The New York Convention and Enforcement Proceedings in Turkey

The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Turkey is a critical issue for international companies, investors, contractors, financial institutions and individuals conducting cross-border business with Turkish counterparties.

Obtaining a favourable arbitral award does not necessarily result in voluntary payment. Where the losing party has assets in Turkey and refuses to comply with the award, the successful party will ordinarily need to obtain a Turkish court decision recognising or enforcing the award before initiating compulsory execution proceedings.

The primary international legal instrument governing this process is the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, widely known as the New York Convention. The Convention establishes internationally accepted standards for recognising arbitration agreements and enforcing foreign or non-domestic arbitral awards.

Turkey acceded to the New York Convention on 2 July 1992. Turkey applies the Convention subject to the reciprocity and commercial reservations permitted under Article I(3). As a result, Turkey applies the Convention to awards made in another contracting state and to disputes arising from relationships considered commercial under Turkish law.

Where the New York Convention does not apply, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards may be governed by Articles 60 to 63 of Turkish Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure, commonly referred to as MÖHUK.

This article explains the relationship between the New York Convention and Turkish law, the competent courts, required documents, procedural stages, refusal grounds, public policy review, appeals and compulsory enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Turkey.

What Is the New York Convention?

The New York Convention is one of the principal legal foundations of international commercial arbitration. It was adopted in New York on 10 June 1958 and entered into force on 7 June 1959.

The Convention aims to establish common standards for:

• Recognising and enforcing foreign and non-domestic arbitral awards;
• Giving legal effect to written arbitration agreements;
• Preventing national courts from disregarding valid agreements to arbitrate;
• Limiting the grounds on which enforcement may be refused;
• Avoiding discrimination against foreign arbitral awards.

UNCITRAL describes the Convention as a central instrument of the international arbitration system. Its principal objective is to ensure that foreign arbitral awards are recognised as binding and are generally capable of enforcement in contracting states without being subjected to substantially more onerous requirements than domestic arbitral awards. As of August 2026, UNCITRAL lists 172 parties to the Convention.

The Convention does not create a single international enforcement court. Instead, it requires each contracting state to enforce qualifying awards through its own national procedural system, subject to the conditions and limited refusal grounds contained in the Convention.

Accordingly, an award creditor seeking assets in Turkey must apply to the competent Turkish court and follow Turkish procedural rules, while relying on the substantive protections provided by the New York Convention.

Turkey’s Reservations under the New York Convention

Article I(3) of the New York Convention allows contracting states to make two principal reservations:

1. A reciprocity reservation;
2. A commercial reservation.

Turkey has made both.

Reciprocity Reservation

Under the reciprocity reservation, Turkey applies the Convention only to awards made in the territory of another contracting state.

The relevant issue is normally the legal seat or place where the award was made, rather than the nationality of the arbitrators, parties or arbitration institution. For example, an award rendered in an arbitration legally seated in a New York Convention state may fall within the Convention even if the proceedings were administered by an institution based in another country.

Where an award is made in a state that is not party to the Convention, the award creditor may need to rely on MÖHUK, another applicable international treaty or a more favourable legal regime.

Commercial Reservation

Turkey also applies the Convention only to disputes arising out of legal relationships considered commercial under Turkish law, whether contractual or non-contractual.

The commercial reservation is usually satisfied in disputes arising from matters such as:

• International sale of goods;
• Distribution and agency agreements;
• Construction and infrastructure projects;
• Share purchase agreements;
• Shareholders’ agreements;
• Joint ventures;
• Banking and finance transactions;
• Energy contracts;
• Insurance and reinsurance;
• Transportation and logistics;
• Technology and licensing agreements;
• Maritime trade;
• Commercial services and supply contracts.

Whether a relationship is commercial must be determined under Turkish law. The description given to the contract by the parties is relevant but not necessarily decisive. The court may examine the substance of the underlying legal relationship.

Turkey’s official declaration confirms that the Convention is applied only on the basis of reciprocity and only to differences arising from legal relationships regarded as commercial under Turkish national law.

