International arbitration is based on party autonomy and the parties’ decision to have their dispute determined by private adjudicators rather than state courts. Nevertheless, arbitration does not operate entirely outside the national judicial system.

Courts perform essential supportive, protective and supervisory functions throughout the arbitration process. They may give effect to the arbitration agreement, prevent parallel litigation, appoint or remove arbitrators, order interim protection, assist with evidence, extend the arbitration period, review an award through setting-aside proceedings and recognise or enforce foreign arbitral awards.

The central principle under Turkish law is that courts should support arbitration without taking control of the merits of the dispute.

Turkish courts are not appellate bodies authorised to replace the tribunal’s interpretation of the contract, reassess every witness or recalculate damages merely because one party disagrees with the result. Judicial intervention is permitted only within the limits established by the applicable legislation.

The principal law governing foreign-element arbitrations seated in Türkiye is International Arbitration Law No. 4686. The legislation was adopted on 21 June 2001 and published in the Official Gazette on 5 July 2001. It governs matters including arbitration agreements, court intervention, interim measures, tribunal constitution, evidence, the arbitration period, awards and setting-aside proceedings.

The role of Turkish courts may also arise under the domestic arbitration provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure, and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

This article examines the role of Turkish courts before, during and after international arbitration proceedings.

The Principle of Limited Judicial Intervention

The existence of court involvement does not contradict the private nature of arbitration. Effective arbitration requires a legal system capable of supporting the parties’ agreement and enforcing the tribunal’s decisions.

However, excessive intervention would undermine the reasons for choosing arbitration. If courts routinely reconsidered jurisdiction, evidence and the merits, arbitration would become an additional stage of ordinary litigation rather than an alternative dispute-resolution mechanism.

Turkish arbitration law therefore follows a model of limited judicial intervention. Courts may act only where the law assigns them a particular function.

Their responsibilities can broadly be divided into three categories:

1. Supportive functions, including the appointment of arbitrators, collection of evidence and extension of time;
2. Protective functions, including interim injunctions and interim attachment;
3. Supervisory functions, including setting aside Turkish-seated awards and deciding whether foreign awards should be recognised or enforced.

The precise function depends on the legal seat of arbitration, the nature of the dispute and the remedy requested.

Which Turkish Court Has Jurisdiction?

Identifying the correct court is the first practical issue in an arbitration-related application.

Following amendments introduced by Law No. 7101, the judicial duties assigned by International Arbitration Law No. 4686 are exercised by the Civil Court of First Instance or Commercial Court of First Instance according to the subject matter of the underlying dispute.

Accordingly, a court application arising from an international commercial contract will ordinarily fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of a Commercial Court of First Instance. A non-commercial dispute may fall within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court of First Instance.

Territorial jurisdiction under the International Arbitration Law is generally connected with the respondent’s domicile, habitual residence or place of business in Türkiye. Where the respondent has no such connection in Türkiye, the statutory Istanbul jurisdiction rule may become relevant.

The rules are different for setting-aside proceedings. An application to set aside an international arbitral award is filed directly before the Regional Court of Appeal territorially connected with the competent first-instance court. The Regional Court of Appeal must examine the action with priority and urgency.

For domestic arbitration under the Code of Civil Procedure, the court ordinarily competent to perform arbitration-related functions is the Civil or Commercial Court of First Instance at the seat of arbitration, depending on the subject matter. Where no seat has been selected, territorial jurisdiction is linked to the respondent’s domicile, residence or place of business in Türkiye.

The applicant should therefore identify:

• Whether the arbitration is international or domestic;
• The legal seat of arbitration;
• The commercial or civil nature of the dispute;
• The respondent’s Turkish address or place of business;
• Whether the requested function belongs to a first-instance court or Regional Court of Appeal.

Filing before the wrong court may cause serious delay, particularly where urgent interim protection is required.

The Court’s Role When Litigation Is Filed Despite an Arbitration Agreement

A valid arbitration agreement prevents one party from requiring the state court to determine the merits of a dispute covered by that agreement.

Nevertheless, a Turkish court will not always decline jurisdiction automatically. The party relying on the arbitration agreement must raise a timely arbitration objection when proceedings are commenced before the court.

Article 5 of the International Arbitration Law provides that where litigation is filed concerning a dispute covered by an arbitration agreement, the opposing party may raise an arbitration objection. If the court accepts the objection, it dismisses the court action on procedural grounds rather than determining the substantive dispute.

