgment.”

Enforcement (tenfiz) is the decision obtained from the competent Turkish court so that a foreign court’s judgment (ilam, the written judgment) can be enforced in Turkey. The rule is set out in Article 50 of the Law on Private International and Procedural Law No. 5718 (Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun, MÖHUK):

Article 50 of MÖHUK (unofficial translation):
“1. Judgments given by foreign courts in civil cases that have become final under the laws of that state may be enforced in Turkey only if the competent Turkish court issues an enforcement decision.
2. An enforcement decision may also be requested for the provisions concerning personal rights contained in the criminal judgments of foreign courts.”

Recognition (tanıma), by contrast, is the acceptance of a foreign court judgment in Turkey, without enforcement, as res judicata (kesin hüküm: the same dispute cannot be heard again) or as conclusive evidence (kesin delil: evidence that binds the court). As a rule, the same procedure applies where an administrative act is to be carried out in Turkey on the basis of a foreign judgment. The exception is the administrative registration of divorce, nullity and annulment judgments in the civil registry, which is explained under the heading on family law judgments:

Article 58 of MÖHUK (unofficial translation):
“1. A foreign court judgment may be accepted as conclusive evidence or res judicata only if the court determines that the foreign judgment satisfies the conditions for enforcement. Subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 54 does not apply to recognition.
2. The recognition of decisions in non-contentious proceedings is subject to the same provision.
3. The same procedure applies where an administrative act is to be carried out in Turkey on the basis of a foreign court judgment.”

The key difference between the two is whether the judgment will be enforced in Turkey. In the same decision, relying on the statute’s explanatory memorandum (gerekçe), the 9th Civil Chamber stated: “The recognition of a foreign court judgment does not make that judgment enforceable.” A recognized judgment can be used as res judicata, as conclusive evidence or as the basis for an administrative act; it cannot be the subject of enforcement proceedings at an enforcement office (icra dairesi).

a) Recognition vs. Enforcement: Which Action Should Be Filed?

The content of the foreign judgment determines which action to file. In the decision cited above, the 9th Civil Chamber set out the test as follows: “If the content of the foreign court judgment requires recourse to the enforcement office, that is, requires the enforcement bodies of that state to act, the action to be filed is an action for enforcement. If the judgment has no such feature, however, the action to be filed is an action for recognition.”

Accordingly, a judgment for performance (eda kararı) that orders the payment of money, compensation or the delivery of an item is subject to enforcement. Constitutive judgments (yenilik doğuran or inşai kararlar), which terminate or change an existing legal situation or create a new one, and judgments that declare the existence of a right or a legal relationship are subject to recognition. A divorce judgment belongs to this second group. In its decision of 25 March 2025 (Case No. 2024/5965, Decision No. 2025/3057), the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated that “By their legal nature, divorce judgments are constitutive judgments” and concluded that these judgments “do not need enforcement to be effective in the legal sphere.”

As a rule, however, recognition cannot be sought instead of enforcement for a judgment that contains an order for performance. In the case that led to the 9th Civil Chamber’s Decision No. 2025/346, an employer sought recognition of a judgment of a Saudi Arabian labor court that had awarded employment claims to the employee. The Chamber reversed the decision granting recognition, stating that “the judgment whose recognition is requested is a judgment given by the foreign court as a result of an action for performance, and only its enforcement, not its recognition, may be possible.” According to the Chamber, an action for recognition of such a judgment can be brought only if “the claimant has a justified interest in requesting recognition instead of enforcement.”

In a recognition action, a legal interest (hukuki yarar) is also required separately. In the same decision, the Chamber stated: “If it has not been raised as an objection in a pending action as res judicata or conclusive evidence, and is not needed for carrying out an administrative act, there is no legal interest in the recognition of a foreign court judgment.” It emphasized that legal interest is a condition of the action (dava şartı), required before the court can examine the merits, and that the court must consider it of its own motion. In that case, because the employer stated that it had already paid the employee under the foreign judgment, no legal interest in requesting recognition was found either. The Chamber explained its reasoning as follows: “However, the claimant may raise, as a defense, the determination of the judgment whose recognition it seeks as res judicata or conclusive evidence in an action filed or likely to be filed against it.”

For this reason, a foreign judgment can also be raised as a defense in an action brought against a party, without a separate recognition action; the conditions for recognition are then examined in that action. The 9th Civil Chamber applied this principle in its decision of 25 September 2025 (Case No. 2025/3662, Decision No. 2025/6988). In an action for employment claims, the defendant employer submitted a judgment given in an action that the employee had brought in Oman and argued that this judgment had the effect of res judicata. The Regional Court of Appeal (bölge adliye mahkemesi, the intermediate appellate court) had disregarded this defense on the ground that no document showing that the foreign judgment had been recognized and enforced was submitted. The Chamber stated that “it is possible to raise as a defense the determination of a foreign court judgment as res judicata or conclusive evidence in an action filed against the party.” It held that whether the foreign judgment met the conditions in Article 50 et seq. of MÖHUK had to be assessed in that action, and it unanimously reversed the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal.

b) Legal Basis: MÖHUK and International Conventions

The enforcement of foreign court judgments is governed by Articles 50 to 57 of MÖHUK, and their recognition by Articles 58 and 59. However, MÖHUK reserves the international conventions to which Turkey is a party; if a convention regulates the matter differently, the convention applies first:

Article 1 of MÖHUK (unofficial translation):
“1. The law applicable to private-law transactions and relationships involving a foreign element, the international jurisdiction of Turkish courts, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments are governed by this Law.
2. The provisions of international conventions to which the Republic of Türkiye is a party are reserved.”

According to the Hague Conference on Private International Law’s page on Turkey, Turkey is a party to 14 Hague conventions. They include the 1954 Convention on Civil Procedure; the 1961 Apostille Convention, which abolishes the requirement of legalization for foreign public documents; the 1965 convention on service abroad; the 1958 and 1973 conventions on the recognition and enforcement of maintenance decisions; the 1996 Child Protection Convention; and the 2007 Child Support Convention. By contrast, the 2019 Hague Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is not among the instruments to which Turkey is a party or which it has signed. For this reason, the enforcement of commercial and monetary judgments in Turkey is governed by MÖHUK and, where one exists, by a bilateral treaty on judicial assistance with the country in which the judgment was given.

Which Foreign Judgments Can Be Recognized or Enforced?

Any judgment given by a foreign court in a civil case that has become final under the law of that country may be the subject of recognition and enforcement; it makes no difference whether it concerns a money claim, compensation, a contract or family law. Provisions on personal rights in criminal judgments and decisions in non-contentious proceedings also fall within this route. Whether a decision qualifies as a judgment and whether it has become final are determined under the procedural law of the country that gave it.

In Decision No. 2025/346, the 9th Civil Chamber listed the preconditions for enforcement as follows: “the preconditions required for an enforcement decision may be listed as the existence of a judgment given by a foreign court, the foreign court judgment relating to civil cases, and the judgment having become final.” In the same decision, the Chamber stated: “Accordingly, all kinds of foreign court judgments given on claims of substantive law are judgments for which an enforcement decision may be given.” It also explained which law determines the nature of the judgment: “Whether a court decision given under the procedural law of a foreign state qualifies as a court judgment, and the conditions for its finality, are undoubtedly determined exclusively under the procedural law of the country in which the decision was given.”

