Enforcing a US Court Judgment in Türkiye: State-Law Reciprocity, Default Judgments and Punitive Damages

This guide explains how reciprocity is shown for the state whose court gave the judgment, why a default judgment served by mail on a Turkish defendant is vulnerable, how punitive or treble damages meet Turkish public policy, and how collection works once the Turkish court has ruled.

A jury verdict in Manhattan, a default judgment in Los Angeles, a judgment entered by a federal district court in Houston: none of them can be executed in Türkiye as it stands. Article 50(1) of the Turkish Code on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (Law No. 5718, known as MÖHUK) makes the execution of a foreign civil judgment depend on an enforcement decision (tenfiz) by a competent Turkish court, and it covers only judgments that are final under the laws of the place where they were given.

The Turkish court’s examination is framed by a list of conditions in Article 54 and by the limited objections that Article 55(2) allows the debtor. In US files, three of those conditions call for particular care. Recognition of foreign-country judgments in the United States is a matter of state law, so reciprocity is shown for a particular state. A US default judgment against a Turkish party may rest on service by mail, a method Türkiye objected to under the Hague Service Convention, or on a courier delivery that bypassed the Convention’s Central Authority route. And US awards can include punitive, exemplary or treble damages, which raise a public policy question in Türkiye.

This guide follows a US judgment from the clerk’s office in the United States to the enforcement office in Türkiye. It is written for US companies, US law firms and individuals in the United States who hold a judgment against a person or company with assets in Türkiye, and it is part of our series for readers in the United States with a legal matter in Türkiye.

Three US judgments and the question each one raises

The same Turkish statute applies to every US judgment, but the weak point depends on how the judgment was obtained. Three typical files show the range.

A New York commercial judgment against a Turkish distributor. A US manufacturer ends a distribution agreement with an Istanbul company over unpaid invoices and sues in New York under the contract’s forum clause. The Turkish company appears through New York counsel, loses and does not appeal. This is the cleanest kind of file: the defendant took part, the forum was agreed in writing and the award is for the price of goods. The work lies in proving reciprocity for New York and in getting the finality and certification papers right.

A California default judgment against a Turkish individual. A Los Angeles business lends money to a Turkish citizen who later moves back to Izmir. The summons and complaint are sent to Izmir by international courier, there is no answer and the court enters a default judgment. Here the debtor has an available line of objection in Türkiye: that service did not follow a route Türkiye accepts under the Hague Service Convention.

A Texas judgment with punitive damages. A Houston buyer wins a fraud claim against a Turkish supplier, and the jury awards actual damages plus punitive damages several times larger. Service went through the Turkish Central Authority and the supplier defended the case. The question in Türkiye is whether the punitive part is manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy, and whether the creditor should ask for enforcement of the compensatory part only.

What Article 54 asks of a US judgment

Article 54(1) of MÖHUK lists the conditions under which “the competent court grants enforcement”. Article 50(1) adds the finality requirement. Article 55(2) then limits the debtor: it may object only by arguing that the conditions are missing, that the judgment has already been satisfied in whole or in part, or that a reason preventing its satisfaction has arisen. The table sets out how each condition meets a typical US file.

Finality: what “kesinleşmiş” means for a US judgment

Article 50(1) covers judgments that are final “under the laws of that state” (o devlet kanunlarına göre kesinleşmiş). Article 53(1)(b) then requires a writing or document, duly certified by the authorities of that country, showing that the judgment has become final, together with a certified translation.

A US judgment can be fully effective in the United States while it is still open to post-judgment motions or to appeal. The federal judiciary’s own explanation of appeals notes that the losing party in a decision by a federal trial court is normally entitled to appeal to a federal court of appeals, and each state has at least one appellate court above its trial courts. Article 50(1) measures finality by the law of the place where the judgment was given: the creditor should be able to show that, under the rules of the court that gave it, no ordinary appeal remains open against the judgment.

Timing therefore matters. A creditor who files in Türkiye while post-judgment motions or the time to appeal are still running risks a file that does not meet Article 50(1). In practice the evidence is a certificate from the clerk of the court that no appeal or post-judgment motion was filed in time, or the appellate decision that closed the case, together with the docket record. There is no single US form for this, so it pays to ask the clerk early what the court can certify.

Reciprocity: why the US state matters

Article 54(1)(a) requires one of three things between Türkiye and the state where the judgment was given: an agreement based on reciprocity, a statutory provision there that makes enforcement of Turkish court judgments possible, or a de facto practice to the same effect. In practice the creditor has to put this before the court.

