Enforcement of a foreign judgment in Türkiye is a separate court action, not a formality. Under Article 50 of MÖHUK, Law No. 5718 — in force since 12 December 2007, with the recognition and enforcement provisions unchanged as at July 2026 — a foreign civil judgment that has become final under the law of the state that rendered it can be executed here only if a Turkish asliye mahkemesi (court of first instance) grants an enforcement (tenfiz) decision. That court examines only the four conditions listed exhaustively in Article 54/1 — reciprocity, no encroachment on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts, no manifest breach of public policy, and respect for the defendant’s right of defence — and it does not re-examine the merits. Where a judgment needs legal effect rather than execution, recognition (tanıma) runs on the same conditions with one exception: Article 58/1 expressly disapplies the reciprocity requirement.
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, and MÖHUK gives way to them: Article 1/2 expressly reserves the provisions of international conventions to which Türkiye is a party. Where a bilateral treaty applies, its terms are a source of law alongside MÖHUK and can simplify the reciprocity question considerably.
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 and is not covered by the procedure described here. Türkiye acceded to the New York Convention of 1958 on 2 July 1992, and the Convention entered into force for Türkiye on 30 September 1992, subject to two declarations under Article I(3) that remain in place as at July 2026: Türkiye applies the Convention only to awards made in the territory of another Contracting State (reciprocity), and only to differences arising out of legal relationships considered commercial under Turkish law. Because of the treaty primacy in Article 1/2, the Convention — rather than MÖHUK’s own residual arbitration provisions in Articles 60 to 63 — is the primary regime for awards from Contracting States. 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 or res judicata (Article 58/1). 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 nearly the same for both, with one significant exception: under Article 58/1 the reciprocity condition in Article 54/1(a) does not apply to recognition. A tanıma action therefore does not stand or fall on reciprocity the way a tenfiz action does — a distinction worth pressing when the country of origin has a thin reciprocity record. 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.
Note also that the res judicata and conclusive-evidence effect of a foreign judgment runs from the moment the foreign court’s judgment became final (Article 59), not from the date of the Turkish decision.
| 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 |
| Reciprocity required | No — Art. 54/1(a) disapplied by Art. 58/1 | Yes — Art. 54/1(a) |
| Conditions under MÖHUK | Art. 54/1 list, minus reciprocity | Full Art. 54/1 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.
Article 54/1(a) allows reciprocity to be established in three ways:
- a treaty based on reciprocity 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 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. For a judgment from a German court, where no general treaty between the two states governs enforcement, the points to prove are set out in our notes on German judgments for clients in Germany.
Conditions for enforcement under MÖHUK
The judgment must first be final under the law of the country where it was rendered (Article 50). Beyond that, Article 54/1 sets out an exhaustive list — the court may not add to it. To grant enforcement, the court must be satisfied that:
- reciprocity exists, by treaty, statute, or in fact (Article 54/1(a));
- the matter does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts (for instance, certain matters over Turkish immovable property) and — where the defendant raises the objection — the judgment was not given by a court that assumed jurisdiction with no genuine connection to the subject matter or the parties (Article 54/1(b));
- the judgment is not manifestly contrary to public policy (kamu düzeni) (Article 54/1(c)); and
- the right of defence was respected — the defendant was duly summoned, was represented, or the judgment was not given in absentia contrary to that state’s laws. This ground is not applied by the court of its own motion: the defendant must raise the objection before the Turkish court (Article 54/1(ç)).
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. The public policy ground is narrow as well: Article 54/1(c) excludes only a judgment that is manifestly contrary to public policy, and the fact that a Turkish court might have decided the same dispute differently does not by itself meet that test.
The procedure step by step
Enforcement is sought by filing an action before the asliye mahkemesi (court of first instance), which has subject-matter jurisdiction under Article 51. Territorially, the action is brought before the court of the Turkish domicile of the person against whom enforcement is sought; failing that, his place of residence; and if he has neither domicile nor residence in Türkiye, before one of the courts of Ankara, İstanbul or İzmir. Anyone with a legal interest in enforcement may request it (Article 52/1).
Article 53 fixes what goes in the file, and the list is short: the original of the foreign judgment duly certified by the authorities of that country, or a copy certified by the court that rendered it, plus a certified translation; and a document or statement certified by that country’s authorities showing that the judgment has become final, plus a certified translation. In practice these carry apostille or consular legalisation. The petition is served on the opposing party together with the hearing date, and the request is examined and decided under the simple trial procedure (basit yargılama usulü) under Article 55/1.
The typical sequence is:
- Prepare the file — obtain the judgment, the finality certificate, apostille/legalisation, and certified Turkish translations.
- File the action before the competent asliye mahkemesi and pay the court fees.
- Adversarial hearing — the defendant is served and may raise the narrow objections allowed by law; the case is heard under the simple trial procedure.
- Enforcement decision — if the conditions are met, the court grants tenfiz (or tanıma).
- 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 lengthy contested 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
- full or partial satisfaction of the judgment, or a supervening obstacle to its performance (Article 55/2), for instance that the debt has already been paid.
The debtor cannot re-argue the merits: Article 55/2 limits the objections open to the respondent to the absence of the enforcement conditions, full or partial satisfaction of the judgment, or a supervening obstacle to its performance. Complaints about the convenience of the foreign forum, or arguments aimed at reopening the case, are not among those grounds. 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.
