Enforcing a German Court Judgment in Türkiye: Reciprocity, Finality and the 1929 Convention

A German court judgment can be enforced in Türkiye, but only after a Turkish court grants an enforcement decision (tenfiz). Under Article 50(1) of Law No. 5718 on private international law and international civil procedure, known as MÖHUK, judgments of foreign courts in civil cases that are final under the laws of the state where they were given can be executed in Türkiye only once a competent Turkish court has granted enforcement. A German judgment cannot be lodged with a Turkish enforcement office as it stands.

Germany and Türkiye signed a convention in Ankara on 28 May 1929 on legal relations in civil and commercial matters, approved in Türkiye by Law No. 1622 and published in the Official Gazette of 4 June 1930 (No. 1511). Its enforcement provisions are confined to certain orders for court fees and costs. A German judgment for a debt or damages therefore follows the ordinary MÖHUK procedure.

This guide is for German companies, Rechtsanwälte and individuals holding a German judgment against someone with assets in Türkiye. Lex Lata advises on Turkish law; German law points are left to a lawyer admitted in Germany.

Can a German court judgment be enforced in Turkey?

Yes, once a Turkish court has granted enforcement. The court of first instance (asliye mahkemesi) hears the request (MÖHUK Article 51(1)) under the simple procedure (Article 55(1)), and the debtor may object only that the conditions for enforcement are missing, or that the judgment has been satisfied in whole or in part, or that an obstacle to its satisfaction has arisen (Article 55(2)). Article 54(1) sets four conditions: reciprocity, jurisdiction, public policy and proper summons of the debtor; the last, and the real-connection limb of the jurisdiction condition, depend on an objection by the debtor. Once enforcement is granted, the German judgment is executed like a judgment of a Turkish court (Article 57(1)).

What the 1929 Turkish-German convention covers, and what it does not

The 1929 convention was approved by Law No. 1622, and Article 1(2) of MÖHUK reserves the provisions of international conventions to which Türkiye is a party. On the German side, the regulation implementing the convention (RVerkAbkTürAV) is still part of current federal law, last amended in 2006. Three of its provisions matter for a creditor:

• Article 1: nationals of each state enjoy the same treatment as local nationals for the judicial protection of their persons and property, and have free access to the courts on the same terms.
• Article 2: a national of either state who is a claimant or intervener before the courts of the other, provided he has a domicile in the territory of one of the two states, cannot be required to give any security or deposit on the ground of being a foreigner or of having no domicile or residence in the forum state. Under Article 2(2), the same applies to payments demanded from claimants or interveners to secure court costs.
• Articles 3 and 4: judgments for court fees and costs given in one state against a claimant or intervener who was exempt from security, under Article 2 or under the law of the state where the action was brought, are made enforceable free of charge by the competent authority of the other state.

Articles 3 and 4 are the only enforcement provisions. The request may be made through diplomatic channels or sent by the interested party directly to the competent authority (Article 3(2)), and the rule extends to later decisions fixing the amount of costs (Article 3(3)). The decision is declared enforceable under the law of the state where execution takes place, without hearing the parties, subject to a later application by the person ordered to pay (Article 4(1)). The competent authority confines itself to checking whether the decision has become final under the law of the state where it was given, and whether a translation of its operative part, certified by a diplomatic or consular officer of the requesting state or by a sworn translator of either state, is attached (Article 4(2)). A declaration from the competent authority of the requesting state that the decision has become final is enough for the first point, with that authority’s competence certified as Article 4(3) provides.

Example: a Turkish national domiciled in Türkiye sued in Germany without security, lost and was ordered to pay costs; that costs order can follow the 1929 route, but a judgment for the price of machinery cannot.

The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention entered into force for the European Union on 1 September 2023, but Türkiye is not listed as a party or signatory, so it does not apply between the two states.

Reciprocity: how it is shown for a German judgment

Article 54(1)(a) of MÖHUK makes reciprocity the first condition: there must be an agreement based on reciprocity between Türkiye and the state where the judgment was given, or, in that state, a statutory provision or de facto practice that makes it possible to enforce judgments of Turkish courts. With no general enforcement treaty between Germany and Türkiye, the creditor relies on the second and third limbs.

The German statutory side is found in the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO). Under § 722(1), execution on a foreign judgment takes place only if its admissibility is declared by an enforcement judgment (Vollstreckungsurteil). Under § 723, that enforcement judgment is given without reviewing the legality of the foreign decision, only once the foreign judgment has become final under the law applicable to the foreign court, and not if recognition is excluded under § 328. Section 328(1) lists the grounds that exclude recognition, and number 5 is the case where reciprocity is not guaranteed (wenn die Gegenseitigkeit nicht verbürgt ist).