An important application of this principle to commercial claims is the decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation (Hukuk Genel Kurulu) of 15 December 2022 (Case No. 2022/880, Decision No. 2022/1750). In that case, an Italian court had issued a payment order against the debtor, on the creditor’s application, for payment of a certain sum; because the debtor did not object in time, the order became final under Italian law. The former 19th Civil Chamber, which has since been abolished, reversed the enforcement decision on the ground that a final payment order is not, in the technical sense, a judgment capable of enforcement; the first-instance court insisted on its original decision (direnme). Accepting that whether the decision qualifies as a judgment is determined under Italian procedural law, the General Assembly upheld the insistence decision by majority and stated: “Therefore, where a foreign court judgment suitable for enforcement satisfies the conditions exhaustively listed in MÖHUK, enforcement must be granted.” The file was sent to the relevant Chamber for examination of the defendant’s other grounds of appeal.

In criminal court judgments, enforcement may be requested only for the provisions concerning personal rights in the judgment (Article 50(2) of MÖHUK). The recognition and enforcement of decisions in non-contentious proceedings (çekişmesiz yargı, also ihtilafsız kaza) are subject to the same provisions (Article 55(1) and Article 58(2) of MÖHUK).

Documents that do not have res judicata effect cannot be recognized. In its decision of 19 February 2024 (Case No. 2023/1967, Decision No. 2024/926), the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation reversed, to that extent, a decision recognizing a certificate of inheritance issued by a Greek court. Its ground was that judgment had been given “without considering that, since a certificate of inheritance issued by a foreign court has no res judicata effect, neither its enforcement nor its recognition can be ordered.” How a certificate of inheritance is obtained in Turkey is explained in our article on the certificate of inheritance (in Turkish).

It is not necessary to enforce the whole of a foreign judgment. The petition may state for which part of the judgment enforcement is requested (Article 52(1)(c) of MÖHUK), and the court may order partial enforcement of the judgment (Article 56 of MÖHUK).

What Are the Requirements for Recognition and Enforcement?

The court grants enforcement subject to four requirements: reciprocity (karşılıklılık); the judgment having been given on a matter that does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts (and, if the defendant objects, not being based on exorbitant jurisdiction); the judgment not being manifestly contrary to public policy (kamu düzeni, ordre public); and respect for the defendant’s right of defense. Reciprocity is not required for recognition; the other requirements are the same.

Article 54 of MÖHUK (unofficial translation):
“1. The competent court grants enforcement subject to the following conditions:
a) There is an agreement based on reciprocity between the Republic of Türkiye and the state in which the judgment was given, or a statutory provision or de facto practice in that state allowing the enforcement of judgments given by Turkish courts.
b) The judgment was given on a matter that does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts or, provided that the defendant objects, the judgment was not given by the court of a state that assumed jurisdiction although it had no genuine connection with the subject matter of the action or with the parties.
c) The judgment is not manifestly contrary to public policy.
ç) Under the laws of that place, the person against whom enforcement is sought was not duly summoned to the court that gave the judgment or was not represented before that court, or a judgment was given in that person’s absence or by default in breach of those laws, and that person has not objected before the Turkish court to the request for enforcement on one of the above grounds.”

a) Reciprocity: Required Only for Enforcement

Reciprocity (karşılıklılık, also mütekabiliyet) means that the state in which the judgment was given also enforces the judgments of Turkish courts. As the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated in its decision of 24 February 2025 (Case No. 2023/4469, Decision No. 2025/679), it is sufficient for one of the three situations listed in the statute to exist: “The first of these is an agreement based on reciprocity between the Republic of Türkiye and the country that gave the judgment for the enforcement of foreign judgments, the second is a statutory provision in that state allowing the enforcement of judgments given by Turkish Courts; and the third is the existence of de facto reciprocity.”

Reciprocity is assessed by reference to the state whose court gave the judgment, not the nationality of the parties. In the reasoning of its decision of 10 February 2012 (Case No. 2010/1, Decision No. 2012/1), the Grand General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, sitting for the unification of case law (İçtihatları Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu), stated: “The reciprocity condition is a condition relating not to nationality but to the court in which the judgment was given, and if that condition is not met, the examination of the other conditions cannot proceed.”

Reciprocity is not required for recognition; Article 58(1) of MÖHUK says so expressly. The recognition of a divorce or declaratory judgment therefore does not depend on whether the country that gave the judgment enforces Turkish judgments. For judgments that award a sum of money and are to be enforced, by contrast, reciprocity is the first requirement and the one that decides the outcome of the action.

b) How Is Reciprocity Investigated and Proven?

There is no general list of countries with which reciprocity exists; it is investigated separately in each file for the country that gave the judgment. In the files that led to the decisions below, the courts first asked the Ministry of Justice whether there was an agreement between the two countries. If there is no agreement, the court looks at whether statutory or de facto reciprocity exists. In the file that led to the 6th Civil Chamber’s Decision No. 2025/679, the Ministry of Justice replied “that there is no bilateral or multilateral agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Türkiye on the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments, and that, as regards de facto reciprocity, the Ministry holds no country-based statistical data.”

De facto reciprocity is proven by showing that the foreign country enforces Turkish judgments, not by showing that Turkish courts have enforced that country’s judgments. In the same case, the first-instance court had accepted de facto reciprocity on the ground that judgments of Russian courts were enforced in Turkey. The Chamber found this insufficient and stated: “since the claimant has not submitted sufficient evidence to the file that judgments given by Turkish Courts are enforced by the Russian Federation, the existence of de facto reciprocity cannot be accepted either.”

Statutory reciprocity requires an examination of the foreign legislation. In the same decision, the Chamber held that the court should obtain a detailed report, open to review, on whether statutory reciprocity exists between the two countries. The report on the relevant legislation of the Russian Federation was to be obtained, “after having it translated by a sworn translator, from a court-appointed expert or panel of experts to be selected from the relevant department of a university.” On that basis, the Chamber unanimously reversed the judgment.

Even if the country that gave the judgment enforces Turkish judgments, there is no reciprocity if it re-examines the case from the beginning before granting enforcement. In its decision of 20 November 2023 (Case No. 2022/4640, Decision No. 2023/6659), the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dealt with a request to enforce a Danish court judgment given in a commercial dispute. According to the Ministry’s letter, Turkish judgments could be enforced in Denmark only after the file had been fully re-examined by a Danish judge. The Chamber held that this situation, “being contrary to the prohibition on review of the merits and regarded as a new trial,” meant that the reciprocity requirement was not satisfied, and it unanimously reversed the enforcement decision.

c) Exclusive Jurisdiction of Turkish Courts and Exorbitant Jurisdiction

A foreign judgment cannot be enforced if it was given on a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction (münhasır yetki) of Turkish courts, that is, a matter that the law reserves to Turkish courts alone (Article 54(1)(b) of MÖHUK). The statute does not make this requirement depend on an objection by the defendant. The second obstacle in the same subparagraph is different. If the court of the state that gave the judgment assumed jurisdiction although it had no genuine connection with the subject matter of the action or with the parties (exorbitant jurisdiction, aşırı yetki), this prevents enforcement only if the defendant objects. The defendant must raise this objection in the enforcement action before the Turkish court.

d) Manifest Contravention of Public Policy and No Review of the Merits

A Turkish court does not examine whether the foreign judgment was rightly decided. In its decision of 18 October 2023 (Case No. 2022/766, Decision No. 2023/975), the General Assembly of Civil Chambers stated the rule as follows: “Turkish courts cannot examine the correctness of the procedure applied in the foreign court judgment or of the factual and legal findings in the judgment.” This rule is called the prohibition on review of the merits (revizyon yasağı, also esastan inceleme yasağı; in comparative law, the ban on révision au fond).

