Cross-border marriages, dual citizenship, foreign divorces, and international relocation of children have made private international law issues routine in Turkish family practice. In these disputes, the outcome often turns on three core questions:
- Which law governs the divorce, custody, and maintenance?
- When will Turkish courts recognize/enforce a foreign family judgment?
- How do Turkish courts handle international child abduction (return to habitual residence) under the Hague framework?
Below is a practice-oriented review of recent trends reflected in decisions of the Turkish Supreme Court, particularly the 2nd Civil Chamber.
1) Applicable law in divorce–custody–maintenance: PILA Article 14 sets the roadmap, but evidence sets the result
Turkey’s main connecting rule is Article 14 of the Turkish Private International Law Act (Law No. 5718). In short: the spouses’ common nationality law, failing that their common habitual residence law, and if neither exists, Turkish law applies.
In practice, the key difficulty is not the wording of Article 14, but bringing the content of the foreign law into the case file in a reliable, verifiable way. A recent decision illustrates the point:
- Yargıtay 2nd Civil Chamber, E.2023/9126, K.2024/6791, 03.10.2024 addressed a dispute involving Syrian nationals under temporary protection. The case shows the Court’s insistence that the judge must first apply the connecting methodology and then evaluate the practical feasibility of identifying foreign law in the concrete circumstances.
Practical takeaway: Always build your file around citizenship and habitual residence evidence (residence permits, address records, school attendance, employment, medical records). This is how you control the connecting factor debate.
2) Recognition and enforcement: “no re-trial,” but strict scrutiny of due process and public policy
Foreign divorces and related orders do not automatically produce effects in Türkiye. Typically, parties must pursue recognition (status effects) and, where monetary or executable obligations exist, enforcement (exequatur) under the framework of Law No. 5718.
A highly practical decision in this area is:
- Yargıtay 2nd Civil Chamber, E.2022/10884, K.2024/1360, 29.02.2024 concerning enforcement in Türkiye of a New Jersey (USA) divorce judgment’s property regime / financial settlement component. The decision confirms that Turkish courts focus on enforceability conditions such as finality, proper service and the right to be heard, and the absence of manifest public policy violation—rather than revisiting the merits.
Practical takeaway: The strongest exequatur files are document-driven:
- finality certificate,
- apostille/legalization,
- certified translations,
- proof of due notice / service abroad,
- and a narrowly tailored request specifying exactly which parts are sought for recognition/enforcement.
3) International child abduction: speed, standing, age limits, and the “grave risk” test
Türkiye applies the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention through Law No. 5717, which aims for swift return to the child’s habitual residence, subject to limited refusal grounds.
Recent decisions highlight four recurring issues:
(A) The “grave risk” exception must be evidence-based
- E.2024/4977, K.2024/5357, 04.07.2024 emphasizes obtaining expert assessments (social worker/psychologist/pedagogue reports) to evaluate whether return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm.
(B) Who files the return case? Central Authority approach
- E.2024/6386, K.2024/6508, 26.09.2024 reflects a procedural line that the case is filed in the name of the Central Authority via the local public prosecutor, raising standing concerns if structured incorrectly.
(C) The 16-year age limit can render the case moot
- E.2024/5180, K.2024/6199, 19.09.2024 applies the Convention’s scope limit: once the child turns 16, the Hague return mechanism may no longer apply.
(D) Due notice to parents is essential
- The same body of case law points to strict adherence to notification rules under Law No. 5717 (including service of the initiating request and hearing dates).
Yanıt yok