At this stage, the court may need to examine whether:

• An arbitration agreement exists;
• The agreement satisfies the written-form requirement;
• The parties to the court proceedings are bound by it;
• The dispute falls within its substantive scope;
• The agreement is valid and capable of performance;
• The subject matter is legally arbitrable.

The court should not conduct a complete examination of the underlying contractual dispute. Its task is to decide whether the parties must be held to their agreement to arbitrate.

The tribunal may also decide its own jurisdiction under the competence-competence principle. The arbitration clause is treated as legally separable from the principal contract. An allegation that the main contract is invalid does not automatically eliminate the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Court Support for Foreign-Seated Arbitration

The role of Turkish courts is not limited to arbitrations seated in Türkiye.

International Arbitration Law No. 4686 expressly provides that its provisions concerning the court arbitration objection and interim protection apply even where the legal seat of arbitration is outside Türkiye.

This is commercially important where:

• Foreign arbitration has been commenced but parallel litigation is filed in Türkiye;
• The respondent or relevant assets are located in Türkiye;
• A Turkish bank account must be frozen;
• Goods or evidence are located in Türkiye;
• A party seeks urgent protection before the foreign tribunal is constituted.

Turkish courts do not thereby acquire general supervisory jurisdiction over a foreign-seated arbitration. The courts at the foreign seat ordinarily retain primary jurisdiction over matters such as setting aside the award.

The Turkish court’s function is limited to the specific assistance authorised by Turkish law.

Interim Injunctions and Interim Attachment

Interim protection is one of the most significant areas of judicial assistance.

A final award may become commercially ineffective if the respondent transfers assets, destroys evidence, discloses confidential information or completes an irreversible transaction while arbitration is pending.

Article 6 of the International Arbitration Law permits a party to apply to a Turkish court for an interim injunction or interim attachment before or during arbitration. Making such an application does not breach or waive the arbitration agreement.

The tribunal may also grant interim measures unless the parties have agreed otherwise and may require the applicant to provide appropriate security.

However, an arbitral tribunal does not possess the coercive powers of the state. Under Turkish law, a tribunal cannot directly issue a measure that:

• Requires implementation by compulsory enforcement authorities;
• Requires another public authority to act;
• Directly binds a third party.

For example, a tribunal may order a party not to transfer its shares. It cannot necessarily compel the commercial registry to record a restriction.

A tribunal may order a contracting party not to withdraw funds. It cannot directly bind the third-party bank holding the account.

A Turkish court will generally be the more effective forum where the requested protection requires:

• Freezing a bank account;
• Registering a restriction over property;
• Seizing or preserving goods;
• Binding a third-party custodian;
• Using an enforcement office;
• Requiring action by a public registry.

The appropriate application must also satisfy the conditions of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. The existence of an arbitration agreement does not mean that provisional protection will be granted automatically.

The applicant should demonstrate a prima facie right, urgency, risk of serious harm and proportionality. The court may require security against losses that an unjustified measure may cause.

Enforcement of Tribunal-Ordered Interim Measures

Where a tribunal grants an interim measure and the affected party complies voluntarily, no judicial involvement may be necessary.

Difficulties arise where the party refuses to comply or where the measure requires a coercive or third-party effect that the tribunal cannot create.

In those circumstances, the applicant may request assistance from the competent Turkish court. The court assesses whether the conditions for judicial interim protection are satisfied and may issue its own enforceable order.

The court is not merely an automatic enforcement office for every procedural direction given by the tribunal. It applies the requirements of Turkish procedural law and retains responsibility for the coercive order it issues.

A party seeking judicial assistance should ordinarily submit:

• The arbitration agreement;
• The tribunal’s interim decision;
• Evidence of notification;
• Evidence of non-compliance;
• Documents supporting the underlying right;
• An explanation of the urgency;
• The exact form of judicial assistance requested.

Court and tribunal applications should be coordinated carefully to avoid inconsistent measures or duplicated protection.

Court Appointment of Arbitrators

The parties normally determine how the tribunal will be constituted.

They may select a sole arbitrator, agree on a three-member tribunal, appoint an arbitral institution or designate another appointing authority.

However, a party may refuse to cooperate, the party-appointed arbitrators may fail to select the presiding arbitrator or an agreed appointing authority may fail to act.

Turkish courts can prevent the arbitration agreement from becoming ineffective because of such obstruction.