The public policy requirement is read together with this limit. In its decision of 10 February 2012, the Grand General Assembly sitting for the unification of case law decided, by a majority exceeding two thirds, “that the mere absence of reasoning in foreign court judgments does not prevent the enforcement of a final foreign court judgment and that this is not to be regarded as a manifest contravention of public policy within the meaning of Article 54/c of the Law on Private International and Procedural Law No. 5718.” Because it is a decision on the unification of case law (içtihadı birleştirme kararı), it binds the courts.

In its decision of 3 June 2021 (Case No. 2017/52, Decision No. 2021/671), the General Assembly of Civil Chambers defined the subject of review as follows: the court must examine “not whether the content of the judgment is contrary to public policy, but whether the enforcement of the judgment in Turkey and the consequences of its enforcement [are manifestly contrary] to Turkish public policy.” According to the General Assembly, the judge hearing the enforcement action “has no right or authority to examine the content of the judgment beyond the conditions for enforcement.” The case concerned the enforcement of cost-assessment decisions given by a German court in an infringement action concerning a patent registered in Germany; the General Assembly upheld, by majority, the insistence decision granting enforcement.

e) Right of Defense and Service in the Foreign Proceedings

Enforcement is refused if the person against whom it is sought was not duly summoned to the foreign proceedings, was not represented there, or had a judgment given against them in their absence in breach of the laws of that country, and raises this as an objection before the Turkish court (Article 54(1)(ç) of MÖHUK).

If the defendant claims that there was no service (tebligat), the court must investigate this on the basis of the documents. The court may first ask the claimant for the documents on service of the judgment on the defendant and on its finality, but the time limit given for this must be reasonable. In its decision of 7 May 2018 (Case No. 2017/4695, Decision No. 2018/3240), the 11th Civil Chamber unanimously reversed a dismissal based on a 30-day peremptory time limit (kesin süre). That time limit had been given for a translation bearing an annotation of finality and for the documents on service of the statement of claim and the judgment on the defendants. The Chamber stated: “since submitting the documents requested from the claimant’s counsel will take time, the 30-day peremptory time limit given is not reasonable.” According to the Chamber, since finality is a condition of the action, the court must investigate whether the judgment duly became final. The claimant must be given “a reasonable peremptory time limit” to submit the documents on service of the judgment. If the claimant has no means of submitting these documents, the documents on service of the judgment must be obtained from the Ministry of Justice or from the foreign court that gave the judgment, “considering that they are not documents within the claimant’s control.” If the documents are in the claimant’s hands, submitting them when the action is filed avoids the need for an additional time limit.

Where there is a judicial assistance treaty between the two countries, the court also checks whether service was made in accordance with that treaty. In its decision of 30 May 2024 (Case No. 2023/1932, Decision No. 2024/4501), the 11th Civil Chamber drew attention to Article 7 of the judicial assistance treaty between Turkey and Georgia, which concerns service. It unanimously reversed an enforcement decision given without investigating whether the statement of claim and the judgment had been served on the defendant in accordance with that treaty.

Failure to show service may lead to refusal of enforcement. In the case that led to the decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of 31 May 2022 (Case No. 2021/1358, Decision No. 2022/2968), enforcement of a judgment on a money claim given by an English court in Manchester was sought, and the Regional Court of Appeal had dismissed the action on several grounds. The Chamber stated that the action should have been dismissed only “on the ground that the defendant’s right of defense had been restricted, since it could not be established whether [the judgment] had been served on the parties,” and it unanimously upheld the decision with its reasoning corrected. In its Decision No. 2021/671, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers also accepted that violations of the right of defense not covered by subparagraph (ç) of Article 54 of MÖHUK can be assessed under the public policy requirement.

Which Court Hears a Recognition and Enforcement Action?

Under the statute, the court with subject-matter jurisdiction is the court of first instance (asliye mahkemesi, the general first-instance court, as distinct from the Magistrates’ Court in Civil Matters, Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi). For family law judgments, the law assigns the Family Court (Aile Mahkemesi), and judgments of a commercial nature are heard by the Commercial Court of First Instance (Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi). For judgments on labor and intellectual property disputes, there is no clear finding by the Court of Cassation on the court with subject-matter jurisdiction. The court with territorial jurisdiction is the court of the domicile in Turkey of the person against whom enforcement is sought, failing that the court of their place of residence, and if they have neither in Turkey, a court in Ankara, Istanbul or Izmir. This rule of territorial jurisdiction is not mandatory.

Article 51 of MÖHUK (unofficial translation):
“1. The court with subject-matter jurisdiction over enforcement decisions is the court of first instance.
2. These decisions may be requested from the court of the domicile in Turkey of the person against whom enforcement is sought or, failing that, of their place of residence, or, if that person has no domicile or place of residence in Turkey, from one of the courts of Ankara, Istanbul or Izmir.”

a) Court with Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The type of foreign court that gave the judgment and the value of the claim do not change subject-matter jurisdiction; the Magistrates’ Court in Civil Matters cannot hear a recognition and enforcement action. In its decision of 15 October 2019 (Case No. 2017/1924, Decision No. 2019/1060), the General Assembly of Civil Chambers found it wrong that the Magistrates’ Court in Civil Matters had heard an action for recognition and enforcement of a Munich court’s decision appointing a guardian. It stated that “it is erroneous that the action was heard by the Magistrates’ Court in Civil Matters when the action should have been heard and decided by the court of first instance,” and it unanimously reversed the judgment. Subject-matter jurisdiction is a condition of the action and is considered by the court of its own motion at every stage of the proceedings.

Family law judgments (for example, on divorce, custody, maintenance or annulment of marriage) are subject to a special rule of subject-matter jurisdiction:

Article 4 of Law No. 4787 on the Establishment, Duties and Trial Procedures of Family Courts (unofficial translation):
“Family courts hear the following actions and matters: … 2. The recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments relating to family law under the Law on Private International and Procedural Law No. 2675 of 20 May 1982,”

The provision refers to the former Law No. 2675; the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments are now governed by MÖHUK, Law No. 5718 (Article 1 of MÖHUK). For family law judgments, the action is filed before the Family Court.

