Enforcing Foreign Judgments and Awards in Türkiye: What Actually Works
A company wins a judgment in a London or Vienna court against a Turkish counterparty. The judgment is final. The debt is clear. The counterparty's assets are in Türkiye.
None of that means the judgment can be executed in Türkiye. A foreign court decision has no direct legal effect there. Before any Turkish enforcement office will act on it, it must pass through a Turkish court procedure — and whether it passes depends on conditions that are worth understanding before you choose a forum, not after.
Three different things
Turkish practice distinguishes between concepts that are often blurred in commercial conversation.
Recognition (tanıma) gives a foreign judgment the status of res judicata in Türkiye. It means the Turkish legal order accepts the judgment as conclusive on what it decided. Recognition alone does not authorise execution against assets; it establishes the judgment's standing. It is what you need when the judgment's effect is declaratory — a finding on status, or a determination you need a Turkish court to accept as settled.
Enforcement (tenfiz) goes further. It converts the foreign judgment into something Turkish enforcement offices can execute — attachment of bank accounts, seizure of assets. This is what a creditor seeking payment needs.
Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is a separate track, governed by the New York Convention, and it operates differently and generally more favourably. More on this below, because it is the practical heart of the matter.
Recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in Türkiye are governed by the Act on Private International and Procedural Law (Law No. 5718). The procedure runs through the competent Turkish court, and the counterparty is heard.
The reciprocity problem
The condition that causes the most difficulty is reciprocity (mütekabiliyet).
For enforcement of a foreign court judgment, Turkish law requires reciprocity with the state where the judgment was given — established by treaty, by that state's legislation, or by its actual practice of enforcing Turkish judgments. Where no bilateral treaty exists, the question becomes evidential: does that jurisdiction in fact enforce Turkish judgments?
This is where cases fail. Reciprocity is not a formality; it is a substantive hurdle that must be demonstrated. The position varies significantly between jurisdictions, and it has evolved over time through Turkish court practice. Whether reciprocity is required in the same way for recognition as for enforcement has itself been the subject of doctrinal and judicial discussion.
The practical consequence for anyone contracting with a Turkish counterparty: before you agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of a foreign court, establish whether a judgment from that court will actually be enforceable in Türkiye. The answer is jurisdiction-specific and should be checked, not assumed.
The other conditions
Beyond reciprocity, Turkish courts examine a defined set of requirements. In broad terms:
The judgment must be final under the law of the state where it was rendered. Interim and provisional decisions do not qualify.
It must come from a court, in a civil matter. Administrative and criminal decisions fall outside the regime.
It must not offend Turkish public policy. This is a narrow control, not a review of the merits, but it is real — and it extends to fundamental procedural fairness as well as substantive outcome.
The defendant's right to be heard must have been respected. If the defendant was not properly summoned or was not given a proper opportunity to defend, and raises this before the Turkish court, enforcement can be refused.
The foreign court must not have assumed jurisdiction over a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts, and there are limits where jurisdiction was assumed without a genuine connection and the defendant objects.
Importantly, the Turkish court does not re-try the case. It does not review whether the foreign judge applied the law correctly or assessed the evidence properly. The examination is confined to the statutory conditions.
Why arbitration changes the picture
Türkiye is a party to the 1958 New York Convention. This puts foreign arbitral awards on a materially different footing from foreign court judgments.
The Convention regime does not turn on reciprocity in the same demanding sense that applies to court judgments. The grounds for refusing enforcement are set out in the Convention itself and are narrow: invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice or inability to present the case, an award going beyond the scope of submission, irregular composition of the tribunal or procedure, an award not yet binding or set aside at the seat, non-arbitrability, and public policy.
For a creditor whose counterparty holds assets in Türkiye, this is the single most important structural point in the whole analysis. An arbitration clause pointing to a seat in a Convention state produces an award that travels into Türkiye through a well-defined and relatively predictable route. A judgment from a foreign court arrives with a reciprocity question attached.
That is not an argument for always choosing arbitration — the cost, interim relief and multi-party considerations discussed elsewhere still apply. It is an argument for making the choice with enforcement in mind rather than as an afterthought.
Practical guidance
Decide the forum by reference to where the assets are. If your counterparty's substance is in Türkiye, the dispute resolution clause should be drafted to produce something enforceable in Türkiye.
If you are choosing a foreign court, check the reciprocity position for that specific jurisdiction before signing, and take a view on whether it is settled enough to rely on.
Keep the service record clean. A significant proportion of enforcement resistance is built on the argument that the defendant was not properly notified. Ensure service is effected in a manner that will withstand scrutiny in the enforcement forum, not merely in the forum of the original proceedings.
Preserve the documentation. Enforcement applications require the judgment or award together with certified translations and, where applicable, apostille or consular certification. Assembling this after the fact is slower and more expensive than doing it properly at the outset.
Consider interim protection in Türkiye early. Enforcement proceedings take time. Assets can move. Interim measures available under Turkish law may need to be pursued in parallel rather than after a final enforcement decision.
The underlying principle
Winning is not recovering. In cross-border matters the two are separated by a procedural gap that the dispute resolution clause either bridges or does not. That clause is worth more careful thought at the drafting stage than it usually receives — because by the time you need it, it is too late to change.
This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Recognition and enforcement outcomes depend on the specific judgment or award, the originating jurisdiction and the facts of the case. For advice on a particular matter, please get in touch.