When Does the New York Convention Apply in Turkey?

Before commencing enforcement proceedings, the applicant should determine whether the award falls within the Convention.

The Convention will ordinarily apply where:

• The decision qualifies as an arbitral award;
• The award was made outside Turkey or is otherwise treated as non-domestic;
• The award was made in another contracting state;
• The underlying relationship is commercial under Turkish law;
• Recognition or enforcement is sought in Turkey;
• No more favourable legal regime has been validly invoked.

An award does not cease to be foreign merely because one party is Turkish, Turkish law governs the contract or the dispute concerns a project carried out in Turkey.

Conversely, the use of a foreign arbitration institution does not automatically make an award foreign. An arbitration administered by a foreign institution may still produce a Turkish award if Turkey was selected as the legal seat.

The nationality of an arbitral award must therefore be distinguished from:

• The nationality of the parties;
• The governing law of the contract;
• The nationality of the arbitrators;
• The institution administering the case;
• The physical location of the hearing.

The legal seat of arbitration is generally the most important factor in identifying the national legal system to which the award belongs.

The Relationship Between the New York Convention and MÖHUK

The New York Convention and MÖHUK should not be treated as competing regimes in every case.

Where the award falls within the material and territorial scope of the Convention, the Convention operates as the principal legal framework. Turkish procedural law remains relevant to issues not fully regulated by the Convention, such as the competent court, filing procedure, service of the application and appeal process.

Where the Convention does not apply, Articles 60 to 63 of MÖHUK regulate foreign arbitral awards.

Article 60 of MÖHUK provides that foreign arbitral awards that are final and enforceable, or binding on the parties, may be enforced in Turkey. Article 61 regulates the required documents and procedural framework. Article 62 lists the refusal grounds, while Article 63 provides that recognition of foreign arbitral awards is subject to the same provisions governing enforcement.

The refusal grounds under MÖHUK largely correspond to those contained in Article V of the New York Convention. However, the applicable legal basis should still be identified correctly in the petition.

The applicant should determine:

• Whether the state where the award was made is a Convention state;
• Whether the dispute is commercial under Turkish law;
• Whether another bilateral or multilateral treaty applies;
• Whether MÖHUK provides a relevant alternative;
• Whether a more favourable right may be invoked.

Article VII of the Convention preserves a party’s ability to rely on rights available under a more favourable domestic law or treaty. UNCITRAL’s 2006 recommendation confirms the importance of this “more favourable law” principle, particularly regarding the validity of arbitration agreements and enforcement rights.

Recognition and Enforcement: What Is the Difference?

Although recognition and enforcement are closely connected, they are not identical.

Recognition

Recognition gives the foreign arbitral award legal effect in Turkey.

A party may seek recognition where it wishes to rely on the award as:

• Conclusive evidence;
• A basis for res judicata;
• A defence against a new claim;
• Proof that a dispute has already been finally determined;
• A basis for another legal or administrative process.

Recognition does not, by itself, necessarily involve compulsory seizure or collection.

Enforcement

Enforcement, or tenfiz, allows the award creditor to use Turkish compulsory execution mechanisms.

After a final enforcement decision, the creditor may proceed against the debtor’s assets, which may include:

• Bank accounts;
• Receivables from third parties;
• Movable property;
• Shares;
• Vehicles;
• Commercial assets;
• Immovable property, subject to applicable enforcement rules.

MÖHUK Article 63 states that recognition of foreign arbitral awards is subject to the provisions applicable to enforcement. The party seeking recognition must therefore satisfy substantially the same legal conditions.

Which Turkish Court Is Competent?

MÖHUK Article 60 provides that enforcement may be requested from the court of first instance at the place agreed in writing by the parties.

Where no such written jurisdiction agreement exists, territorial jurisdiction belongs to the court at:

1. The respondent’s domicile in Turkey;
2. The respondent’s habitual residence, if there is no domicile;
3. The location of assets that may be subject to execution, if neither of the first two connections exists.

This hierarchy is expressly established by Article 60.