For judgments of a commercial nature, the basis is Article 5 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (TCC). Under that article, the Commercial Court of First Instance has subject-matter jurisdiction over all commercial cases regardless of the value or amount in dispute. The relationship between the Commercial Court of First Instance and the Civil Court of First Instance (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) is also one of subject-matter jurisdiction. Since the 2016 decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers, the Court of Cassation has accepted that the term “court of first instance” (asliye mahkemesi) in MÖHUK also covers the Commercial Court of First Instance, and it determines subject-matter jurisdiction according to the dispute that is the subject of the judgment whose enforcement is sought. In its decision of 25 April 2018 (Case No. 2016/17824, Decision No. 2018/2308), the 19th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation unanimously reversed the judgment of a court that had ruled it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction in an action for enforcement of a US court judgment given in a dispute of a commercial nature. It stated: “In the specific case, since the matter is a commercial transaction and the judgment whose enforcement is sought concerns a commercial case, the court with subject-matter jurisdiction is the Commercial Court of First Instance, a specialized court that is one of the courts of first instance.” In its decision of 15 June 2016 (Case No. 2014/1090, Decision No. 2016/819), the General Assembly of Civil Chambers likewise concluded, in an action for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award given in a dispute between merchants arising from a sale of wheat, that the court with subject-matter jurisdiction “is the Commercial Court of First Instance,” and it unanimously reversed the insistence decision. Accordingly, the Italian payment order file mentioned above was heard by the Istanbul Commercial Courts of First Instance, and the enforcement of a foreign judgment on a claim arising from a contract for work (eser sözleşmesi) was heard by the Ankara 3rd Commercial Court of First Instance. Where there is no Commercial Court of First Instance, the Civil Court of First Instance continues to hear the case (Article 5(4) of the TCC). In its decision of 13 September 2022 (Case No. 2021/3957, Decision No. 2022/5804), the 11th Civil Chamber upheld an enforcement decision, relying on the rule “that, under Article 5/4 of TCC No. 6102, the fact that the case was not heard in the capacity of a commercial court of first instance cannot be made a ground for reversal.”

This list is not exhaustive. In files examined by the Court of Cassation, actions for recognition of foreign judgments given in disputes between employees and employers were heard by Labor Courts (İş Mahkemesi). An action for enforcement of a French court judgment on trademark infringement was heard by the Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights (Fikrî ve Sınai Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi). In these files, the defendants argued that the court with subject-matter jurisdiction was the Civil Court of First Instance. The Court of Cassation did not reverse the decisions on grounds of subject-matter jurisdiction; it reversed two of them on other grounds and upheld one (the 9th Civil Chamber’s Decision No. 2025/346 and its decision of 22 September 2025 (Case No. 2025/4608, Decision No. 2025/6694); the 11th Civil Chamber’s decision of 12 October 2015 (Case No. 2015/3651, Decision No. 2015/10305)). However, in the file that led to Decision No. 2025/346, it was the Regional Court of Appeal that expressly accepted the jurisdiction of the Labor Court. The 11th Civil Chamber, for its part, upheld without giving reasons the first-instance decision that had accepted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights. Among the decisions we examined, there is no decision in which the Court of Cassation established the jurisdiction of these courts with its own reasoning; the practice in these files is consistent with the approach the Court of Cassation has adopted for commercial judgments, which determines subject-matter jurisdiction according to the subject of the judgment whose enforcement is sought. Unlike the provision governing the jurisdiction of family courts, Article 5 of the Labor Courts Law No. 7036 and Article 156 of the Industrial Property Law No. 6769 do not separately list the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

Mandatory mediation may also become relevant in the enforcement of a foreign judgment on a commercial claim. Article 5/A of the TCC makes mediation a condition of the action in commercial cases “in actions for receivables and compensation, actions for annulment of objection, negative declaratory actions and actions for restitution whose subject is a sum of money.” In an action for enforcement of a judgment given by a Polish court in a commercial dispute, the Regional Court of Appeal concluded “that, since no adjudication on the merits of the dispute takes place in enforcement proceedings, the obligation to apply to mediation does not apply in recognition and enforcement actions.” The 11th Civil Chamber unanimously upheld that decision without giving reasons (18 February 2025, Case No. 2024/2949, Decision No. 2025/977). In a file concerning the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, the same Chamber also upheld the Regional Court of Appeal’s decision that mediation is not required (2 April 2026, Case No. 2025/5174, Decision No. 2026/1864).

b) Court with Territorial Jurisdiction (Venue)

Territorial jurisdiction is determined in the order set out in Article 51(2) of MÖHUK, quoted above. If the person against whom enforcement is sought has neither a domicile nor a place of residence in Turkey, the claimant may choose a court in one of the three cities listed. The claimant’s own domicile and the place where the debtor’s assets in Turkey are located are not listed in the statute as grounds of territorial jurisdiction for foreign court judgments.

This special rule of territorial jurisdiction takes precedence over the general rules of territorial jurisdiction in the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (CCP) and in special laws. In its decision of 12 March 2025 (Case No. 2024/13577, Decision No. 2025/2559), given in an action for recognition of a foreign judgment on a labor dispute, the 9th Civil Chamber stated that “it is clear that, in a dispute arising from a request for recognition or enforcement, the rules of territorial jurisdiction provided for by Law No. 7036 and other statutory provisions cannot be resorted to.”

According to the same decision, this rule of territorial jurisdiction is not mandatory: “For this reason, an objection to territorial jurisdiction is a preliminary objection, and an objection to territorial jurisdiction raised after the time limit for the statement of defense has expired cannot be taken into account. Nor can the court consider lack of territorial jurisdiction of its own motion”. If the defendant does not object to territorial jurisdiction in time, the court in which the action was filed acquires territorial jurisdiction. In its decision of 25 March 2025 (Case No. 2024/12576, Decision No. 2025/4010), the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation likewise designated the Bursa 6th Civil Court of First Instance, which had declined territorial jurisdiction of its own motion, as the court to hear the case. Its grounds were “that territorial jurisdiction is not mandatory in actions for the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments” and that the defendant had not objected to territorial jurisdiction.

Different rules of territorial jurisdiction apply to foreign arbitral awards; this is explained under a separate heading below.

Who Can File the Action, and Against Whom?

Anyone with a legal interest in the recognition or enforcement of the judgment may file the action; the claimant need not be a Turkish citizen or live in Turkey. As a rule, the defendant is the person named in the foreign judgment as the debtor or defendant.

Article 52(1) of MÖHUK provides: “Anyone with a legal interest in the enforcement of the judgment may request enforcement.” In its Decision No. 2023/975, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers concluded that the existence of a legal interest “must be assessed by the judge in each case within the framework of the specific features of the facts of that case.” It stated that there is no doubt that a spouse considered divorced in a foreign country has a legal interest in requesting recognition of that judgment in Turkey.