Neither country is a party to the Hague Conference’s two instruments on choice of court and on judgments: the United States signed the 2005 Choice of Court Convention and the 2019 Judgments Convention but has ratified neither, and Türkiye has signed neither. A US judgment is therefore enforced in Türkiye under the Turkish statute, and reciprocity under Article 54(1)(a) has to be shown. Child support decisions need a separate check: MÖHUK reserves the provisions of international conventions to which Türkiye is a party (Article 1(2)), and the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention, in force between Türkiye and the United States since 1 February 2017, has its own rules on the recognition and enforcement of maintenance decisions.

In the United States, the recognition of foreign-country money judgments is a matter of state law. The 2005 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, drafted by the Uniform Law Commission, is a model that each state may enact. Under it, a court of an adopting state shall recognize a foreign-country money judgment within the Act’s scope unless one of the listed grounds for refusal applies, and reciprocity is not one of those grounds. The drafters say so in their prefatory note: they revisited the 1962 Act’s decision not to require reciprocity and kept that approach. The Act covers judgments that grant or deny a sum of money and are final, conclusive and enforceable where rendered; it excludes judgments for taxes, fines or other penalties, and judgments in domestic relations matters.

For the Turkish court, this means the reciprocity evidence is built around the US state whose law would govern recognition of a Turkish judgment. For a state court judgment, the natural reference point is that state’s law: in our examples, New York, California or Texas. The creditor files the recognition statute in force in that state, in the version the state enacted, from an official source and with a certified Turkish translation, and where possible material showing that courts there do recognize foreign-country judgments. Whether this is enough in a given file is for the Turkish court.

For a federal court judgment, ask US counsel which law would govern recognition of a Turkish judgment in that court and prepare the evidence on that basis. Lex Lata does not advise on US law; we prepare the Turkish side of the file and tell US counsel which documents the Turkish court will look for.

One practical point: if the creditor needs the US judgment only as res judicata or conclusive evidence in a Turkish case, reciprocity is not required. Article 58(1) makes that recognition depend on the court finding that the judgment meets the conditions for enforcement, but expressly excludes Article 54(1)(a) from the test. Under Article 59, that effect runs from the moment the US judgment became final.

Default judgments and service on a defendant in Türkiye

Both countries are parties to the 1965 Hague Service Convention. It entered into force for the United States on 10 February 1969 and for Türkiye on 28 April 1972. When Türkiye ratified it, Türkiye declared its opposition to the methods of service in Article 10. That article covers three channels: sending judicial documents by postal channels directly to persons abroad; service arranged by judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the state of origin directly through their counterparts in the state of destination; and the same direct service arranged by any person interested in the proceedings. Türkiye objects to all three.

That leaves the Convention’s main route: a request to Türkiye’s Central Authority, the Directorate General for Foreign Relations and EU Affairs at the Ministry of Justice. Under Article 5, the Central Authority serves the document itself or arranges for it to be served, and it may require the document to be written in or translated into Turkish. Türkiye’s own information filed with the Hague Conference explains that documents in Turkish, or with a Turkish translation, can be served even against the addressee’s will, while documents in another language may be refused by the addressee.

Article 15 of the Convention protects a defendant who does not appear. Where a summons had to be transmitted abroad for service under the Convention, judgment is not to be given until it is established that the document was served by a method of the internal law of the state addressed, or actually delivered to the defendant or to the defendant’s residence by another method provided for by the Convention, and in either case in sufficient time to defend. Both states made the declaration Article 15 allows, under which a judge may give judgment without a certificate of service if strict conditions are met, including a period of at least six months since transmission.

On the Turkish side, the decisive provision is MÖHUK Article 54(1)(ç). Enforcement is granted unless the person against whom it is sought objects in the Turkish court that, under the laws of the place where the judgment was given, they were not duly summoned to the court, or were not represented there, or that judgment was given in their absence or by default contrary to those laws. Two features matter: the yardstick is the law of the place where the judgment was given, and the ground has to be raised by the debtor.

Apply this to the California example. The summons went to Izmir by courier, there was no answer and a default judgment followed. Service by mail falls within Article 10(a), to which Türkiye objected. A courier delivery sent straight to the defendant also bypasses the Turkish Central Authority, and the debtor may raise the same objection against it. In the Turkish enforcement action the debtor can then argue under Article 54(1)(ç) that it was not duly summoned. The Turkish court decides the point on the file, and the creditor carries a real risk of refusal.

A creditor in that position has three options to weigh with counsel in both countries: file anyway and meet the objection; ask US counsel whether the default can be set aside in the United States and the defendant served properly; or bring a new action in Türkiye on the original claim. For a creditor at the start of a US case against a Turkish party, the lesson is simpler: serve through the Central Authority, with a Turkish translation. Our guide to serving US court papers and taking evidence in Türkiye covers that route.