Under the statutory appointment mechanism, the court may appoint an arbitrator where:

• The parties cannot agree on a sole arbitrator;
• One party fails to nominate its arbitrator within the applicable period;
• The party-appointed arbitrators fail to select the chair;
• An agreed third person, institution or authority does not complete the appointment;
• The contractual appointment procedure otherwise fails.

The International Arbitration Law contains a detailed default mechanism and permits a party to request judicial completion of the tribunal where the agreed process does not function.

When making the appointment, the court should respect:

• The parties’ agreed qualifications;
• The agreed appointment procedure;
• Arbitrator independence;
• Arbitrator impartiality;
• Nationality-neutrality considerations in international disputes;
• The need for an effective and workable tribunal.

Judicial appointment is not an opportunity to rewrite the arbitration agreement. The court’s task is to give effect to the parties’ agreement while resolving the procedural failure.

The court’s appointment decision is intended to permit the arbitration to proceed without extended satellite litigation.

Challenges and Removal of Arbitrators

The court may also play a role where an arbitrator’s independence, impartiality or ability to perform the mandate is disputed.

A challenge may be based on:

• Failure to possess agreed qualifications;
• A contractual challenge ground;
• Circumstances creating justified doubts about independence or impartiality.

The parties may agree on an institutional or contractual challenge procedure. In an ordinary case, the challenge may first be submitted to the tribunal or arbitral institution.

Where that challenge is rejected, the challenging party may seek judicial review within the statutory period.

A direct court application may be required where the challenge concerns:

• The sole arbitrator;
• The entire tribunal;
• A sufficient number of arbitrators to eliminate the tribunal’s decision-making majority.

The court may additionally terminate an arbitrator’s mandate where the arbitrator becomes legally or factually unable to act or fails to perform the function without proper delay.

Judicial review should remain focused on the specific challenge or incapacity issue. A party cannot ordinarily remove an arbitrator merely because it disagrees with procedural rulings or considers the arbitrator’s questions unfavourable.

Judicial Assistance with Evidence

Arbitral tribunals can direct parties to present documents, hear witnesses, appoint experts and organise inspections.

However, they cannot always compel third parties or use the coercive mechanisms available to state courts.

The International Arbitration Law therefore permits judicial assistance with evidence. The tribunal may request assistance from the competent court where evidence cannot be obtained effectively through the tribunal’s own procedural authority.

The court can apply the evidentiary and procedural mechanisms available under Turkish law. Depending on the nature of the request, judicial assistance may concern:

• The production of documents;
• Hearing a witness;
• Inspection of property;
• Preservation of evidence;
• Obtaining records from a third party;
• Other evidentiary acts requiring state authority.

The court’s function is supportive. It gathers or preserves the evidence but does not determine the commercial merits of the arbitration.

The tribunal remains responsible for deciding:

• Whether the evidence is relevant;
• What weight it should receive;
• Whether it proves the alleged fact;
• How it affects the final decision.

A tribunal should frame its request precisely. A general request asking the court to investigate the entire dispute would be inconsistent with the division of functions between the tribunal and the court.

Court Extension of the Arbitration Period

Turkish arbitration law contains a statutory time framework for rendering an award.

Unless the parties agree otherwise, an international tribunal must ordinarily issue its decision on the merits within one year from the appointment of the sole arbitrator or, in a multi-member tribunal, from the record of the tribunal’s first meeting.

The parties may extend the period by agreement. Where they cannot agree, either party may request an extension from the competent court.

The court’s decision on the extension is final under the statutory framework.

This function may be important in disputes involving:

• Extensive document production;
• Multiple technical experts;
• A lengthy evidentiary hearing;
• Replacement of an arbitrator;
• Parallel settlement discussions;
• Procedural delays outside the tribunal’s control.

The request should be filed before the existing arbitration period expires.

An award rendered after expiry of the applicable period may face a setting-aside challenge. Parties should therefore monitor the statutory and contractual timetable from the beginning of the proceedings.

In complex transactions, the arbitration clause or selected institutional rules should provide a practical method for extending the period.

Courts and the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

The tribunal is generally authorised to decide objections to its own jurisdiction.

Such objections may concern:

• Existence of the arbitration agreement;
• Validity of the arbitration agreement;
• Scope of the clause;
• Whether the claimant or respondent is bound;
• Whether a pre-arbitration procedure was completed;
• Whether the dispute is arbitrable.