Each side’s law thus makes enforcement depend on the other’s readiness to enforce, so the creditor puts before the Turkish court:

• the text of ZPO §§ 328, 722 and 723, with certified Turkish translations;
• a written opinion from a lawyer admitted in Germany explaining how a German court would treat a Turkish judgment of the same kind;
• any documented examples of Turkish judgments enforced in Germany that the creditor can obtain.

The Turkish court decides whether this material meets Article 54(1)(a). How a German court applies § 328 to a Turkish judgment is a question of German law, on which Lex Lata does not advise.

Reciprocity matters only for enforcement. Where the aim is to rely on the German judgment as res judicata or conclusive evidence in Turkish proceedings, Article 58(1) requires the court to find that the judgment meets the conditions for enforcement, but expressly provides that Article 54(1)(a) does not apply to recognition. Under Article 59, that effect runs from the moment the German judgment became final.

Finality under German law

Article 50(1) covers judgments that are final “under the laws of that state”, and Article 53(1)(b) requires a letter or document showing that the judgment has become final, duly certified by that country’s authorities, with a certified translation. German procedure has three points to watch.

Provisional enforceability is not finality. Under ZPO § 704, execution in Germany takes place on final judgments or on judgments declared provisionally enforceable. A provisionally enforceable judgment can be executed in Germany while an appeal is possible or pending, but it is not yet final, and the Turkish test is finality.

When finality arrives. Under § 705, a judgment does not become final before the time for lodging the admissible appeal or objection has expired, and a timely appeal or objection holds finality back.

Default judgments. Under § 338, a party against whom a default judgment (Versäumnisurteil) is given may lodge an objection (Einspruch). Under § 339(1), the period is two weeks from service; under § 339(2), it is one month where service must take place abroad, and the court may set a longer period. A default judgment against a buyer in Türkiye is therefore not final until the period running from service in Türkiye has expired.

The document that proves finality is the certificate of finality (Zeugnis über die Rechtskraft), which under § 706(1) is issued on the basis of the court files by the office of the court of first instance, or of the higher court while the case is pending there.

The vollstreckbare Ausfertigung, a copy with the enforcement clause (§ 724(1)), serves execution in Germany and does not by itself show finality. And under § 317(2), a copy requested by a party is issued without the statement of facts and reasons unless a full copy is requested. For Türkiye, ask for a full copy (vollständige Ausfertigung): the Turkish court needs the reasons to check jurisdiction and public policy, and Article 52(1)(b) asks the petition for a summary of the judgment.

Service on a defendant in Türkiye and Article 54(1)(ç)

Under Article 54(1)(ç), the debtor may object that, under the laws of the place where the judgment was given, it was not duly summoned to that court or was not represented there, or that judgment was given in its absence or by default contrary to those laws. The measure is German law, and the debtor has to raise the point.

When the defendant was in Türkiye, the service route is therefore a likely point of attack. The Hague Service Convention has been in force for Türkiye since 28 April 1972 and for Germany since 26 June 1979. Türkiye declared its opposition to the methods of service in Article 10 of that convention, the first of which is sending documents by post directly to persons abroad, and declared that diplomatic or consular agents may serve under Article 8 only on their own nationals. The main route is a request to the Turkish Central Authority.

The 1929 convention offers its own route. Under Article 9(1), documents are served on a request sent by the consulate of the requesting state to the authority designated by the requested state, with a certified translation of the document attached. Article 17(1) lets each state serve documents directly through its diplomatic or consular agents only on its own nationals, and without any compulsion. A German claim posted or couriered to a Turkish company in Izmir follows none of these routes.

Jurisdiction and public policy

Article 54(1)(b) requires that the judgment was given on a matter not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts or, provided the defendant objects, that it was not given by the court of a state which assumed jurisdiction although it had no real connection with the subject matter or the parties. A written jurisdiction clause in favour of German courts helps on the second limb. Under Article 47(1), where territorial jurisdiction is not exclusive, parties may agree that a dispute with a foreign element arising from obligations will be heard by a foreign court, and the agreement is valid if proven by written evidence.

Article 54(1)(c) requires that the judgment is not manifestly contrary to public policy. If one part of a German judgment raises doubt, the creditor can seek enforcement of part of it (Articles 52(1)(c) and 56(1)).

Security for costs: MÖHUK Article 48 and Article 2 of the 1929 convention

Under Article 48(1) of MÖHUK, foreign natural and legal persons who bring an action, intervene or start enforcement proceedings before a Turkish court must give the security the court sets to cover the costs of the proceedings and enforcement and the other side’s losses. Under Article 48(2), the court exempts them on the basis of reciprocity.