The action is brought against the person named as the debtor in the foreign judgment. Whether the entity named as the debtor (for example, a simple partnership, adi ortaklık, established abroad) has legal personality is determined under the law of the country in which the judgment was given. If it has no legal personality, whether the action can be brought against the partners that make up that entity depends on this investigation. In the case that led to the decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of 12 February 2025 (Case No. 2024/407, Decision No. 2025/481), an Algerian court had held liable a company that the defendant companies had set up in Algeria and that, according to the claimant, was structured as a simple partnership. The enforcement action was brought against the partner companies, and the first-instance court dismissed it for lack of standing (husumet yokluğu: the defendants lacked standing as parties). The Chamber stated: “Whether the party named as defendant in the foreign court judgment is a natural or legal person under the substantive law of the state concerned is important for assessing standing as a party in the enforcement action to be heard later.” It held that the court should write to the Algerian authorities through the Ministry of Justice to investigate whether the company named as debtor had legal personality and who its partners were, and it unanimously reversed the judgment.

The Enforcement Petition and Required Documents

The petition states the parties, the foreign court that gave the judgment, the date and number of the judgment, a summary of the judgment and, if partial enforcement is requested, which part. Attached to the petition are the original of the judgment duly certified by the authorities of that country or a certified copy, a certified letter or document showing that the judgment has become final, and certified translations of these documents.

a) Contents of the Petition

Article 52 of MÖHUK (unofficial translation):
“1. Anyone with a legal interest in the enforcement of the judgment may request enforcement. The request for enforcement is made by petition. As many copies as there are opposing parties are attached to the petition. The petition contains the following:
a) The names, surnames and addresses of the person requesting enforcement, of the opposing party and of any legal representatives and counsel.
b) The state whose court gave the judgment to be enforced, the name of the court, the date and number of the judgment, and a summary of the judgment.
c) If enforcement is requested for part of the judgment, which part.”

b) Documents to Attach to the Petition

Article 53 of MÖHUK (unofficial translation):
“1. The following documents are attached to the enforcement petition:
a) The original of the foreign court judgment, duly certified by the authorities of that country, or a copy certified by the judicial body that gave the judgment, and a certified translation.
b) A letter or document, duly certified by the authorities of that country, showing that the judgment has become final, and a certified translation.”

Finality can be shown by an annotation of finality (kesinleşme şerhi) placed on the judgment or by a separate letter or document. In its Decision No. 2025/346, the 9th Civil Chamber criticized the first-instance court for accepting that the judgment whose recognition was requested had become final. It found that “there is no annotation of finality in the file, nor has a letter or document showing that this judgment has become final, duly certified by the authorities of that country, together with a certified translation, been submitted to the file.”

c) Apostille and Certified Translation

The statute requires the judgment and the document of finality to be “duly certified by the authorities of that country.” Turkey is a party to the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention, which abolishes the requirement of legalization for foreign public documents. For a judgment given in a country that is a party to this convention, certification is made by an apostille (apostil şerhi) issued by the competent authority of that country. The translations must also be “certified translations” (Article 53 of MÖHUK).

For a judgment given in a country that is not a party to the Apostille Convention, the general rule applies: for an official document prepared by the authorities of a foreign state to have that character in Turkey, it is “subject to certification by the competent authority of the state in which the document was issued or by the relevant Turkish consular authority” (Article 224(1) of the CCP). The provisions on the certification of foreign official documents in international conventions to which Turkey is a party are reserved (Article 224(2) of the CCP).

A missing apostille is not a minor formal defect. In the file that led to the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of 22 September 2025 (Case No. 2025/1013, Decision No. 2025/5575), the first-instance court gave the claimant a 60-day peremptory time limit to submit the apostille. Because the apostille was submitted after that period, the action was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the Regional Court of Appeal rejected the appeal (istinaf) on the merits. The Chamber relied on the finding “that, in particular, the apostille was issued on 15 February 2024,” that is, that it was obtained after the peremptory time limit had expired, and unanimously upheld the dismissal.

d) What Happens If Documents Are Missing?

Missing documents do not require immediate dismissal of the action; the court must give a time limit for the defect to be remedied. In its decision of 1 December 2025 (Case No. 2025/8878, Decision No. 2025/10430), the 2nd Civil Chamber stated: “If these documents are incomplete, they may be completed during the proceedings.” In its decision of 4 March 2024 (Case No. 2023/7402, Decision No. 2024/1459), in a file where only a photocopy of the translation of the foreign judgment had been attached to the statement of claim, the Chamber also unanimously reversed the judgment. Its ground was that judgment had been given “by incomplete examination when a time limit should have been given for [the documents] to be submitted to the file and a decision given according to the result.” The 9th Civil Chamber, in its Decision No. 2025/346, likewise treated a decision given without granting time for the document of finality as a ground for reversal.

If the claimant was not a party to the foreign proceedings, it may be unable to obtain the documents itself. In its Decision No. 2025/10430, in a recognition action brought by an institution that was not a party to the foreign proceedings, the 2nd Civil Chamber reversed the dismissal. It stated that the court should ensure “that the originals or certified copies of the necessary documents, the original or certified copies of the document showing finality, and their certified translations are obtained by way of letters rogatory (istinabe).”

By contrast, if the defect is not remedied within the peremptory time limit given by the court, the action is dismissed on procedural grounds for lack of a condition of the action; the 11th Civil Chamber’s apostille decision cited above is an example.

How Is an Enforcement Action Heard, and What Can the Defendant Object To?

The petition is served on the opposing party together with the hearing date, and the action is heard under the simple procedure (basit yargılama usulü). The opposing party may argue only that the conditions for enforcement are not met, that the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full, or that a ground preventing its satisfaction has arisen. The court orders full or partial enforcement of the judgment or rejects the request.

Article 55 of MÖHUK (unofficial translation):
“1. The petition concerning the request for enforcement is served on the opposing party together with the hearing date. The recognition and enforcement of decisions in non-contentious proceedings are subject to the same provision. The service provision does not apply to non-contentious decisions with no opposing party. The request is examined and decided under the provisions on the simple procedure.
2. The opposing party may object only by asserting that the conditions for enforcement under the provisions of this section are not met, or that the foreign court judgment has been satisfied in part or in full, or that a ground preventing its satisfaction has arisen.”

The defendant’s grounds of objection are limited. The correctness of the factual and legal findings in the foreign judgment (for example, whether the debt arose) cannot be re-argued in the enforcement action; this follows from the prohibition on review of the merits. By contrast, the defendant may argue that the judgment has been satisfied, that is, that the debt has been paid, or that a ground preventing its satisfaction has arisen.

Article 56 of MÖHUK (unofficial translation):
“1. The court may order the enforcement of the judgment in part or in full, or reject the request. This decision is written under the foreign court judgment and is sealed and signed by the judge.”

a) Must a Foreign Claimant Provide Security?

As a rule, foreign natural and legal persons who file an action before a Turkish court or initiate enforcement proceedings must provide the security (teminat) determined by the court; if there is reciprocity, they are exempt from security.

Article 48 of MÖHUK (unofficial translation):
“1. Foreign natural and legal persons who file an action before a Turkish court, join an action or initiate enforcement proceedings must provide the security determined by the court to cover the costs of the proceedings and of the enforcement proceedings and the losses and damages of the opposing party.
2. The court exempts the person who files the action, joins the action or initiates enforcement proceedings from security on the basis of reciprocity.”

