Foreign arbitral awards are an integral part of international commerce, and Turkey has developed a relatively clear and arbitration-friendly framework for their recognition and enforcement. That framework is built on a combination of international conventions and domestic legislation, primarily the 1958 New York Convention and Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (“PILPL”).
1. Legal Framework and Scope of Application
Turkey is a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, having acceded in 1991. When joining, Turkey made two classic reservations:
- a reciprocity reservation, applying the Convention only to awards made in the territory of another Contracting State; and
- a commercial reservation, limiting its application to disputes regarded as “commercial” under Turkish law.
Where the New York Convention applies, it constitutes the primary legal basis for recognition and enforcement. In cases falling outside the Convention’s scope (e.g. non-commercial matters or awards from non-Contracting States), the regime under PILPL Articles 60–63 applies directly.
Article 60 PILPL regulates enforcement of foreign arbitral awards; Article 63 extends the same conditions to recognition (i.e. giving the award res judicata effect without necessarily allowing execution).
Under Turkish law, an arbitral award is generally considered “foreign” where the seat of arbitration is outside Turkey, or where the award is not treated as “domestic” under Turkish procedural law, even if Turkish substantive law was applied.
2. Recognition vs. Enforcement
A distinction is drawn between recognition and enforcement:
- Recognition allows the foreign award to be relied on as a final and binding determination (for example as a defence in subsequent proceedings).
- Enforcement permits execution measures (attachment, seizure, etc.) to be taken in Turkey based on the award.
PILPL adopts a unified approach: recognition is subject to the same conditions as enforcement, but without the need to go on to execution.
3. Procedural Requirements
Applications for enforcement (and, by analogy, recognition) are filed with the civil court of first instance:
- agreed by the parties in writing; or, failing such agreement,
- at the domicile of the award debtor in Turkey;
- if no domicile, at the place of residence;
- if neither exists, at the place where the assets subject to execution are located.
The applicant must file, in line with PILPL Article 61 and Article IV of the New York Convention:
- the original or duly certified copy of the arbitration agreement or clause;
- the original or duly certified copy of the arbitral award, which is final, enforceable or binding on the parties;
- sworn translations of these documents into Turkish, with proper certification.
The proceedings are adversarial: the debtor is summoned and may raise specific objections within the limited grounds provided by the Convention and PILPL.
4. Substantive Conditions and Grounds for Refusal
The substantive regime under PILPL Articles 60–62 closely mirrors Article V of the New York Convention.
Typical refusal grounds include:
- Invalid arbitration agreement: no valid arbitration agreement or clause under the law applicable to it;
- Lack of proper notice / due process: the party against whom the award is invoked was not duly informed of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case;
- Excess of authority: the tribunal decided matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration;
- Irregular composition of the arbitral tribunal or procedure not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or the law of the seat;
- Status of the award: the award is not yet binding or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority at the seat;
- Non-arbitrability of the subject matter under Turkish law;
- Violation of Turkish public policy or public morality.
Turkish courts are not permitted to review the merits of the dispute; both doctrine and practice emphasize the prohibition of “revision au fond”.
The most debated ground in practice is public policy. While public policy is in principle interpreted narrowly and in harmony with the pro-enforcement spirit of the New York Convention, Turkish case law shows that courts still sometimes refuse enforcement by relying on public policy, particularly in matters touching mandatory rules, currency controls, competition, or fundamental procedural guarantees.
5. Practice and Recent Trends
Recent commentary and decisions indicate that Turkey generally offers a reliable and predictable system for recognising and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, with courts increasingly aligned with international arbitration standards.
At the same time, applicants must be meticulous about:
- ensuring the formal completeness of their files (proper certification and translation of the award and arbitration agreement);
- demonstrating that the award is final and binding under the law of the seat;
- anticipating potential public policy and arbitrability objections, particularly in regulated sectors or in disputes involving Turkish mandatory rules.
6. Conclusion
In summary, recognition of foreign arbitral awards in Turkey rests on a dual regime: the New York Convention, as limited by Turkey’s reciprocity and commercial reservations, and PILPL Law No. 5718 for residual cases. The grounds for refusal largely track Article V of the Convention and are applied under a formally pro-enforcement approach, though public policy remains a sensitive area. For practitioners, successful recognition depends on careful preparation of the application dossier, early risk analysis of possible objections, and a clear understanding of Turkish courts’ evolving practice in international arbitration matters.
Yanıt yok