The Turkish court may nevertheless encounter jurisdictional questions at several stages:

• When deciding an arbitration objection in court litigation;
• When appointing an arbitrator;
• When reviewing a challenge against the tribunal;
• In setting-aside proceedings;
• During recognition or enforcement.

The court should distinguish between preliminary review and final supervisory review.

A court dealing with an appointment request should not ordinarily conduct a detailed merits-style jurisdictional trial. A court dealing with a setting-aside action may conduct the level of review necessary to determine whether the tribunal unlawfully assumed or rejected jurisdiction.

The competence-competence principle does not remove all judicial review. It determines the sequence and allocation of decision-making authority between the tribunal and courts.

The Court’s Role after the Award

Once the tribunal issues its final award, the role of Turkish courts changes from supportive to supervisory and enforcement-related.

For a Turkish-seated international award, the principal judicial remedy is an action to set aside the award.

For a foreign award, the principal judicial process in Türkiye is recognition or enforcement.

The two procedures must not be confused.

A setting-aside court exercises supervisory authority over an award legally belonging to the Turkish arbitral system.

An enforcement court decides whether an award originating from another jurisdiction may produce legal and coercive effects in Türkiye.

Setting Aside Turkish-Seated International Awards

Article 15 of the International Arbitration Law provides that an international arbitral award may be challenged only through a setting-aside action.

Following the 2018 amendments, the action is filed directly before the competent Regional Court of Appeal and must be examined with priority and urgency. Decisions may be challenged before the Court of Cassation under the applicable provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The setting-aside action is not a general appeal.

The court should not reopen the merits merely because one party alleges that:

• The tribunal interpreted the contract incorrectly;
• A witness was not credible;
• The tribunal preferred one expert;
• Damages were calculated incorrectly;
• The governing law was misunderstood;
• A different commercial conclusion was possible.

The statutory grounds are limited. They include matters such as:

• Incapacity of a party;
• Invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• Improper constitution of the tribunal;
• Failure to issue the award within the applicable arbitration period;
• An unlawful jurisdictional ruling;
• Decisions exceeding the scope of the arbitration agreement;
• Material procedural violations;
• Violation of equality between the parties;
• Non-arbitrability;
• Conflict with Turkish public policy.

The applicant must generally file the action within 30 days from notification of the award or the relevant correction, interpretation or additional-award decision.

Filing a setting-aside action suspends enforcement of the Turkish international arbitral award under the statutory regime.

Remission to the Arbitral Tribunal

The objective of judicial review is not necessarily to destroy the entire arbitration where a curable defect exists.

During setting-aside proceedings, the Regional Court of Appeal may suspend the judicial case temporarily and permit the tribunal to resume the arbitration for the purpose of eliminating the alleged ground for annulment.

This mechanism may be useful where the defect concerns:

• Failure to decide a submitted claim;
• An ambiguity in the operative section;
• A procedural omission capable of correction;
• Another issue that can be remedied without repeating the entire arbitration.

The court does not rewrite the award itself. It gives the tribunal an opportunity to address the defect within the arbitral process.

This reflects the principle that annulment should remain an exceptional remedy rather than a routine second hearing.

Issuance of an Enforceability Certificate

Turkish courts may also issue a document confirming that a Turkish international arbitral award is enforceable.

After the period for filing a setting-aside action has expired, the right to challenge has been validly waived or the challenge has been rejected finally, the competent first-instance court may provide the applicant with an enforceability certificate.

The issuance of this certificate is not subject to a court fee.

When dealing with the request, the court may examine matters that cannot be eliminated by party agreement, particularly:

• Whether the dispute is arbitrable under Turkish law;
• Whether enforcement would violate Turkish public policy.

The enforceability certificate should not become a hidden appeal on the merits.

Its function is to confirm the award’s enforceable status within the Turkish legal system.

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

Where an award was legally made outside Türkiye, Turkish courts do not ordinarily possess authority to set it aside.

Their role is to determine whether the foreign award should be recognised or enforced in Türkiye.

The New York Convention provides the principal international framework for qualifying awards. UNCITRAL explains that the Convention requires contracting states to give effect to arbitration agreements and generally recognise and enforce foreign and non-domestic awards without discriminating against them.

Türkiye acceded to the Convention on 2 July 1992, and it entered into force for Türkiye on 30 September 1992.