Compliance with the order to provide security is a condition of the action (Article 114(1)(ğ) of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100). The 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation explained how exemption is determined in its decision of 8 September 2025 (Case No. 2024/6026, Decision No. 2025/11973), which did not concern an enforcement action but applied Article 48 of MÖHUK. According to the Chamber, reciprocity may be established by a bilateral or multilateral agreement, or in the form of statutory or de facto reciprocity. One such agreement is the 1954 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure. Under Article 17 of that Convention, no security may be required, on the ground that they are foreigners, from nationals of a contracting state who reside in one of the contracting states and are claimants before a court of another contracting state. The Chamber concluded that the matter of security “must be considered of the court’s own motion.” It held that the exemption should be checked with the Directorate General for Foreign Relations and European Union Affairs of the Ministry of Justice, that a peremptory time limit should be given for deposit if security is required, and that the request should be dismissed on procedural grounds if the security is not deposited in time.

Is There a Time Limit for Recognition and Enforcement? When Does the Judgment Take Effect?

MÖHUK sets no time limit for filing a recognition or enforcement action, and the General Assembly of Civil Chambers has held that an action for recognition of a divorce judgment can be filed at any time. For judgments ordering the payment of money, however, chambers of the Court of Cassation have reached different conclusions on whether limitation (zamanaşımı) can be examined in the enforcement action. The res judicata and conclusive evidence effect of a recognized judgment starts from the time the foreign judgment became final.

In its Decision No. 2023/975, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers found that “Law No. 5718 contains no provision on the period within which recognition or enforcement [of a foreign court judgment] may be requested before Turkish courts.” As regards judgments on family law and the law of persons, the General Assembly concluded, by majority, “that judgments on family law and the law of persons are not subject to limitation, that there is no limitation period for the recognition and enforcement of divorce judgments given by foreign courts, and that, accordingly, actions for the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments on divorce may be filed at any time.” In that case, recognition of a divorce judgment that had become final in the Netherlands in 2004 was requested in 2018, after the wife had filed for divorce in Turkey. The Regional Court of Appeal, noting that the spouses had continued to live together and had a child after the foreign judgment, found the request contrary to the principle of good faith and dismissed the action. The Chamber of the Court of Cassation reversed that decision, the Regional Court of Appeal insisted on its decision, and the General Assembly reversed the insistence decision. The 2nd Civil Chamber repeated the same principle in its Decision No. 2025/3057.

For foreign judgments ordering the payment of money, however, chambers of the Court of Cassation have reached different conclusions on limitation:

• Accrued maintenance claim: In its decision of 13 May 2024 (Case No. 2023/4393, Decision No. 2024/3361), in an action for enforcement of a Swiss court judgment determining the amount of a maintenance debt, the 2nd Civil Chamber treated the defendant’s limitation defense as falling within Article 55(2) of MÖHUK. It unanimously reversed the judgment, stating that the court should decide “after examining and assessing the limitation defense as a ‘preliminary question’ and according to the result.”
• Periodic maintenance (payable as an annuity): In its decision of 11 December 2025 (Case No. 2025/3373, Decision No. 2025/11106), concerning a judgment on child support payable as periodic payments over a certain period and on a financial obligation in favor of the wife, the same Chamber stated that “it is clear that the limitation defense, which may be taken into account at the enforcement stage, cannot be argued in the recognition and enforcement action concerning the foreign court judgment.” It unanimously reversed the dismissal based on limitation.
• Rent claim: In its decision of 11 May 2026 (Case No. 2025/4791, Decision No. 2026/2942), the 3rd Civil Chamber found that the enforcement action filed on 26 March 2024 for a Swiss court judgment that had become final on 7 September 2011 and awarded a rent claim had been filed “after the ten-year limitation period had expired.” It unanimously reversed the Regional Court of Appeal’s decision, which had been given “when the action should have been dismissed on grounds of limitation.” The Chamber took the date on which the foreign judgment became final as the starting point of limitation.
• The former 13th Civil Chamber, which has since been abolished, by contrast, in its decision of 15 November 2018 (Case No. 2016/29053, Decision No. 2018/10724), had unanimously reversed a first-instance decision that dismissed an action for enforcement of a foreign enforcement court’s decision on the ground that the limitation period in Article 146 of the Turkish Code of Obligations had expired. It stated that the judge hearing the enforcement action “has no right or authority to examine the content of the judgment beyond the conditions for enforcement” and treated that dismissal as based on “wrong reasoning.”

The 11th Civil Chamber also upheld, without giving reasons and by majority, a decision granting enforcement in an action filed in 2018 for a 2006 German court judgment; the dissenting opinion argued that the ten-year period in Article 39 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu) should have been taken into account (8 December 2022, Case No. 2021/1394, Decision No. 2022/8818). Given this divergence, requesting enforcement of an older money judgment without delay reduces the risk of facing a limitation objection.

The res judicata and conclusive evidence effect of a recognized or enforced foreign judgment starts not from the date of the Turkish court’s decision but from the date on which the foreign judgment became final:

Article 59 of MÖHUK (unofficial translation):
“1. The res judicata or conclusive evidence effect of a foreign judgment takes effect from the time the foreign court judgment became final.”

In its Decision No. 2023/975, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers explained the consequence of this provision for divorce as follows: a foreign judgment on divorce “takes effect from the time the foreign court judgment became final, and it is therefore beyond doubt that, in law, the personal consequences of the divorce for the spouses arise from the same date.”

The enforceability of the judgment in Turkey is a separate matter. According to the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, “since foreign court judgments acquire enforceability in Turkey through the enforcement decision,” enforceability depends on the enforcement decision, and no enforcement may take place before the enforcement decision becomes final (24 December 2025, Case No. 2025/8623, Decision No. 2025/8451); details are given below under the heading on appeals.

The limitation period for enforcement proceedings initiated after the enforcement decision is a separate matter and is explained below under the heading on enforcement.

Court Fees in Enforcement Actions: Fixed or Proportional?

Article 4 of the Fees Law No. 492 (Harçlar Kanunu) provides that the fee in an enforcement action is collected under Tariff (1) according to the value, type and nature of what was awarded in the judgment. In 2024, the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) treated the word “value” (“…değeri…”) in this provision as a rule requiring a proportional court fee (nispi harç) calculated on the value in the judgment and found it not contrary to the Constitution. Chambers of the Court of Cassation, however, have applied the provision differently. In some decisions of the 11th and 6th Civil Chambers, the enforcement action was treated as a declaratory action and a fixed court fee (maktu harç) was applied, while a 2025 decision of the 6th Civil Chamber held that a proportional court fee must be collected.

Article 4 of the Fees Law (unofficial translation):
“In actions to be filed for the enforcement of judgments given by a foreign court, a fee is collected under Tariff (1) according to the value, type and nature of what was awarded in those judgments.”

The Constitutional Court’s decision: In its decision of 17 October 2024 (Case No. 2024/104, Decision No. 2024/173) (Official Gazette of 9 January 2025, No. 32777), the Constitutional Court ruled on a referral by the Istanbul 14th Commercial Court of First Instance, which was hearing an action for enforcement of a foreign court judgment. By majority, it held that the word “…value…” in this article is not contrary to the Constitution and dismissed the referral. According to the Court’s reasoning, under this rule the claimant pays in advance, when filing the action, one quarter of the fee for the judgment (karar ve ilam harcı), calculated on the value stated in the judgment whose enforcement is sought. If the action is granted, the remaining fee is charged to the defendant; if it is dismissed, the fixed fee for the judgment is borne by the claimant.