In commercial matters, proceedings concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are heard by the competent Commercial Court of First Instance, known as the Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi. The legislation governing the organisation of Turkish courts also provides that recognition and enforcement cases concerning foreign arbitral awards are heard by a panel composed of one presiding judge and two members.

Choosing the correct court is essential. Filing before a court lacking subject-matter or territorial jurisdiction may result in procedural delay and additional costs.

Before filing, the creditor should investigate:

• The debtor’s registered address;
• The debtor’s actual place of business;
• Turkish trade registry records;
• The location of bank accounts;
• Real estate ownership;
• Shareholdings and receivables;
• Any jurisdiction clause concerning enforcement proceedings.

Documents Required for Enforcement

Article IV of the New York Convention requires the applicant to supply:

• The duly authenticated original arbitral award or a duly certified copy;
• The original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy;
• A certified translation where the award or agreement is not in an official language of the enforcing state.

The Convention provides that the translation may be certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent.

MÖHUK Article 61 similarly requires:

• The original arbitration agreement or an appropriately certified copy;
• The original award, showing that it has become final, enforceable or binding, or an appropriately certified copy;
• Properly certified translations of these documents.

The applicant must submit copies corresponding to the number of respondents.

In practice, the enforcement file may include:

• The enforcement petition;
• The original or certified award;
• The arbitration agreement;
• The principal contract;
• Institutional confirmation of the binding nature of the award, where available;
• Documents concerning notification of the arbitration;
• Proof of the respondent’s participation;
• Certified Turkish translations;
• Apostille or consular authentication documents where legally required;
• Corporate authority documents;
• Power of attorney for Turkish counsel;
• Evidence establishing the competent Turkish court;
• Documents identifying assets in Turkey.

The exact certification requirements may depend on the country of origin, applicable treaties and the nature of the documents. A document that was sufficient during the arbitration may not necessarily satisfy the formal requirements of a Turkish enforcement court.

Commencement of Enforcement Proceedings

Enforcement is requested by filing a petition before the competent court.

The petition should clearly explain:

• The identities of the parties;
• The arbitration agreement;
• The seat and procedural history of the arbitration;
• The date and contents of the award;
• Why the New York Convention applies;
• Turkey’s reciprocity and commercial reservations;
• Why the dispute is commercial;
• Why the selected Turkish court is competent;
• Whether the award is binding;
• The relief for which enforcement is requested;
• Why none of the refusal grounds applies.

The application is served on the party against whom enforcement is requested together with the hearing date.

Under the procedural provisions incorporated by MÖHUK, the court examines enforcement proceedings according to the simplified procedure and ordinarily holds a hearing. The respondent may raise objections based on the refusal grounds established by the Convention or MÖHUK.

The enforcement court does not act as a new arbitral tribunal. It does not ordinarily reopen the commercial dispute, rehear all witnesses or recalculate damages simply because the respondent disagrees with the award.

This conclusion follows from the exhaustive and limited nature of the refusal grounds set out in Article V of the Convention and Article 62 of MÖHUK. Judicial review is directed at enforceability, jurisdiction, due process, arbitrability and public policy rather than a complete reconsideration of the merits.

Burden of Proof in Enforcement Proceedings

Article V of the New York Convention divides the refusal grounds into two groups.

The party resisting enforcement bears the burden of proving the grounds contained in Article V(1), including:

• Incapacity;
• Invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• Lack of proper notice;
• Inability to present the case;
• Excess of jurisdiction;
• Irregular tribunal composition or procedure;
• The award not being binding or having been set aside or suspended.

The enforcing court may examine the two grounds under Article V(2) on its own motion:

• Non-arbitrability;
• Public policy.

The same general distinction can be seen in MÖHUK Article 62. The law expressly places the burden of proving several procedural and jurisdictional objections on the party against whom enforcement is sought.

The respondent should therefore present concrete evidence. A general allegation that the arbitration was unfair or the award was incorrect is insufficient.

Grounds for Refusing Enforcement

The refusal grounds are limited. The court should not create additional grounds merely because the award is foreign or because the tribunal reached a result that would not necessarily have been reached by a Turkish court.

