Cross-border disputes rarely end where they start. A party may secure a judgment abroad while parallel or subsequent proceedings continue in Turkey. The key question is not whether the foreign judgment exists, but how (and when) it can shape an ongoing Turkish case—through res judicata, evidentiary force, or a procedural stay aimed at avoiding contradictory outcomes.
This article explains the main mechanisms under Turkish private international law and civil procedure, with practical guidance for litigation strategy.
1) The Core Framework: Recognition vs. Enforcement vs. Procedural Effect
In Turkey, a foreign court judgment does not automatically operate with full domestic force. As a rule, the judgment’s strong effects arise through recognition (tanıma) and enforcement (tenfiz).
Two statutory rules are particularly decisive:
- MÖHUK Article 58: For a foreign judgment to be treated as conclusive evidence or res judicata in Turkey, the court must determine that the judgment meets the enforcement conditions; and for recognition, the reciprocity condition is not applied.
- MÖHUK Article 59: The res judicata/conclusive-evidence effect is linked to the moment the foreign judgment becomes final under the law of the issuing state.
Read together, these provisions structure the practice as follows: timing is anchored in foreign finality, but usable domestic effect typically depends on the Turkish court’s confirmation of the recognition/enforcement conditions.
2) Can a Pending Turkish Case Be Dismissed Based on a Foreign Judgment?
A common defense in Turkish litigation is: “This dispute has already been decided abroad.” Procedurally, that is framed as a res judicata objection.
However, Turkish practice generally does not treat an unrecognized/unenforced foreign judgment as automatically producing a res judicata bar in a pending Turkish lawsuit. Case-law summaries reflecting Yargıtay reasoning indicate that a foreign judgment that has not yet been recognized/enforced in Turkey cannot be raised as a res judicata objection; once it is recognized/enforced, it may produce res judicata effects.
Practical takeaway: If you want the foreign judgment to block or decisively shape the Turkish proceedings, you must plan for recognition/enforcement steps (or at minimum, the court’s confirmation that the judgment satisfies the required conditions).
3) Evidentiary Use: Binding Evidence vs. Persuasive Document
MÖHUK Article 58 ties “conclusive evidence” status to a judicial determination that the judgment satisfies enforcement conditions. Therefore, before recognition/enforcement, a foreign judgment is not expected to function as binding (conclusive) evidence.
That said, litigants often submit foreign judgments as persuasive documents—not binding, but informative. In practice, Turkish courts may consider them as part of the file, while remaining free to reach an independent conclusion. The distinction matters: “persuasive use” does not create an automatic procedural bar; it simply adds context.
4) Foreign Proceedings Are Ongoing: Lis Pendens and Stay of Proceedings
4.1. International lis pendens is not automatic
Whether a foreign pending case should count as “lis pendens” (derdestlik) in Turkey is contentious. Turkish doctrine and some case-law reflections are skeptical of treating foreign pending proceedings as an automatic bar to Turkish jurisdiction or admissibility.
The rationale is straightforward: if even a final foreign judgment needs recognition/enforcement for strong domestic effect, then a merely pending foreign case is difficult to elevate into an automatic procedural obstacle in Turkey.
4.2. Stay as a “prejudicial issue” (HMK 165)
Even if foreign lis pendens is not automatic, Turkish courts may consider a stay when the outcome of the Turkish case depends on another proceeding’s result. HMK Article 165 provides the general framework for staying proceedings as a “prejudicial issue.”
For foreign proceedings, the statute does not contain a general explicit rule; academic and doctrinal sources emphasize the lack of a clear codified solution and the resulting debates.
How to make a stay request persuasive:
- Show direct dependency: the foreign case will determine a legal relationship that is central to the Turkish case.
- Show likely “recognizability” in Turkey: if the foreign result is likely to be recognized/enforced, the stay reduces contradiction risk.
- Frame the request around judicial economy and fairness, not delay tactics.
4.3. A statutory exception in maritime matters
There are special statutory areas where the law explicitly links a Turkish claim to the outcome of a case brought domestically or abroad, effectively requiring a stay in that specific context (e.g., a rule referenced within the Turkish Commercial Code context for certain maritime claims).
5) Family Law in Practice: Recognition Pending While Related Claims Proceed
Foreign divorce judgments are among the most frequent sources of procedural conflict. Divorce is a status-changing decision, and related claims (matrimonial property division, maintenance, custody-related disputes) often depend on the recognized status.
A cited example of Turkish high-court reasoning involves circumstances where recognition proceedings for a foreign divorce were pending, while property regime matters proceeded—illustrating the procedural importance of aligning recognition timing with related litigation.
6) Strategy for Ongoing Turkish Litigation
If you hold the foreign judgment
- Start recognition/enforcement early to convert “existence” into procedural force.
- Use HMK 165 to seek a stay where dependency is demonstrable.
- Prepare documents at enforcement-grade quality: proof of finality, apostille/consular legalization where required, certified translations, and due process/service records.
If the opponent relies on a foreign judgment
- Challenge premature res judicata claims via the MÖHUK framework (especially Article 58).
- Focus on recognition/enforcement conditions: due process, proper notice, public policy, and—where enforcement is sought—reciprocity-related considerations.
- Take a principled position on stays: oppose them if used as delay; support them if needed to prevent contradictory judgments.
Conclusion
In Turkey, the impact of a foreign judgment on ongoing litigation depends less on the judgment’s existence and more on its domestic procedural status. Without recognition/enforcement, a foreign judgment typically does not operate as an automatic res judicata bar or binding evidence. Yet Turkish procedural tools—especially HMK 165 stays—can be decisive when the Turkish case genuinely depends on the foreign outcome.
Yanıt yok