Fixed fee view: In its decision of 9 July 2024 (Case No. 2023/2909, Decision No. 2024/5692), the 11th Civil Chamber found it incorrect that a proportional fee and attorney’s fee had been awarded “when, since enforcement actions are declaratory actions rather than actions for performance, the First Instance Court should have awarded a fixed fee and attorney’s fee.” It unanimously corrected the judgment on the basis of a fixed fee. In its Decision No. 2022/5804, the same Chamber relied on the finding that “there is no error in the case having been heard and decided with a fixed fee.” In its decision of 21 September 2022 (Case No. 2022/3590, Decision No. 2022/4280), the 6th Civil Chamber also dealt with a defendant who had paid a fixed fee when appealing to the Regional Court of Appeal (istinaf); the defendant had been sent a notice to pay a proportional fee, and the appeal had been deemed not to have been lodged. The Chamber unanimously reversed that decision on the ground that enforcement actions “are accepted as being in the nature of declaratory actions and are subject to a fixed fee.” These decisions were given before the Constitutional Court’s decision of 17 October 2024. The fixed-fee practice has continued after that decision: in an action for enforcement of a foreign court judgment, the Regional Court of Appeal, on its own motion, converted the proportional fee awarded by the first-instance court into a fixed fee “since enforcement actions are declaratory actions rather than actions for performance,” and the 11th Civil Chamber unanimously upheld that decision without giving separate reasons on the fee (decision of 5 March 2026, Case No. 2025/4342, Decision No. 2026/1334).

Proportional fee view: In its decision of 18 September 2025 (Case No. 2025/2000, Decision No. 2025/2980), relying on Article 4 of the Fees Law, the 6th Civil Chamber stated that in enforcement actions “a proportional fee is collected according to the value, type and nature of what was awarded in those judgments.” In that case, the action had been filed with a fixed fee. The Chamber held that the first-instance court should have given the claimant time “by issuing a notice with a warning of the consequences, to complete the missing proportional fee,” and it unanimously reversed the judgment of its own motion. According to the Chamber, if the fee is not completed in time, the court rules that the action is deemed not to have been filed.

Given this divergence, it cannot be known in advance which view the court will apply when the action is filed; in view of the Constitutional Court’s decision and the 6th Civil Chamber’s 2025 reversal, it should be borne in mind that, in an action for enforcement of a foreign judgment ordering the payment of money, the court may require a proportional court fee. If the proportional fee applies, one quarter of the fee for the judgment is paid in advance and the remainder within one month of service of the judgment (Article 28(a) of the Fees Law). This article does not give fee rates or amounts; the tariff in force on the date the action is filed applies.

Appeals and Enforcing the Judgment After Enforcement Is Granted

A decision granting or rejecting enforcement can be appealed under the general provisions, first to the Regional Court of Appeal (istinaf) and then to the Court of Cassation (temyiz); in both cases, the time limit is two weeks from service of the decision. According to the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, an enforcement decision cannot be enforced until it becomes final. Once the enforcement decision is final, the foreign judgment is enforced in the same way as a judgment of a Turkish court.

a) Appeals to the Regional Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation

Article 57 of MÖHUK (unofficial translation):
“1. Foreign judgments for which enforcement has been granted are enforced in the same way as judgments given by Turkish courts.
2. An appeal (temyiz) against decisions granting or rejecting the request for enforcement is subject to the general provisions. The appeal (temyiz) stays enforcement.”

The general provisions are in the Code of Civil Procedure. The time limit for an appeal to the Regional Court of Appeal is two weeks and starts to run from due service of the judgment on each party (Article 345 of the CCP). An appeal to the Court of Cassation against appealable decisions of the Regional Court of Appeal may likewise be lodged within two weeks of service (Article 361 of the CCP). Whether the decision can be appealed to the Regional Court of Appeal and to the Court of Cassation is determined separately according to the monetary thresholds in the CCP. These thresholds are increased every year by the revaluation rate, and the amount on the date the action was filed is decisive (Additional Article 1 of the CCP). How an appeal to the Regional Court of Appeal is lodged is explained in our article on appeals to the regional court of appeal (istinaf) (in Turkish).

When the enforcement decision can be enforced is also important. Under the general rule, “Lodging an appeal (istinaf) does not stay enforcement of the judgment.” (Article 350(1) of the CCP). For enforcement decisions, however, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated in its decision of 24 December 2025 (Case No. 2025/8623, Decision No. 2025/8451): “Moreover, enforcement decisions cannot be enforced unless they have become final.” In its decision of 11 October 2022 (Case No. 2022/2314, Decision No. 2022/10092), when listing the exceptions to the rule that “an appeal (temyiz) does not stay enforcement of the judgment,” the Chamber also included “decisions on the enforcement of foreign court judgments” and stated that these cannot be the subject of enforcement proceedings before they become final; that decision referred to Article 41/2 of the former Law No. 2675. The Chamber has also upheld decisions of regional courts of appeal that accepted that the word “temyiz” in the statute also covers an appeal to the Regional Court of Appeal (istinaf) and found it correct to stay enforcement proceedings after such an appeal had been lodged (3 May 2023, Case No. 2022/10373, Decision No. 2023/3024; 10 May 2023, Case No. 2022/10608, Decision No. 2023/3273). For this reason, an enforcement decision can be put into enforcement only after it has become final.

b) Enforcement Proceedings After the Enforcement Decision

Once the enforcement decision has become final, the foreign judgment is put into enforcement proceedings based on a judgment (ilamlı takip, enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment) at the enforcement office, like a judgment of a Turkish court (Article 57(1) of MÖHUK). For a judgment concerning a money debt, the enforcement office sends the debtor an enforcement order (icra emri):

Article 32 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code (unofficial translation):
“When a judgment concerning a money debt or the provision of security is submitted to the enforcement office, the enforcement officer serves an enforcement order on the debtor. … [stating] that it must be paid within seven days at the latest and that, if the debt is not paid or the security awarded is not provided within this period, … compulsory enforcement will take place …”

If the judgment does not award interest, then according to the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, interest on a claim in foreign currency may be claimed from the date on which the enforcement decision became final (Decision No. 2025/8451). Enforcement proceedings based on a judgment become time-barred ten years after the last procedural step (Article 39 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code). This period concerns enforcement proceedings initiated after the enforcement decision; the divergence on limitation as regards filing the enforcement action is explained above under the heading on time limits. Enforcement proceedings brought by a foreign creditor in Turkey are also subject to the security rule in Article 48 of MÖHUK.

Foreign Family Law Judgments: Divorce, Maintenance and Custody

Divorce, nullity and annulment judgments given abroad can be registered in the civil registry (nüfus kütüğü) through a civil registry office (nüfus müdürlüğü) or a Turkish foreign mission (embassy or consulate), without going to court. This administrative route is optional and does not remove the right to file a recognition action. Administrative registration covers only these status judgments; for maintenance, custody and other provisions to have effect in Turkey, a recognition or enforcement action is required. These actions are heard by the Family Court.

