Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Türkiye

Cross-border disputes routinely end with a judgment in one country and assets, or a defendant, in another. When that other country is Türkiye, the foreign judgment does not enforce itself. It must be put through a dedicated Turkish court procedure before it can bind anyone or reach any asset. This guide explains how that works under Turkish law, what the court will and will not look at, and where cases most often go wrong in practice.

The governing law: MÖHUK (Law No. 5718)

Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Türkiye are governed by the Act on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (MÖHUK), Law No. 5718. It sets out a single, uniform framework that applies regardless of which foreign court issued the judgment. Whether the decision comes from London, Frankfurt, Dubai, or New York, the same statutory conditions apply — what changes from country to country is how easily reciprocity is established.

International agreements that Türkiye has duly ratified also carry the force of law. Where a bilateral treaty applies, its terms are a source of law alongside MÖHUK and can simplify the reciprocity question considerably. Decisions of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) are not binding except for judgments unifying conflicting case law, but they guide how the conditions below are interpreted in practice, and a well-drafted petition will anticipate them.

One threshold point matters before anything else: MÖHUK’s court-judgment rules apply to judgments of foreign courts. A foreign arbitral award travels on a different track — the New York Convention of 1958 — and is not covered by the procedure described here. Identify at the outset which one you hold, because the wrong regime means the wrong court, the wrong documents, and lost time.

Recognition versus enforcement

Turkish law distinguishes two related but separate outcomes, and choosing the right one shapes your whole filing:

• Recognition (tanıma) gives a foreign judgment legal effect in Türkiye and lets it stand as conclusive evidence. This is what you need for status matters, such as a foreign divorce, custody, or paternity ruling — for example, to have a foreign divorce reflected in the Turkish civil registry.
• Enforcement (tenfiz) allows the judgment to be executed, so that a monetary award or other obligation can be pursued through the bailiff’s office against the defendant’s assets.

The conditions are essentially the same for both. Enforcement simply adds the executory step that recognition does not require. If all you need is legal effect — not seizure of assets — recognition alone is faster and sufficient. If you need to collect money or compel performance, you need enforcement.

	Recognition (tanıma)	Enforcement (tenfiz)
Purpose	Legal effect and conclusive evidence	Execution against assets
Typical use	Divorce, custody, paternity, status	Money judgments, performance obligations
Reaches the bailiff	No	Yes — via the icra dairesi
Conditions under MÖHUK	Same core list	Same core list, plus executory step

Reciprocity: the decisive condition

Türkiye is not party to a multilateral treaty for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments, nor to the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. Turkish courts therefore do not test a judgment against Hague standards; they apply MÖHUK.

Reciprocity can be established in three ways:

• a bilateral treaty between Türkiye and the country of origin;
• a statutory basis, where that country’s own law allows enforcement of Turkish judgments; or
• de facto reciprocity, where the foreign country has in practice recognised and enforced Turkish judgments.

The court assesses reciprocity on a case-by-case basis for the country concerned. Absence of reciprocity is one of the most common obstacles to enforcement — and because de facto reciprocity turns on evidence of practice, it is often the point on which the entire action stands or falls.

If you take one thing from this guide: the fight is usually not about the merits of your foreign judgment — it is about proving that the country that issued it would enforce a Turkish one. Build that evidence before you file, not after the defendant challenges it.

What this means for you

Do not assume reciprocity exists just because the country of origin is a major economy. Federal states are a classic trap: reciprocity may be recognised at the level of one state or province but not another, so the specific jurisdiction that issued the judgment matters. Where no treaty is in place, gather evidence of actual enforcement of Turkish judgments in that jurisdiction — legal opinions, precedents, or examples — and put it in the file from the outset rather than scrambling once the defendant raises the point.

Conditions for enforcement under MÖHUK

To grant enforcement, the court must be satisfied that:

• reciprocity exists, by treaty, statute, or in fact;
• the judgment is final and binding under the law of the country where it was rendered;
• the matter does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts (for instance, certain matters over Turkish immovable property);
• the judgment does not clearly violate Turkish public policy (kamu düzeni); and
• the right of defence was respected, meaning the defendant was properly summoned and given the chance to be heard.

Crucially, the Turkish court does not re-examine the merits. It will not reassess the facts, the evidence, or whether the foreign court reached the right result. Public policy, in particular, is read narrowly: a judgment is refused only where enforcing it would offend fundamental principles of Turkish law, not merely because a Turkish court might have decided differently.

---

The procedure step by step

Enforcement is sought by filing an action before the civil court of first instance with jurisdiction. The petition should identify the parties and their addresses, summarise the judgment, and request enforcement or recognition. It must be accompanied by the original or a certified copy of the judgment, together with a certificate of finality and certified translations, generally carrying apostille or consular legalisation.

The typical sequence is:

1. Prepare the file — obtain the judgment, the finality certificate, apostille/legalisation, and certified Turkish translations.
2. File the action before the competent civil court of first instance and pay the court fees.
3. Adversarial hearing — the defendant is served and may raise the narrow objections allowed by law.
4. Enforcement decision — if the conditions are met, the court grants tenfiz (or tanıma).
5. Finality and execution — once the decision becomes final, the claimant applies to the bailiff’s office (icra dairesi) for an execution order. The defendant then has seven days to comply; failing that, the claimant can proceed to attachment of assets.

Two practical points shape the timeline more than anything else. First, translations and legalisation should be arranged in the country of origin wherever possible — obtaining a fresh finality certificate mid-case, from abroad, routinely adds months. Second, if the debtor’s assets in Türkiye are identifiable, consider asking for interim protection early; a solvent-looking defendant can become an empty shell during a contested eighteen-month proceeding.

Defences the debtor can raise

A defendant’s objections are narrow and procedural, not substantive. Recognised grounds include:

• lack of reciprocity;
• exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts;
• a clear breach of Turkish public policy;
• failure to respect the right of defence (for example, the defendant was never properly served in the original proceedings);
• the judgment not being final; and
• prior satisfaction or grounds for restitution — for instance, that the debt has already been paid.

The debtor cannot re-argue the merits, and Turkish courts do not entertain complaints about the convenience of the foreign forum or allegations of fraud as a route to reopening the case. This narrowness cuts both ways: it protects a well-prepared claimant from a fresh trial, but it also means a debtor who was genuinely denied a defence abroad has a real and focused line of attack.

A common and costly mistake: relying on substituted or fictional service abroad. If the defendant was not genuinely notified in the original case, the enforcement action can collapse on the “right of defence” ground — regardless of how sound the judgment is on its facts.

Practical pitfalls and how to avoid them

• Reciprocity gaps. Where no treaty exists, proving de facto reciprocity can be decisive and occasionally fatal. Assemble the evidence before filing.
• Documentation. Missing finality certificates, defective service in the original proceedings, or incomplete certified translations frequently cause delay or rejection. Treat the three core documents — judgment, finality certificate, certified translation — as non-negotiable.
• Duration. Enforcement commonly takes six to eighteen months, longer with appeals, so factor the timeline into any settlement strategy.
• Jurisdiction and fees. The competent court and applicable court fees must be handled correctly from the outset; errors here restart the clock.
• Wrong regime. Trying to enforce an arbitral award under the court-judgment rules, or vice versa, wastes months. Confirm which instrument you hold first.

A foreign judgment is enforceable in Türkiye when the MÖHUK conditions are met and the file is properly prepared. Careful attention to reciprocity, finality, and the right of defence is what separates a smooth enforcement from a stalled one — and most of that work is done before the petition is ever filed.