Punitive, exemplary and treble damages

US juries and courts can award damages meant to punish or deter, and some US statutes multiply actual damages. Turkish tort law is framed around making good the harm: under Article 49 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Law No. 6098), a person who causes harm to another by a faulty and unlawful act is obliged to make good that harm. A US award that goes beyond compensation therefore raises the question in Article 54(1)(c) of MÖHUK: whether the judgment is manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy.

The statute uses the word “manifestly” (açıkça). It does not list a difference between US and Turkish law as a ground of its own, and the debtor’s objections are limited to those in Article 55(2). The court examines, on the file, whether the judgment it is asked to enforce is manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy. There is no fixed answer for every punitive award, and we do not offer one here.

What the statute does give the creditor is room to choose. Article 52(1)(c) requires the petition to state which part of the judgment is concerned if enforcement is sought for only part of it, and Article 56(1) allows the court to grant enforcement in part or in full, or to reject the request. In the Texas example, the creditor can ask for enforcement of the compensatory award only and leave the punitive award aside, or ask for the whole and let the court decide. Which approach suits a file depends on the amounts, the debtor’s assets and how clearly the judgment separates the heads of damages. The same question arises for treble damages under a US statute and for any part of a judgment with a penal character.

Jurisdiction: exclusive matters and thin connections

Article 54(1)(b) has two limbs, joined in the statute by “or”. The first concerns matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts. One example is immovable property: under Article 12(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK, Law No. 6100), actions about rights in rem over immovable property, actions that may change who holds such rights, and actions about possession of immovable property or the right of retention over it belong to the court where the property is located, which the Code calls kesin yetkili. A US judgment that purports to decide who owns an apartment in Antalya runs into this limb. A money judgment for unpaid invoices does not concern rights in rem over immovable property.

The second limb applies only if the debtor objects: the judgment must not have been given by a court that took jurisdiction although it had no real connection with the subject matter or the parties. In the New York example, the distribution agreement chose New York courts in writing. That clause is part of the picture, because Turkish law itself allows parties to a dispute arising from obligations with a foreign element to agree that the courts of a foreign state will hear it, where territorial jurisdiction is not determined on an exclusive basis, and such an agreement is valid if it is proven by written evidence (MÖHUK Article 47(1)). The more the US case was tied to the state through the contract, the place of performance or the parties’ business there, the harder it is for the debtor to use this limb.

Taking the US judgment to a Turkish court: venue, petition, papers and security

Court. Article 51(1) gives enforcement actions to the court of first instance (asliye mahkemesi). Under Article 51(2), enforcement may be requested from the court of the debtor’s domicile in Türkiye, failing that the place where the debtor resides, and if there is neither, from a court in Ankara, Istanbul or Izmir. A creditor whose debtor has left Türkiye but kept assets there therefore still has a court to go to.

Petition. Anyone with a legal interest in enforcement may request it, and the request is made by petition with a copy for each opposing party (Article 52(1)). The petition gives the names and addresses of the parties and of any legal representatives or attorneys; the US court that gave the judgment, with its name, the date and number of the judgment and a summary of it; and, if enforcement is sought for part of the judgment, which part.

Documents. Article 53(1) requires (a) the original of the judgment duly certified by the authorities of the country concerned, or a copy certified by the court that gave it, with a certified translation, and (b) a writing or document, duly certified by the authorities of that country, showing that the judgment is final, with a certified translation. Under HMK Article 224(1), official documents prepared by foreign authorities have that character in Türkiye if they are certified by the competent authority of the issuing state or by the Turkish consulate, and Article 224(2) reserves the provisions on the certification of foreign official documents in the international conventions to which Türkiye is a party. The Apostille Convention applies between the two countries. For a state court document, the apostille comes from the authority the state designates, generally the Secretary of State; for a federal court document, the clerks and deputy clerks of the federal courts issue the apostille. HMK Article 223(1) also requires a party relying on a document in a foreign language to file its translation. In practice the Turkish translation is made in Türkiye by a sworn translator and certified by a Turkish notary.

What to order from the US court

• A certified copy of the judgment, and of any amended judgment or order on post-judgment motions, from the clerk of the court.
• A clerk’s certificate or other court record showing that the time to appeal has run with no appeal pending, or the appellate decision that ended the case.
• The proof of service on the defendant and, for a default judgment, the record of the default.
• If the debtor appeared, a record of the appearance, such as the answer or counsel’s notice of appearance.
• An apostille on each court document from the competent US authority.
• The text of the relevant state’s recognition statute from an official source, for the reciprocity evidence.

Security for costs. Article 48(1) of MÖHUK obliges foreign natural and legal persons who sue, join proceedings or start enforcement proceedings in Türkiye to give security, in an amount the court decides, for court and enforcement costs and for the other side’s losses. Article 48(2) adds that the court exempts a claimant from this security on the basis of reciprocity. No country is named in the statute, so whether a US company or a US citizen is exempted is a question for the court in each file. A dual Turkish and US citizen holds Turkish citizenship and is therefore not a foreign person within the wording of Article 48(1).