For an individual German creditor domiciled in Germany or Türkiye, Article 2 of the 1929 convention can be relied on as a convention provision reserved by Article 1(2) of MÖHUK. Its text speaks of nationals (tebaa) and does not mention companies, so a German GmbH or AG should also support its request under Article 48(2) with reciprocity material. A creditor holding Turkish citizenship, including a German-Turkish dual national, is not a foreign person under Article 48(1).

Filing the case: court, petition and documents

Under Article 51(2), enforcement is sought from the court at the domicile in Türkiye of the person against whom it is sought, failing that at the place of residence, and if there is neither, from one of the courts of Ankara, Istanbul or Izmir. Under Article 52(1), anyone with a legal interest may file the petition, with a copy for each opposing party. The petition states the names and addresses of the parties and of any legal representatives and attorneys; the state and the court that gave the judgment, with its date, number and a summary; and, if enforcement is sought for part of it, which part.

Under Article 53(1), the petition is accompanied by the original of the judgment duly certified by German authorities, or a copy certified by the court that gave it, with a certified translation, and by the document showing finality, duly certified, with a certified translation.

Germany and Türkiye are parties to the Apostille Convention, in force for Germany since 13 February 1966 and for Türkiye since 29 September 1985. Germany’s declaration names, for documents of the ordinary civil courts and of notaries, the justice ministry of the Land and the presidents of the regional courts (and in some Länder the local courts), so the apostille comes from the authority competent for the court concerned. Under Article 224(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100), a foreign official document has that character in Türkiye if certified by the competent authority of the issuing state or by the Turkish consulate. A party relying on a foreign-language document must file its translation (Article 223(1)).

Papers to collect in Germany before filing

A power of attorney can be signed at a Turkish consulate in Germany, because notarial work abroad is carried out by consuls (Notaries Law No. 1512, Article 191), or before a German notary and then apostilled. The steps are in our guide to power of attorney and apostille from Germany for Türkiye. Turkish translations are made from the apostilled documents and certified.

Hearing, decision and appeal

Under Article 55(1), the petition is served with the hearing date. Under Article 56(1), the decision is written beneath the foreign judgment and sealed and signed by the judge. Under Article 57(2), appeals against decisions granting or refusing enforcement follow the general rules, and an appeal suspends execution, so collection may wait until the appeal stage is over.

Collecting in Türkiye after enforcement

Execution may be requested from any enforcement office (Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, Article 34). For a money judgment, Article 32 provides that the office serves an enforcement order (icra emri) requiring payment within seven days and warning that compulsory enforcement will follow unless a decision staying execution is obtained. Within seven days of service, the debtor may apply to the enforcement court objecting that the debt is time-barred, deferred or paid (Article 33).

If assets may be moved while the enforcement case is pending, a precautionary attachment (ihtiyati haciz) can be considered: under Article 257, the creditor of a money debt that has fallen due and is not secured by a pledge may have the debtor’s property, receivables and rights attached as a precaution. Whether a court grants that on the basis of a German judgment not yet enforced is decided in the file. A German seller that has no judgment yet may find a claim in Türkiye the shorter road, covered in German sellers recovering unpaid invoices from Turkish buyers.

Enforcement, recognition and costs orders compared

Divorce decisions are a separate track, since Article 27/A of Law No. 5490 allows a final foreign divorce decision to be registered in the Turkish civil register directly on the conditions it lists; see recognition of a German divorce in Türkiye.

Arbitral awards made in Germany

An award from arbitration seated in Germany follows a different regime. Both states are parties to the New York Convention of 1958, in force for Germany since 28 September 1961 and for Türkiye since 30 September 1992. Türkiye declared that it applies the convention only to awards made in the territory of another contracting state and only to differences arising out of legal relationships considered commercial under its national law. MÖHUK Article 1(2) keeps the convention in place, and Articles 60 to 63 contain the statute’s own rules: Article 60(1) allows enforcement of final and enforceable or binding foreign awards, Article 62 lists the grounds for refusal, and Article 63 applies the enforcement rules to recognition. Our guide to enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Türkiye covers the application.

Working on a German judgment with Lex Lata from Germany

Lex Lata acts for German companies, Rechtsanwälte and individuals in enforcement actions before Turkish courts and in collection through Turkish enforcement offices. Work is done in English or Turkish by email and video call; in court, a Turkish lawyer acts under a power of attorney.

The first step is a review of three things: the judgment, the service record and the proof of finality. Questions on how a German court treats Turkish judgments, or whether a German default judgment can still be challenged, are for German counsel, and we work alongside them.

For other matters, the overview for clients in Germany with a legal matter in Türkiye lists this series, our general guide to enforcement of foreign judgments in Türkiye and the practice page on enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards give the wider picture, and the contact page is where to send a first message.