1. Incapacity of a Party or Invalidity of the Arbitration Agreement

Enforcement may be refused if a party to the arbitration agreement lacked legal capacity under the law applicable to that party.

It may also be refused if the arbitration agreement was invalid under:

• The law chosen by the parties to govern the arbitration agreement; or
• In the absence of such a choice, the law of the country where the award was made.

This objection may arise where:

• A signatory lacked authority;
• A corporation did not validly approve the arbitration clause;
• The written-form requirement was not satisfied;
• The clause was optional rather than binding;
• The arbitration agreement did not cover the relevant party;
• The clause was invalid under the applicable law.

The respondent must distinguish between the alleged invalidity of the principal contract and the invalidity of the arbitration agreement. Arbitration clauses are generally treated as legally separable from the main contract.

An allegation that the main contract was breached, terminated or obtained by misrepresentation does not automatically invalidate the separate agreement to arbitrate.

2. Lack of Notice or Inability to Present the Case

Enforcement may be refused if the respondent was not given proper notice of:

• The appointment of the arbitrator;
• The commencement of the arbitration;
• Material submissions;
• Hearings or procedural stages.

Refusal may also be available where the respondent was otherwise unable to present its case.

This ground protects fundamental due process rather than procedural perfection. The essential question is whether the respondent received a genuine and reasonable opportunity to participate.

Relevant issues may include:

• Whether notices were sent to the agreed address;
• Whether contractual notice provisions were followed;
• Whether the respondent received the request for arbitration;
• Whether sufficient time was allowed to respond;
• Whether decisive evidence was disclosed;
• Whether the respondent could appoint counsel;
• Whether the tribunal considered the respondent’s defence;
• Whether the respondent deliberately refused to participate.

A party cannot ordinarily defeat enforcement simply by ignoring properly served proceedings. Default awards are not inherently unenforceable where the respondent received proper notice and had a fair opportunity to participate.

3. The Award Exceeds the Scope of the Arbitration Agreement

Enforcement may be refused where the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by the arbitration agreement or contains decisions beyond the scope of the parties’ submission.

Examples may include:

• Deciding claims arising from a separate contract not covered by the clause;
• Granting relief against a person that was not a party to arbitration;
• Resolving a dispute expressly excluded from the clause;
• Awarding relief beyond the submitted claims;
• Determining rights belonging exclusively to third parties.

Where the decisions falling outside the arbitration agreement can be separated from those properly submitted to arbitration, the Convention permits recognition and enforcement of the valid part.

The respondent must identify precisely which part of the operative award exceeds the tribunal’s authority. A disagreement with the tribunal’s contractual interpretation should not automatically be converted into a jurisdictional objection.

4. Irregular Tribunal Composition or Procedure

Enforcement may be refused where the composition of the tribunal or the arbitration procedure did not comply with:

• The parties’ agreement; or
• In the absence of an agreement, the law of the country where the arbitration took place.

Potential objections include:

• Failure to follow the agreed appointment process;
• Appointment of an incorrect number of arbitrators;
• Denial of a party’s appointment right;
• Appointment by an unauthorised institution;
• Failure to apply mandatory agreed rules;
• Serious departure from the applicable procedural law.

Not every procedural irregularity should justify refusal. The alleged violation should be material and should relate to a binding procedural requirement.

A party that knew of an irregularity but proceeded without timely objection may also face waiver arguments.

5. The Award Is Not Binding or Has Been Set Aside or Suspended

Enforcement may be refused where the award:

• Has not yet become binding on the parties;
• Has been set aside by a competent authority;
• Has been suspended by a competent authority at the seat or under the law governing the award.

The Convention uses the concept of a binding award rather than imposing a universal requirement that every award obtain a separate finality certificate.

Nevertheless, the applicant should provide available evidence establishing that the award is binding. This may include:

• The text of the award;
• Applicable institutional rules;
• A statement from the arbitral institution;
• A court certificate;
• Evidence concerning expiry of challenge periods;
• A judgment rejecting an annulment application.