Where the Convention does not apply, Articles 60 to 63 of Law No. 5718 may govern.

Article 60 provides that a foreign arbitral award may be enforced where it has become final and enforceable or is binding on the parties. Territorial jurisdiction is connected with the place agreed by the parties or, in the absence of agreement, the debtor’s Turkish domicile, residence or executable assets.

The applicant must ordinarily submit:

• The arbitration agreement or a certified copy;
• The arbitral award or a certified copy;
• Evidence that the award is binding, where required;
• Properly certified Turkish translations;
• The procedural documents required for the court application.

Article 62 contains limited refusal grounds, including absence or invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of notice, inability to present a defence, irregular tribunal constitution, excess of jurisdiction, non-arbitrability, public policy and the award having been set aside or not yet becoming binding.

Recognition of a foreign award is subject to the same framework as enforcement under Article 63.

No Review of the Merits during Enforcement

A Turkish court deciding whether to recognise or enforce a foreign award is not permitted to retry the commercial dispute.

The court should not reconsider:

• Contract interpretation;
• Witness credibility;
• The tribunal’s preferred expert evidence;
• Ordinary errors of fact;
• Ordinary errors of foreign or Turkish law;
• The commercial reasonableness of the result.

The review is limited to the grounds established by the applicable convention or statute.

The public-policy ground should not be used as a general appeal mechanism. Enforcement should be refused only where giving effect to the award would create a result fundamentally incompatible with essential Turkish legal principles.

The distinction between a permissible enforcement review and a prohibited merits review is central to an arbitration-friendly judicial approach.

Appeals in Recognition and Enforcement Proceedings

A decision granting or refusing recognition or enforcement may be subject to the Turkish appellate system.

Depending on the nature of the proceeding, the decision may be reviewed by:

• The Regional Court of Appeal;
• The Court of Cassation, where further review is permitted.

The award does not become executable merely because the first-instance court grants enforcement if an available appeal suspends or prevents final execution under the applicable procedural rules.

Parties should therefore consider the full judicial timetable rather than focusing only on the first hearing.

Turkish Courts and the New York Convention’s Pro-Enforcement Policy

The New York Convention serves two connected objectives.

First, courts should give effect to valid arbitration agreements and prevent parties from avoiding their promise to arbitrate.

Second, courts should recognise and enforce qualifying foreign awards subject only to limited objections.

UNCITRAL describes the Convention as a cornerstone of international arbitration and emphasises its role in ensuring that foreign awards are generally capable of enforcement in the same manner as domestic awards.

Turkish courts therefore perform two complementary functions under the Convention:

• Referring parties away from ordinary litigation where a valid arbitration agreement applies;
• Permitting foreign awards to produce legal and coercive effects in Türkiye where no recognised refusal ground exists.

Common Strategic Mistakes

Common mistakes in Turkish court proceedings connected with arbitration include:

• Raising the arbitration objection too late;
• Failing to prove the written arbitration agreement;
• Confusing the institution with the legal seat;
• Filing before the wrong Civil or Commercial Court of First Instance;
• Filing an annulment action before a first-instance court instead of the Regional Court of Appeal;
• Missing the 30-day setting-aside period;
• Requesting an injunction that effectively decides the merits;
• Asking a tribunal to bind a third-party bank or registry;
• Failing to commence arbitration after obtaining pre-arbitration protection;
• Requesting evidence assistance without a precise tribunal decision;
• Allowing the arbitration period to expire;
• Attempting to appeal the award on the merits through public policy;
• Filing for enforcement without certified translations;
• Failing to investigate the debtor’s Turkish assets.

A coordinated arbitration and court strategy should be prepared at the beginning of the dispute.

Drafting Arbitration Clauses with Court Support in Mind

The arbitration clause should preserve the functions that courts may need to perform.

A clause may provide:

“Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be finally resolved by arbitration. The seat of arbitration shall be Istanbul, Türkiye. Nothing in this clause shall prevent a party from applying to an emergency arbitrator or a competent court for interim, conservatory or protective relief, and any such application shall not constitute a waiver of the arbitration agreement.”

The parties should also specify:

• The arbitration institution;
• The seat;
• The language;
• The number of arbitrators;
• The appointment mechanism;
• The governing law;
• The law governing the arbitration agreement;
• The procedure for extending the arbitration period;
• Whether emergency arbitration applies;
• How related contracts and parties will be handled.

