Enforcing a foreign arbitral award in Türkiye means obtaining a tenfiz (enforcement) decision from a Turkish court: the award produces no executable effect here until a competent court declares it enforceable. The governing instrument is the 1958 New York Convention, to which Türkiye acceded on 2 July 1992 and which entered into force for Türkiye on 30 September 1992, subject to two reservations still in force as at July 2026 — reciprocity and commercial. Where the Convention does not apply, Arts. 60-63 of MÖHUK No. 5718 supply the residual regime, and the request is made to the asliye mahkemesi (court of first instance). The grounds for refusal are limited and exhaustive — Art. V of the Convention and Art. 62 of MÖHUK — and the court does not review the merits of the dispute.
A creditor holding a favourable arbitral award rendered abroad cannot simply present it to a Turkish enforcement office and expect immediate execution. The award first has to pass through a court procedure that gives it legal effect within Türkiye. That procedure is governed by an international treaty and, where the treaty does not reach, by domestic private international law. Understanding which regime applies, which court to approach and what a respondent can lawfully raise in opposition is the difference between a swift enforcement and a protracted dispute over recognition.
The legal framework
The starting point for any foreign arbitral award is the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Türkiye acceded on 2 July 1992, and the Convention entered into force for Türkiye on 30 September 1992. Accession was made subject to two declarations under Art. I(3) that shape the Convention’s scope in practice and that remain in force as at July 2026: the reciprocity reservation, under which Türkiye applies the Convention only to awards made in the territory of another contracting state, and the commercial reservation, limiting it to differences arising out of legal relationships considered commercial under Turkish law.
Where an award falls outside the Convention, enforcement is governed by domestic law, namely the Act on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure No. 5718 (MÖHUK), specifically Arts. 60-63. MÖHUK itself yields to treaty: Art. 1(2) reserves the provisions of international conventions to which Türkiye is a party, which is why the New York Convention — and not Arts. 60-63 — is the primary regime for awards made in contracting states. In substance the two regimes are closely aligned, particularly on the grounds for refusing enforcement, so the practical outcome is often similar. Identifying the correct instrument at the outset nonetheless matters, because it determines which set of provisions governs the request and how each objection is framed.
A foreign arbitral award produces no enforceable effect in Türkiye until a competent court has declared it enforceable. Recognition is a condition of execution, not a formality.
The competent court
Under MÖHUK Art. 60, the court with subject-matter jurisdiction is the asliye mahkemesi (court of first instance). For territorial jurisdiction, MÖHUK establishes a clear hierarchy, in order of priority:
| Priority | Connecting factor |
|---|---|
| First | The court the parties agreed upon in writing |
| Second | The court of the Turkish domicile of the party against whom enforcement is sought |
| Third | The court of that party’s place of residence in Türkiye |
| Fourth | The court of the place where the assets subject to enforcement are located |
In practice this means the parties’ own choice of forum prevails where they made one. Absent an agreement, the respondent’s domicile in Türkiye anchors jurisdiction, failing which his place of residence. Only where the respondent has neither a domicile nor a residence in Türkiye does the location of the assets become decisive, which is frequently the case when the creditor is pursuing property or receivables of a foreign party situated in Türkiye.
Grounds for refusing enforcement
The grounds on which a Turkish court may refuse enforcement are exhaustive. They appear in Art. V of the New York Convention and, in parallel, in Art. 62 of MÖHUK. A respondent resisting enforcement must bring its objection within one of the following:
- The arbitration agreement was invalid, whether because a party lacked capacity or because the agreement itself was not valid under the applicable law.
- A party was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case — a breach of the right to be heard.
- The award exceeds the scope of the matters submitted to arbitration, deciding questions beyond the arbitration agreement.
- The composition of the tribunal or the arbitral procedure did not conform to the parties’ agreement.
- The award has not yet become binding, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority in the country where it was made.
- The subject matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Turkish law.
- Enforcement would be contrary to public policy.
The first several grounds are ordinarily raised and proven by the respondent. Non-arbitrability and public policy, by contrast, may be examined by the court of its own motion, because they protect interests that go beyond the parties. The public policy ground is not a gateway to reviewing the correctness of the award: MÖHUK Art. 62/1 lists the grounds for refusal and leaves no room for a fresh examination of the merits, and Art. 62/1(b) bars enforcement only of an award that is contrary to morality or public policy.
No review of the merits
A defining feature of the enforcement regime is that the Turkish court does not re-examine the substance of the dispute. The principle expressed as révision au fond — a fresh review on the merits — has no place in enforcement proceedings. The court does not reassess the evidence, reweigh the facts or substitute its own view for the arbitrators’ legal reasoning. Its task is confined to verifying that none of the limited refusal grounds is present.
This restraint is the practical heart of the New York Convention. A respondent who is simply dissatisfied with the result cannot use the enforcement stage as an appeal. The award stands on its own authority, and only a defect falling squarely within Art. V or Art. 62 will stop it.
Practical steps
Enforcement typically unfolds in a sequence. The creditor first confirms whether the award is governed by the Convention or by MÖHUK. It then identifies the competent court under the jurisdictional hierarchy. The request is filed together with an authenticated copy of the award, the arbitration agreement and their sworn Turkish translations. Once the respondent raises its objections, the argument turns on whether any refusal ground under Art. V or Art. 62 is made out, with public policy and arbitrability capable of examination by the court itself. The first-instance decision is then open to appellate review.
The remedies available
A decision on enforcement is not final at first instance. It can be challenged through istinaf before the regional court of appeal, and, depending on the nature and value of the matter, may be subject to temyiz before the Court of Cassation. Because the underlying review is limited to the existence of refusal grounds rather than the merits, appellate argument generally concentrates on whether a ground under Art. V or Art. 62 was correctly assessed.
Distinction from foreign court judgments
It is important not to conflate arbitral awards with judgments of foreign courts. A judgment rendered by a foreign court is recognised and enforced under a separate regime, MÖHUK Arts. 50-59, and is subject to a reciprocity requirement between Türkiye and the state of origin. Foreign arbitral awards, governed by the New York Convention and MÖHUK Arts. 60-63, follow different jurisdictional and refusal rules, and the reciprocity analysis operates differently. Correctly classifying the instrument at the outset therefore determines the entire procedural path, and treating an arbitral award as though it were a court judgment — or the reverse — leads the request onto the wrong track. Enforcement of foreign court judgments is a distinct subject in its own right.
How we assist
We advise creditors and debtors on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards before Turkish courts. Our work covers assessing which regime applies, identifying the competent court, preparing the enforcement file with the required authenticated documents and translations, and framing or answering objections under Art. V of the Convention and Art. 62 of MÖHUK, including questions of public policy and arbitrability. Where a first-instance decision is challenged, we handle the matter through istinaf and, where available, temyiz.