The mere filing of an annulment case abroad does not always require the Turkish court to reject enforcement immediately.

Under Article VI of the New York Convention, where an application to set aside or suspend the award has been made before the competent authority, the enforcement court may adjourn its decision. At the request of the applicant, it may also order the opposing party to provide appropriate security.

Whether adjournment is appropriate should be assessed in light of:

• The seriousness of the annulment application;
• The stage of the foreign proceedings;
• The risk of asset dissipation;
• The expected duration of the foreign case;
• The prejudice to each party;
• The availability of security.

6. Non-Arbitrability under Turkish Law

The Turkish court may refuse enforcement if the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Turkish law.

This ground is examined by the court on its own motion.

A dispute may be non-arbitrable where it concerns rights that the parties cannot freely dispose of or matters reserved to state courts or public authorities.

Potential examples include:

• Certain family law and personal status matters;
• Criminal liability;
• Some insolvency-related matters;
• Certain public law disputes;
• Rights in rem over immovable property located in Turkey;
• Matters subject to exclusive administrative determination.

The fact that mandatory Turkish legislation applies does not, by itself, make a commercial dispute non-arbitrable. The decisive issue is whether the substantive right may legally be resolved by private adjudication.

MÖHUK Article 62 expressly requires refusal where the dispute cannot be resolved by arbitration under Turkish law.

7. Conflict with Turkish Public Policy

Public policy is one of the most frequently raised objections in Turkish enforcement proceedings.

Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention allows refusal where recognition or enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of the enforcing country. MÖHUK Article 62 similarly refers to awards contrary to public policy or general morals.

Public policy should not be treated as a general appeal mechanism.

The question is not simply whether:

• The tribunal interpreted Turkish law incorrectly;
• A Turkish judge might have reached a different result;
• The damages are high;
• The respondent disagrees with the evidence;
• The award contains an unfavourable contractual interpretation.

The relevant question is whether giving the award legal effect in Turkey would produce a result fundamentally incompatible with the essential legal, constitutional, moral or procedural values of the Turkish legal order.

Public policy concerns may potentially arise from:

• Fraud or corruption affecting the award;
• Serious denial of the right to be heard;
• Enforcement of an illegal obligation;
• Manifest violation of fundamental rights;
• Enforcement of punitive relief fundamentally incompatible with Turkish legal principles;
• Outcomes threatening core economic or legal policies;
• Decisions conflicting with fundamental principles of justice or morality.

The public policy analysis must focus on the consequences of recognition and enforcement in Turkey. It should not become an unrestricted reconsideration of the tribunal’s factual and legal findings.

Partial Enforcement

A foreign arbitral award may contain several independent decisions.

For example, an award may separately determine:

• Principal debt;
• Interest;
• Contractual penalties;
• Costs;
• Specific performance;
• Claims involving different contracts.

Where only one separable part exceeds the tribunal’s authority or conflicts with an enforcement requirement, the remaining portion may still be capable of recognition and enforcement.

Article V(1)(c) of the Convention permits enforcement of the part properly falling within the arbitration agreement where it can be separated from the excess portion. MÖHUK Article 62 contains a comparable approach.

The applicant should therefore consider requesting partial enforcement as an alternative where a specific element may be disputed.

Can the Turkish Court Review the Merits?

An enforcement court is not an appellate court over the arbitral tribunal.

It should not ordinarily reconsider:

• Witness credibility;
• Expert methodologies;
• Contract interpretation;
• Calculation of damages;
• Evaluation of documentary evidence;
• The tribunal’s choice between competing legal arguments.

The limited grounds listed in the Convention and MÖHUK indicate that enforcement review is not intended to correct ordinary factual or legal errors. This is a legal inference from the structure of Article V and Article 62, which confine refusal to specified jurisdictional, procedural and public policy defects.

However, the court may need to examine parts of the award and procedural record to determine whether a recognised refusal ground exists. Such examination does not itself amount to a prohibited merits review.

Decision of the Turkish Court

The court may:

• Grant enforcement in full;
• Grant enforcement in part;
• Reject the application;
• Adjourn the proceedings in appropriate circumstances.