Article 27/A of the Civil Registry Services Law No. 5490 (unofficial translation):
“1. Decisions given by foreign judicial or administrative authorities on divorce, on the nullity or annulment of a marriage, or on whether a marriage exists, are registered in the civil registry, provided that the parties apply together, in person or through their representatives, or, where one of the parties has died or is a foreigner, the other party who is a Turkish citizen, or that party’s representative, applies alone; that the decision was given by a judicial or administrative authority competent on the matter under the laws of the state in which it was given and has duly become final; and that it is not manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy.
…
3. The recognition in Turkey of decisions for which the request for registration is rejected on the ground that the conditions listed in this article are not met is carried out under the Law on Private International and Procedural Law No. 5718 of 27 November 2007.”

Administrative registration is not a precondition for filing a recognition action. In its decision of 27 June 2022 (Case No. 2022/5479, Decision No. 2022/6321), the 2nd Civil Chamber unanimously reversed a decision dismissing an action for recognition of a German court’s divorce judgment for lack of legal interest on the ground that the administrative application route was available. It stated: “The administrative application in question exists as an optional right offered to the parties.” According to the Chamber, “Independently of the administrative application, persons have the right to file an action.” The conditions, place and procedure of administrative registration are explained in detail in our article on registration of a divorce judgment given abroad (in Turkish).

For foreign judgments on maintenance and children, the international conventions to which Turkey is a party are considered first (Article 1(2) of MÖHUK). The Hague conventions to which Turkey is a party in the fields of maintenance and child protection are listed above under the heading on the legal basis. In maintenance judgments, the debtor’s limitation objection was examined in the enforcement action for an accrued maintenance claim, but left to the enforcement stage for maintenance payable as periodic payments over a certain period; details are given above under the heading on time limits. For the types of maintenance, see our article on maintenance actions and types of maintenance, and for custody, our article on custody actions (both in Turkish).

Are Foreign Arbitral Awards Enforced the Same Way?

No. The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is subject to a separate regime in Articles 60 to 63 of MÖHUK, and the international conventions to which Turkey is a party apply before these provisions. The court with territorial jurisdiction is also different: the court of first instance of the place agreed in writing by the parties; failing such an agreement, the court of the domicile in Turkey of the party against whom the award was given, failing that the court of their place of residence, and failing that the court of the place where assets that may be subject to enforcement are located.

Article 60 of MÖHUK (unofficial translation):
“1. Foreign arbitral awards that have become final and enforceable or are binding on the parties may be enforced.
2. The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is requested by petition from the court of first instance of the place agreed in writing by the parties. If there is no such agreement between the parties, the court of the domicile in Turkey of the party against whom the award was given or, failing that, of their place of residence, or, failing that too, of the place where assets that may be subject to enforcement are located, has territorial jurisdiction.”

The place where assets that may be subject to enforcement are located is a ground of territorial jurisdiction only for arbitral awards, not for foreign court judgments. Whether the decision was given by a state court or an arbitral tribunal should therefore be determined at the outset. The conditions for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and the grounds for refusal are the subject of a separate article.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it mandatory to hire a lawyer for an enforcement action? No. Anyone with capacity to sue may file and pursue their own action in person (Article 35(3) of the Attorneyship Law No. 1136). Filing and pursuing an action on behalf of another person, however, is reserved to lawyers registered with a bar association (Article 35(1) of the same Law). If the action is pursued through a representative, a duly issued power of attorney for the representative is a condition of the action (Article 114(1)(f) of the CCP).

Is it necessary to come to Turkey for the action? The action can be filed and pursued through a representative. Because the authority to file and pursue actions on behalf of others belongs to lawyers registered with a bar association, a creditor or spouse living outside Turkey can conduct the action through a power of attorney granted to a lawyer registered with a Turkish bar association (Article 35 of the Attorneyship Law).

Do the documents need an apostille? Yes, if the country that gave the judgment is a party to the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention, to which Turkey is also a party. The judgment and the document of finality must be duly certified by the authorities of the country that gave the judgment (Article 53 of MÖHUK); in countries party to the Convention, this certification is made by an apostille. An apostille obtained after the peremptory time limit given by the court may not save the action (11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Decision No. 2025/5575). For a judgment given in a country that is not a party to the Convention, the document must be certified by the competent authority of the state in which it was issued or by the relevant Turkish consular authority (Article 224 of the CCP).

Is there reciprocity between my country and Turkey? This question is answered not by a general list but separately in each file. The court asks the Ministry of Justice whether there is an agreement. If there is none, it must be shown by evidence that the country enforces Turkish judgments, or that country’s legislation must be examined by a court-appointed expert (6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Decision No. 2025/679). Reciprocity is not required for judgments, such as divorce judgments, for which only recognition is sought (Article 58 of MÖHUK).

Does the Turkish court re-examine the case? No. The Turkish court examines only whether the conditions for recognition and enforcement are met; it does not examine the correctness of the procedure applied in the foreign judgment or of its factual and legal findings (General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, Decision No. 2023/975). The absence of reasoning does not by itself prevent enforcement of the judgment either (Grand General Assembly sitting for the unification of case law, Decision No. 2012/1).

When can a foreign judgment be enforced in Turkey? After the enforcement decision becomes final. According to the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, enforcement decisions cannot be enforced until they become final (Decision No. 2025/8451); Article 57 of MÖHUK also provides that an appeal (temyiz) stays enforcement. Once enforcement proceedings are initiated, the enforcement office sends the debtor an enforcement order with a seven-day period for a money debt (Article 32 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code).

Can only part of the judgment be enforced? Yes. The petition states for which part of the judgment enforcement is requested, and the court may order partial enforcement (Articles 52 and 56 of MÖHUK).

Can a foreign judgment be used in a case in Turkey without being recognized? It can be used without a separate recognition action. A party against whom an action is filed may raise the foreign judgment in that action as res judicata or conclusive evidence; the court hearing the action examines in the same action whether the judgment satisfies the conditions in MÖHUK (9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Decision No. 2025/6988). The res judicata or conclusive evidence effect depends on the court determining that these conditions are met (Article 58(1) of MÖHUK).

Is security required from a foreign creditor? As a rule, yes. A foreigner who files an action before a Turkish court or initiates enforcement proceedings must provide the security determined by the court. The foreigner is exempt if there is reciprocity or if an agreement such as the 1954 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure prohibits security (Article 48 of MÖHUK; 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Decision No. 2025/11973).

Is there a time limit for a recognition and enforcement action? MÖHUK sets no time limit for filing the action. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation has accepted that an action for recognition of a divorce judgment can be filed at any time. For judgments ordering the payment of money, however, the chambers diverge. The 3rd Civil Chamber held that an enforcement action concerning a rent claim, filed more than ten years after the judgment became final, should have been dismissed on grounds of limitation (Decision No. 2026/2942). The 2nd Civil Chamber, by contrast, stated that limitation cannot be argued in the enforcement action for periodic maintenance (Decision No. 2025/11106).