International Jurisdiction of Turkish Courts

1) What is “international jurisdiction” in Turkey?

International jurisdiction answers a threshold question in cross-border private disputes: which country’s courts may hear the case. It is distinct from applicable law (choice of law). A Turkish court may have international jurisdiction, yet apply foreign substantive law to the merits. This distinction matters for forum strategy, jurisdiction objections, and the recognition/enforcement pathway for judgments.

2) The backbone: Article 40 and the reference to domestic venue rules

Turkish law follows a clear baseline: the international jurisdiction of Turkish courts is determined, in principle, by Turkey’s domestic territorial venue rules. This is expressly stated in Article 40 of Law No. 5718 (Turkish PIL & International Civil Procedure Code).
In practice, Article 40 “imports” the logic of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) into international cases. For example, if the defendant has no domicile in Turkey, HMK Article 9 points to the defendant’s habitual residence in Turkey, and—subject to conditions—allows property-related claims to be brought where the relevant asset is located.
Turkish case-law also emphasizes this approach, treating domestic venue rules as the operative yardstick for international jurisdiction under Article 40.

3) Statutory exceptions: Special jurisdiction rules (Articles 41–46)

Alongside Article 40, Law No. 5718 provides special international jurisdiction rules for certain categories (Articles 41–46):

• Personal status cases of Turkish citizens (Art. 41): A structured fallback system (competent local court; if unavailable, place of residence, last domicile, and ultimately Ankara/İstanbul/İzmir alternatives).
• Certain personal status matters concerning foreigners (Art. 42): Guardianship, curatorship, restriction, disappearance, presumption of death—linked to residence in Turkey or the location of assets in Turkey.
• Inheritance disputes (Art. 43): The deceased’s last domicile in Turkey; if none, the location of estate assets in Turkey.
• Employment disputes (Art. 44): The place in Turkey where the employee habitually performs work, plus protective alternatives for employee claims.
• Consumer disputes (Art. 45): Broad protective options for consumers; claims against consumers are tied to the consumer’s habitual residence in Turkey.
• Insurance disputes (Art. 46): Rules focusing on the insurer’s establishment/agency in Turkey and protective fora for policyholder/insured/beneficiary.

These provisions are especially important because they often reflect a weaker-party protection policy, affecting both litigation planning and the enforceability of contractual jurisdiction clauses.

4) Exclusive (mandatory) jurisdiction and immovable property in Turkey

Some venue rules under Turkish procedure are mandatory (“definite/exclusive jurisdiction”). A key example is immovable property: HMK Article 12 provides that actions concerning rights in rem over immovables (or cases that may change such rights) must be brought before the court where the immovable is located, as an exclusive rule.
In cross-border disputes, this typically operates as a de facto exclusive international jurisdiction anchor for immovables located in Turkey, and it frequently becomes a decisive issue in recognition/enforcement debates as well (always case-specific).

5) Choice-of-court agreements (Article 47): when allowed and key limits

Article 47 allows parties—where exclusive jurisdiction is not at stake—to agree that disputes arising from cross-border obligations will be heard by a foreign court, subject to written evidence requirements and statutory conditions.
Crucially, jurisdiction granted under the employment/consumer/insurance special rules (Arts. 44–46) cannot be waived by agreement.
This statutory limitation is particularly relevant where standard terms attempt to impose a foreign forum on consumers or employees.

6) Jurisdiction objections: timing and procedural posture

HMK Article 19 draws the standard line: for exclusive jurisdiction, courts must examine jurisdiction ex officio; otherwise, the defendant must raise the objection in the statement of defence and identify the competent court, or the objection may be disregarded.
In international cases, the same discipline applies: (i) screen for exclusive jurisdiction, (ii) check special rules (Arts. 41–46), and (iii) apply the Article 40 reference mechanism through domestic venue rules.

Conclusion : The international jurisdiction of Turkish courts is primarily built on Article 40’s reference to domestic venue rules, but Articles 41–46 establish important special regimes, while Article 47 sets the boundaries for choice-of-court clauses. A careful “exclusive jurisdiction + special rules + Article 40” framework is the most reliable roadmap for cross-border litigation strategy in Turkey.