A judgment granting enforcement allows the award to be executed in Turkey in the same manner as a judgment issued by a Turkish court.

MÖHUK provides that judgments whose enforcement has been granted are executed like Turkish judgments. The same procedural provisions apply to foreign arbitral awards through Article 61.

The enforcement judgment does not replace the arbitral award on the merits. It authorises the award to produce coercive legal effects within Turkey.

Appeal and Suspension of Execution

A decision granting or refusing enforcement is subject to the ordinary appellate framework.

The applicable MÖHUK provisions state that an appeal against the enforcement decision suspends execution. These rules apply correspondingly to foreign arbitral awards under Article 61.

Accordingly, an award creditor should consider the possibility that even a successful first-instance judgment may not immediately result in final collection.

The appellate process may involve:

• Review by the competent Regional Court of Appeal;
• Further review by the Court of Cassation where permitted;
• Finalisation of the enforcement judgment;
• Subsequent execution proceedings.

The precise route depends on the applicable procedural rules, value of the dispute and nature of the decision.

Compulsory Execution after Enforcement

Once the enforcement decision becomes final and enforceable, the creditor may commence execution proceedings through a Turkish enforcement office.

The creditor may seek attachment of assets belonging to the debtor. Effective collection will depend on whether assets can be identified and legally seized.

Before or during enforcement litigation, the creditor should investigate:

• Bank relationships;
• Trade registry records;
• Land registry records;
• Vehicles;
• Shares in Turkish companies;
• Receivables from customers;
• Intellectual property rights;
• Movable business assets;
• Transactions indicating asset dissipation.

A successful enforcement judgment has limited commercial value where the debtor has no assets or has transferred them before execution begins.

Asset strategy should therefore be considered at the beginning of the case rather than after the enforcement judgment becomes final.

Interim Measures and Security

An award creditor may consider requesting interim attachment or another protective measure where there is a genuine risk that the debtor will dispose of assets.

Such protection is not granted automatically merely because a foreign award exists. The applicant must satisfy the separate statutory requirements applicable to the requested measure.

Relevant considerations may include:

• The nature and maturity of the claim;
• The contents of the award;
• The risk of asset concealment;
• The debtor’s conduct;
• The location and type of assets;
• Whether security must be provided;
• Whether the competent court has jurisdiction.

The legislation governing commercial courts provides that interim attachment and interim injunction requests associated with recognition and enforcement cases heard by a judicial panel are also examined and decided by that panel.

Urgent asset-protection strategy should be coordinated carefully with the enforcement petition and any proceedings pending at the seat of arbitration.

Common Mistakes in Turkish Enforcement Proceedings

Several recurring mistakes may delay or defeat an otherwise enforceable award.

Applying under the Wrong Legal Regime

The applicant should determine whether the Convention, MÖHUK or another treaty applies.

Filing before the Wrong Court

Both subject-matter jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction must be analysed.

Defective Certification

The award, arbitration agreement and translations must satisfy the applicable certification requirements.

Failure to Prove the Award Is Binding

The applicant should provide institutional rules, finality documents or other available evidence.

Incomplete Translation

A partial or inaccurate translation may prevent the court from understanding the operative award, reasoning or arbitration clause.

Ignoring Turkey’s Reservations

The petition should address the contracting-state and commercial-relationship requirements.

Failing to Address Due Process

The creditor should preserve notices, delivery records, procedural orders and evidence of participation.

Treating Enforcement as an Ordinary Debt Action

The case is governed by a specialised treaty and statutory framework.

Waiting Too Long to Investigate Assets

Enforcement proceedings should be accompanied by an early asset strategy.

Requesting More Than the Award Grants

The enforcement request should correspond precisely to the operative provisions of the award.