The hearing, the debtor’s objections and the decision

The debtor receives the petition together with notice of the hearing date, and the court deals with the request under the simple procedure (basit yargılama usulü) (Article 55(1)). The debtor’s objections are confined to the three grounds in Article 55(2): missing conditions, satisfaction of the judgment in whole or in part, or a reason that prevents its satisfaction. An argument that the US court weighed the evidence wrongly is not on that list.

Three outcomes are open to the court: enforcement in part, enforcement in full, or rejection of the request. The decision is entered at the foot of the US judgment, and the judge seals and signs it (Article 56(1)). Appeals against the decision are subject to the general rules, and the statute provides that an appeal stops execution (Article 57(2), where the Turkish text uses the word temyiz). A creditor should therefore plan for collection to start only once the appeal stage is over.

From the Turkish decision to collection

With the enforcement decision in hand, the creditor can have the US judgment executed in the same way as a judgment given by a Turkish court (Article 57(1)). Collection moves to the enforcement offices (icra dairesi) under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK, Law No. 2004):

• Any enforcement office in Türkiye can be asked to execute the judgment (İİK Article 34); the file opens once the judgment is deposited with that office (Article 35).
• Where the judgment is for money, the debtor is served with an enforcement order (icra emri) to pay within seven days. The order warns that compulsory enforcement will follow unless a decision staying execution is obtained from the enforcement court, or from the court before which an appeal or a retrial is pending, and that the debtor must declare its assets under Article 74 within the same period (Article 32).
• Within seven days of service, the debtor may apply to the enforcement court (icra mahkemesi) claiming that the debt is time-barred, has been deferred or has been paid. If the deferral or payment is shown by a document of the kind Article 33(1) describes (one drawn up officially by the competent authorities or duly certified, or acknowledged before the enforcement office, the enforcement court or a court), execution is stayed.

If assets may disappear while the enforcement action is pending, the creditor can consider provisional attachment (ihtiyati haciz). Under İİK Article 257(1), the creditor of a money debt that is due and not secured by a pledge may have the debtor’s movable and immovable property, receivables and other rights, whether held by the debtor or by third parties, provisionally attached. Article 258(1) puts on the creditor the burden of producing evidence that satisfies the court about the claim and, where needed, about the grounds for attachment. Under Article 259(1), a creditor whose attachment turns out to be unjustified is liable for all resulting losses and must give security, subject to the exceptions in the same article. That procedure has a guide of its own: provisional attachment for foreign creditors. How interest awarded in the United States and the dollar amount of the judgment are handled in the Turkish proceedings should be assessed for each file before filing.

If you hold an arbitral award instead

Some contracts between US and Turkish companies contain an arbitration clause rather than a forum clause. An arbitral award does not go through Articles 50 to 59. The United States and Türkiye are both parties to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and both made the same two declarations: they apply it on the basis of reciprocity, only to awards made in the territory of another contracting state, and only to disputes arising from legal relationships considered commercial under their national law. MÖHUK Article 1(2) keeps the provisions of international conventions to which Türkiye is a party in force, and Articles 60 to 63 of MÖHUK deal with foreign arbitral awards. The conditions and refusal grounds differ from those for court judgments; see our guide to enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Türkiye.

How Lex Lata works with US creditors and their counsel

Lex Lata represents US companies, US law firms and individuals in the United States before Turkish courts in enforcement actions, and afterwards in collection through the enforcement offices. The work is done in English, by email and video call, and the Turkish proceedings are conducted by a Turkish attorney under a power of attorney. Türkiye stays on UTC+3 all year, so New York is 7 hours behind Istanbul during US daylight saving time and 8 hours behind in winter; Los Angeles is 10 and 11 hours behind.

The first step is usually a review of the US judgment, the service record and the finality papers, before anything is apostilled or translated. An individual can sign the power of attorney at a Turkish mission in the United States (the Embassy in Washington, D.C. or the Consulates General in Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami and New York), or before a US notary public with an apostille added afterwards. A US company uses the notary and apostille route: the Turkish consulates in New York and Los Angeles state that they do not prepare powers of attorney for foreign companies. See power of attorney and apostille from the US for Türkiye. Lex Lata advises on Turkish law only. Questions of US law, such as whether a default can be set aside or how to serve again, belong to US counsel, and we work alongside them.

If you are a US exporter with unpaid invoices but no judgment yet, see recovering unpaid invoices from Turkish buyers. For judgments from other countries, our general guide to enforcement of foreign judgments in Türkiye gives the wider picture. Readers with a different matter in Türkiye can begin with our guide for people in the United States with a legal matter in Türkiye; the contact page is the way to reach us.