How Is Jurisdiction Determined in Lawsuits Involving Foreigners Who Own Real Estate in Türkiye?

The question how jurisdiction is determined in lawsuits involving foreigners who own real estate in Türkiye is typically answered through a two-step analysis: (i) whether Turkish courts have international jurisdiction, and (ii) if so, which court in Türkiye has territorial (venue) jurisdiction. The mere existence of a foreign element (a foreign plaintiff/defendant, parties residing abroad, a contract drafted in a foreign language, etc.) does not create a separate jurisdictional regime. As a rule, Turkish private international law channels the analysis back to the domestic rules on venue and jurisdiction.

1) The basis of international jurisdiction: PIL Act Article 40 and domestic venue rules

Under Article 40 of the Turkish Private International Law and International Civil Procedure Act (Law No. 5718), the international jurisdiction of Turkish courts is determined by reference to the domestic rules on territorial jurisdiction set out in the Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100). Accordingly, the core inquiry is not “which country’s courts,” in the abstract, but rather whether the dispute falls within a venue rule that anchors jurisdiction in Türkiye.

At this point, the characterization of the claim is decisive: is the dispute in rem (directly concerning a right in the immovable property), or is it an in personam claim (a personal obligation merely connected to the property)?

2) The key distinction in real estate disputes: in rem vs. in personam claims

Not every dispute “related to real estate” is governed by the same jurisdictional rule. The crucial distinction is as follows:

A) In rem claims concerning immovable property: exclusive jurisdiction of the property’s location

For claims that directly affect rights in rem over immovable property—such as actions for cancellation and registration of title (tapu iptali ve tescil), determination of ownership, establishment or cancellation of mortgages, establishment or termination of easements, prevention of interference, and certain possessory claims—the court of the place where the immovable property is located has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

“Exclusive jurisdiction” means that the parties cannot validly confer jurisdiction on another court by agreement, and filing the case in the wrong venue leads to serious procedural consequences. Importantly, this remains true even if the defendant is a foreign national or a foreign company, or resides abroad. The rationale is that disputes determining the legal status of immovable property situated in Türkiye should be adjudicated by the courts of the place where the property is located.

In practice, the rule is straightforward: where the lawsuit directly concerns the legal title or in rem status of a property in Türkiye, the claim must be brought before the court at the property’s situs (the location of the immovable).

B) Claims connected to real estate but not affecting title: general and special venue rules apply

Many disputes connected with real estate are not in rem. Claims for rent arrears, rent adjustment, contractual damages, recovery of the sale price, or contractor liability for defective or incomplete works typically remain in personam. In such cases, the exclusive venue rule for immovables does not automatically govern. Instead, the general venue rule applies: the competent court is, as a rule, the court of the defendant’s domicile (Article 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

In addition, depending on the legal basis of the claim, Turkish law recognizes special venue options:

• For contractual disputes, the court of the place of performance may also be competent (Article 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
• For tort claims, venue may lie with the court where the tort was committed or where the damage occurred, among other connecting factors (Article 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

Therefore, in a rent arrears dispute between a foreign landlord and a tenant in Türkiye, the property’s location is relevant as a factual connection, but the venue analysis is primarily shaped by the defendant’s domicile and, where applicable, the place of performance.

3) Territorial jurisdiction is not enough: subject-matter jurisdiction must also be identified

After determining the correct venue, one must also identify the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction (which type of first-instance court is competent). Depending on the claim, jurisdiction may lie with the Civil Court of Peace, the Civil Court of First Instance, or the Commercial Court of First Instance. For example, many landlord-tenant disputes fall within the Civil Court of Peace in practice, while title disputes (such as cancellation and registration of title) are typically heard by the Civil Court of First Instance. If the dispute is commercial in nature, a Commercial Court of First Instance may be competent. In short, “the competent court” requires both (i) the correct venue, and (ii) the correct subject-matter court.

4) Practical illustrations

• Cancellation and registration of title for an apartment in Istanbul: the court at the location of the property has exclusive jurisdiction (CCP Art. 12).
• Rent arrears claimed by a foreign owner against a tenant: the general rule points to the defendant’s domicile, and special venue rules (e.g., place of performance) may also be considered (CCP Arts. 6 and 10).