Enforcement of Foreign Judgments & Arbitral Awards in Turkey (Tenfiz)

Lex Lata acts as Turkish counsel in enforcement matters for foreign companies, arbitral award creditors and their foreign counsel. We guide international claimants through the strict procedural requirements of Turkish courts, pursuing asset preservation and realisation of cross-border claims.

The Four Statutory Exequatur Conditions (MÖHUK Article 54):

1. Reciprocity (Karşılıklılık - Art. 54/1-a): There must be contractual, statutory, or de facto reciprocity between Türkiye and the rendering state. Reciprocity is established if Turkish judgments are enforceable in that jurisdiction.
2. Absence of Exclusive Turkish Jurisdiction and Real Connection (Art. 54/1-b): The judgment must have been given on a matter that does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts; in addition, if the defendant objects, it must not have been given by a court of a state that assumed jurisdiction although it had no real connection with the subject matter or the parties.
3. Compliance with Public Policy (Kamu Düzeni - Art. 54/1-c): The foreign judgment must not be manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy.
4. Right to be Heard (Art. 54/1-ç): Enforcement is refused where, under the law of the state of origin, the person against whom enforcement is sought was not duly summoned to the court that gave the judgment or was not represented before it, or the judgment was given in that person’s absence or by default contrary to that law, and that person objects to enforcement before the Turkish court on one of these grounds.

Procedural Distinction: Foreign court judgments are governed by MÖHUK Articles 50-59 and require contractual, statutory, or de facto reciprocity. Foreign arbitral awards made in another New York Convention state (172 contracting states) in a commercial matter fall under the Convention; other foreign awards fall under MÖHUK Articles 60-63. Neither route requires reciprocity in the sense of Article 54.

• No Retrial of the Dispute: The Turkish court does not re-evaluate the factual findings, witness testimonies, expert opinions, or substantive law applied by the foreign court.
• Review Limited to the Statutory Conditions: The Turkish court examines whether the conditions of Articles 50 and 54 are met and the objections allowed by Article 55(2). A different view of the governing law or of the evidence is not, on its own, a ground for refusing enforcement; the public policy condition in Article 54/1(c) remains, but applies only to a manifest breach.

Grounds for Refusal under Article V of the New York Convention:

A Turkish court may refuse enforcement of a Convention award only on the grounds exhaustively listed in Article V. The grounds in Article V(1) (items 1 to 5) must be proved by the party against whom the award is invoked; those in Article V(2) (item 6) the court may find of its own motion:

1. Incapacity or Invalidity of Arbitration Agreement: The parties were under some incapacity under the law applicable to them, or the arbitration agreement is invalid under the law the parties subjected it to or, failing any indication, under the law of the country where the award was made.
2. Defective Notice & Right to Defense: The party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case.
3. Excess of Mandate (Ultra Petita): The award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration.
4. Irregular Arbitral Tribunal Composition: The composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties.
5. Non-Final or Set-Aside Award: The award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, it was made.
6. Non-Arbitrability & Turkish Public Policy: The subject matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Turkish law, or enforcement is contrary to Turkish public policy.

The statute itself sets strict boundaries for this exception:

• Manifest Breach Required: MÖHUK Article 54/1(c) bars enforcement only where the judgment is manifestly contrary to public policy. The test aims at breaches of fundamental principles of the Turkish constitutional order, basic human rights, or core procedural rules of justice, not at a mere difference from Turkish law.
• Default Interest & Liquidated Damages: A foreign default interest rate or liquidated damages clause that Turkish law would treat differently is not, on its own, a manifest breach; whether a particular award crosses the line is assessed by the court on the facts.
• Default Judgments: Under MÖHUK Article 54/1(ç), a judgment given in the debtor’s absence (gıyap kararı) can be resisted only where, under the law of the state of origin, the debtor was not duly summoned or represented, or the judgment was given in its absence contrary to that law, and the debtor raises this objection before the Turkish court. A default judgment given after proper service is therefore not excluded on that ground.

Treaty Exemptions:

Whether a claimant is exempt turns on the country and on the treaty that applies, so it is checked at the start of each file. One example: the 1929 Turkish-German convention on legal relations in civil and commercial matters (Law No. 1622), where it is applied, exempts a German national domiciled in either state from security based on being a foreigner (Article 2). We have not found an official current status record for this convention, so its continued application is checked on the file. How that convention works for people and companies in Germany is set out in our guide for clients in Germany.

To reduce this risk, Lex Lata applies a two-stage execution strategy:

1. Precautionary Attachment at Filing: Simultaneously with or prior to filing the tenfiz lawsuit, we can petition the court for a precautionary attachment (İhtiyati Haciz under İİK Art. 257), relying on the foreign judgment as the evidence of the claim that Art. 258 requires. If the court grants it, the attachment can be enforced against the debtor’s bank accounts, company shares and real estate.
2. Compulsory Judgment Execution (İlamlı İcra): Under MÖHUK Article 57(1), a foreign judgment for which tenfiz is granted is executed like a judgment of a Turkish court; under Article 57(2), an appeal (temyiz) against the tenfiz decision stays execution. The file then goes to the Enforcement Office under the rules on the execution of judgments (İİK Article 24 et seq.; for money judgments, the enforcement order under Article 32), enabling direct bank fund transfers and public auctions of seized assets.

• Commercial Debt Collection & Asset Recovery: Cross-border B2B debt enforcement and precautionary asset freezes (İİK 257).
• Foreign Judgment & Arbitral Award Enforcement (Tenfiz): Exequatur proceedings under MÖHUK No. 5718 and the 1958 New York Convention.
• Commercial Fraud & White-Collar Crime: Emergency CMK 128 asset freezing, director embezzlement, and MASAK investigations.
• Legal Matters in Istanbul for Foreign Clients and Companies: Strategic litigation and court representation across Çağlayan, Kartal, and Bakırköy courthouses.