Practical Enforcement Checklist

Before filing in Turkey, the award creditor should confirm:

• The legal seat of arbitration;
• Whether the seat is in a New York Convention state;
• Whether the dispute is commercial under Turkish law;
• Whether the award is binding;
• Whether an annulment action is pending;
• Whether the debtor received proper notice;
• Whether the tribunal remained within its authority;
• Whether the tribunal was properly constituted;
• Whether the dispute is arbitrable in Turkey;
• Whether enforcement may raise public policy concerns;
• The competent Commercial Court of First Instance;
• The debtor’s domicile, residence or assets;
• Availability of the original award;
• Availability of the arbitration agreement;
• Certification and apostille requirements;
• Availability of complete Turkish translations;
• Potential interim measures;
• Assets available for execution;
• Likely appellate proceedings.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can every foreign arbitral award be enforced in Turkey?

No. The award must fall within the New York Convention, MÖHUK or another applicable treaty and must not be subject to a valid refusal ground.

Is a separate enforcement judgment required?

A foreign arbitral award ordinarily requires a Turkish court decision before compulsory execution can begin in Turkey.

Does the New York Convention apply to awards from every country?

Turkey applies the Convention under a reciprocity reservation. The Convention therefore applies to awards made in another contracting state. Awards from non-contracting states may need to be enforced under MÖHUK or another applicable treaty.

Must the dispute be commercial?

For application of the Convention in Turkey, yes. Turkey has made the commercial reservation and applies the Convention only to legal relationships considered commercial under Turkish law.

Which court hears the case?

Commercial recognition and enforcement cases concerning foreign arbitral awards are generally heard by the territorially competent Commercial Court of First Instance.

Which documents are required?

The applicant ordinarily needs the original or certified award, the original or certified arbitration agreement and certified Turkish translations. Additional documents may be necessary to establish that the award is binding and that the procedural requirements were satisfied.

Can the Turkish court reconsider the merits?

The court should not conduct a full merits appeal. Its review is limited to the refusal grounds under the Convention or MÖHUK.

Can enforcement be refused because Turkish law was applied incorrectly?

An ordinary legal error is generally insufficient. The objection must fall within a recognised ground, such as invalidity of the arbitration agreement, excess of jurisdiction, denial of due process, non-arbitrability or public policy.

What happens if an annulment case is pending at the seat?

The Turkish court may adjourn the enforcement decision and may require security under Article VI of the Convention. Adjournment is not necessarily automatic.

Can only part of an award be enforced?

Yes. A separable valid portion may be enforced even if another part falls outside the tribunal’s authority or is otherwise unenforceable.

Does an appeal suspend execution?

The statutory provisions applicable to enforcement decisions provide that an appeal suspends execution.

What happens after the enforcement judgment becomes final?

The creditor may initiate compulsory execution and seek attachment of the debtor’s assets in Turkey.

Conclusion

The New York Convention provides a strong legal foundation for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Turkey.

Turkey’s accession to the Convention makes it possible for award creditors to seek enforcement of qualifying commercial awards rendered in other contracting states. The Convention limits the grounds for refusal and prevents the Turkish enforcement court from operating as a general appellate tribunal over the arbitrators.

Nevertheless, enforcement is not automatic.

The applicant must identify the correct legal regime, file before the competent court, submit duly certified documents and translations, establish that the award is binding and respond effectively to any jurisdictional, procedural or public policy objections.

MÖHUK Articles 60 to 63 remain essential. They determine the Turkish procedural framework and govern awards outside the Convention’s scope. The Turkish rules also regulate territorial jurisdiction, required documents, refusal grounds, recognition and the execution of an enforcement judgment.

A successful enforcement strategy should not focus solely on obtaining a court judgment. The creditor should investigate the debtor’s assets, consider interim protection, preserve evidence of notice and procedural fairness and prepare for possible appellate proceedings.

For businesses entering international contracts with Turkish counterparties, enforcement planning should begin when the arbitration clause is drafted. The seat, governing rules, notice provisions, tribunal structure and location of assets may ultimately determine whether a favourable award can be converted into actual recovery.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Recognition and enforcement depend on the wording of the arbitration agreement, seat of arbitration, applicable treaty, procedural history, nature of the dispute, status of the award and location of assets. Case-specific advice should be obtained before commencing proceedings in Turkey.