A clear clause reduces the likelihood that Turkish courts will need to resolve avoidable jurisdictional uncertainty.

Practical Checklist for Court Applications

Before applying to a Turkish court in connection with international arbitration, counsel should determine:

• Whether the arbitration is international or domestic;
• Whether Türkiye is the legal seat;
• Whether Articles 5 and 6 apply to a foreign-seated arbitration;
• Whether the dispute is commercial or civil;
• Which first-instance court has subject-matter jurisdiction;
• Which court has territorial jurisdiction;
• Whether the requested relief is supportive or supervisory;
• Whether the tribunal has been constituted;
• Whether the tribunal has already ruled on the issue;
• Whether third parties or public authorities must be bound;
• Whether the application requires urgency or security;
• Whether a statutory time limit applies;
• Whether the arbitration period is approaching expiry;
• Whether an award is Turkish or foreign;
• Whether the correct remedy is setting aside, recognition or enforcement;
• Whether translations and certifications are complete.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do Turkish courts control international arbitration proceedings?

No. Turkish courts exercise only the functions assigned to them by arbitration and procedural legislation. The tribunal remains responsible for deciding the merits.

Can a Turkish court hear a case despite an arbitration clause?

The court may receive the claim, but the opposing party may raise an arbitration objection. If the objection is accepted, the court dismisses the action procedurally.

Can Turkish courts assist an arbitration seated abroad?

Yes. The provisions concerning arbitration objections and interim protection apply even where the seat is outside Türkiye.

Can a Turkish court appoint an arbitrator?

Yes. The court may make an appointment where the agreed process fails, a party refuses to nominate an arbitrator or another appointing authority does not act.

Can a Turkish court remove an arbitrator?

The court may decide a qualifying challenge or terminate the mandate where the arbitrator cannot perform the function or fails to act properly.

Can the tribunal freeze a Turkish bank account?

The tribunal cannot ordinarily bind a third-party bank or use compulsory enforcement authorities directly. A Turkish court order will generally be required.

Does applying for a court injunction waive arbitration?

No. An application for interim injunction or attachment before or during arbitration does not violate the arbitration agreement.

Can the court help collect evidence?

Yes. Judicial assistance may be requested where the tribunal requires evidence that cannot be obtained effectively through its own authority.

Can the court extend the arbitration period?

Yes. Where the parties cannot agree on an extension, one party may apply to the competent court before expiry of the existing period.

Which court hears a setting-aside action?

The application is filed directly before the territorially competent Regional Court of Appeal and is examined with priority and urgency.

Is a setting-aside action an appeal on the merits?

No. The court examines only the limited statutory grounds for annulment.

Can a foreign arbitral award be enforced in Türkiye?

Yes. A qualifying foreign award may be recognised and enforced under the New York Convention or Law No. 5718.

Can the Turkish enforcement court recalculate damages?

No. Ordinary factual or legal disagreement with the tribunal is not a recognised basis for a merits review.

Conclusion

Turkish courts perform an essential but limited role in international arbitration proceedings.

Before arbitration, they protect the arbitration agreement by dismissing litigation that should be referred to arbitration and may grant urgent interim protection.

During arbitration, they may appoint or remove arbitrators, support tribunal-ordered measures, assist with evidence and extend the arbitration period.

After the award, the Regional Court of Appeal exercises limited supervisory jurisdiction through setting-aside proceedings, while first-instance courts may deal with enforceability and the recognition or enforcement of foreign awards.

The fundamental distinction is between support and control.

Turkish courts are expected to protect the arbitral process, not replace it. Their intervention should preserve the effectiveness of arbitration while respecting the tribunal’s primary authority over the contractual and commercial merits.

The practical success of this system depends on accurate procedural choices. The parties must identify the correct court, comply with strict deadlines, distinguish between Turkish and foreign awards and request only the form of judicial assistance permitted by law.

For international businesses, effective arbitration planning should therefore address not only the arbitration clause and tribunal but also the circumstances in which court support may become necessary.

A properly coordinated court and arbitration strategy can protect assets, preserve evidence, prevent procedural obstruction and ensure that the final award produces meaningful legal and commercial results.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The role and jurisdiction of Turkish courts depend on the legal seat, arbitration agreement, subject matter, applicable procedural law, requested remedy and status of the award. Case-specific Turkish legal advice should be obtained before filing an arbitration-related court application.