Introduction

Winning an international arbitration is not always the end of an international dispute.

In many commercial cases, the most important question comes only after the tribunal has issued its final award:

Where are the losing party’s assets, and how can the award actually be enforced against them?

Consider several common examples.

An English company obtains an ICC arbitral award in London against a Turkish distributor.

A German manufacturer wins a EUR 5 million arbitration seated in Switzerland against a Turkish purchaser.

A UAE investor obtains an arbitration award against a Turkish company that owns bank accounts, factories and real estate in Istanbul.

A Chinese supplier obtains a final arbitral award in Singapore against a Turkish importer.

A foreign construction company wins an arbitration against a Turkish counterparty but receives no voluntary payment.

In each case, the award may have been issued outside Turkey, but the successful claimant’s real recovery prospects may depend upon the Turkish legal system because the debtor’s assets are located in Türkiye.

This is where recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards — yabancı hakem kararlarının tanınması ve tenfizi becomes critical.

Turkey is a party to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly known as the New York Convention. According to the United Nations Treaty Collection, Türkiye acceded to the Convention on 2 July 1992. As of 10 August 2026, the Convention has 172 parties, making it one of the world’s most important and widely adopted instruments in international commercial law.

The Convention’s central purpose is to ensure that foreign arbitral awards can be recognized and enforced across national borders without requiring the successful party to retry the entire underlying commercial dispute. UNCITRAL describes the Convention as requiring contracting states to recognize and enforce foreign and non-domestic arbitral awards and to recognize written arbitration agreements.

Turkey also has its own domestic statutory framework.

Articles 60–63 of Law No. 5718 on International Private and Procedural Law — MÖHUK govern recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards where Turkish domestic law applies. Article 60 provides that a foreign arbitral award that has become final and enforceable or binding on the parties may be enforced in Turkey.

The practical enforcement framework in Turkey therefore rests on two principal pillars:

The New York Convention

and

MÖHUK Articles 60–63.

International treaties take priority within their applicable field, while Turkish domestic law remains particularly important where the Convention does not apply or where domestic rules provide an alternative basis permitted by the Convention.

For foreign companies and investors, the key point is simple:

An arbitral award is only commercially valuable if it can reach assets.

An award for USD 20 million may have little practical value if it cannot be turned into enforcement against:

• Turkish bank accounts;
• factories;
• company shares;
• real estate;
• receivables;
• machinery;
• vehicles; or
• other assets.

This guide explains how foreign arbitral awards can be enforced in Turkey, the documents required, the grounds on which Turkish courts may refuse enforcement and the strategic issues international companies should consider before and after arbitration.

Turkey and the New York Convention

Türkiye acceded to the New York Convention on 2 July 1992. However, it did so subject to the two reservations permitted under Article I(3) of the Convention.

Turkey declared that it would apply the Convention:

1. on the basis of reciprocity, meaning to awards made in the territory of another contracting state; and
2. only to disputes arising from legal relationships, contractual or non-contractual, that are considered commercial under Turkish law.

These reservations are highly important in practice.

If an arbitral award was made in:

• England;
• France;
• Germany;
• Switzerland;
• Singapore;
• the United States;
• the UAE;
• China;
• Italy;
• the Netherlands;
• or another New York Convention contracting state,

and the dispute is commercial under Turkish law, the Convention will ordinarily provide the central international enforcement framework.

If the award was made in a non-contracting state, Turkey’s reciprocity reservation means that the New York Convention itself may not apply. Domestic enforcement under MÖHUK Articles 60–63 must then be examined separately.

What Is a “Foreign Arbitral Award” in Turkey?

The expression “foreign arbitral award” should be distinguished from the broader concept of an “international arbitration.”

Turkey has a separate International Arbitration Law No. 4686.

Article 1 of Law No. 4686 provides that it applies principally to disputes containing a foreign element where the seat of arbitration is in Turkey or where the parties or tribunal have selected the statute in the circumstances permitted by the Law.

Therefore, an arbitration can be international while still being legally seated in Turkey.

For example:

Two international companies may arbitrate an international construction dispute in Istanbul under Law No. 4686.

That award should not automatically be treated as a “foreign award” merely because the parties are foreign.

By contrast:

An ICC arbitration seated in Paris, London, Geneva or Singapore that produces an award sought to be enforced against assets in Turkey presents the classic foreign-award enforcement scenario.

The distinction matters because different legal remedies apply.

A Turkish-seated international award is principally subject to the Turkish set-aside regime under International Arbitration Law No. 4686, while a foreign-seated award sought to be executed in Turkey is examined through the recognition and enforcement framework.

Recognition and Enforcement Are Not the Same Thing

As with foreign court judgments, Turkish arbitration law distinguishes between:

recognition — tanıma

and

enforcement — tenfiz.

Recognition means that the arbitral award is accepted for its legal effects.

Enforcement means that the successful party can use Turkish compulsory enforcement mechanisms against the losing party.

Article 63 of MÖHUK expressly provides that recognition of foreign arbitral awards is governed by the same legal rules applicable to enforcement.

For most foreign monetary arbitral awards, enforcement is what the creditor ultimately needs.

For example, if an arbitral tribunal orders a Turkish company to pay:

USD 3,000,000 plus contractual interest and arbitration costs,

the creditor will normally seek an enforcement decision before proceeding against the Turkish debtor’s attachable assets.

Why Can the Award Not Simply Be Sent to a Turkish Enforcement Office?

A foreign arbitral award does not generally enter the Turkish execution system merely because the award creditor presents it to an enforcement office.

A Turkish court must first determine whether the award satisfies the applicable recognition and enforcement requirements.

MÖHUK Article 60 expressly states that foreign arbitral awards that are final, enforceable or binding may be enforced and specifies the Turkish judicial procedure for obtaining enforcement.

Once enforcement is granted, MÖHUK applies by reference the rules under which the enforceable foreign decision may be executed through the Turkish system.

The process can therefore be understood as:

foreign arbitration → final/binding award → Turkish enforcement proceedings → Turkish execution against assets.

Where Is the Enforcement Case Filed?

MÖHUK Article 60 contains a specific territorial jurisdiction structure.

The parties may first have agreed in writing on the Turkish place where enforcement proceedings will be brought.

If there is no such agreement, the competent court is determined according to:

• the Turkish residence of the party against whom enforcement is sought;
• failing that, where that party is staying;
• and failing both, the place where assets capable of enforcement are located.

The statute refers to the competent asliye court.

In commercial arbitration practice, recognition and enforcement proceedings involving commercial awards are handled within the commercial-court structure where applicable, and Turkish judicial decisions concerning foreign arbitral award enforcement are regularly issued by Asliye Ticaret Mahkemeleri.

Correctly identifying territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction at the beginning can prevent substantial procedural delay.

Which Documents Are Required?

MÖHUK Article 61 specifies the core documents that must accompany a foreign arbitral award enforcement application.

The applicant must provide:

• the original arbitration agreement or arbitration clause, or a duly certified copy;
• the original arbitral award that is final, enforceable or binding, or a duly certified copy;
• and duly certified translations of these documents.

The New York Convention contains a closely related documentation framework.

Article IV requires the party seeking recognition and enforcement to supply:

• the duly authenticated original award or certified copy; and
• the original arbitration agreement or duly certified copy.

Where the documents are not in an official language of the enforcement state, an appropriately certified translation must also be provided.

For proceedings in Turkey, this means that a properly prepared Turkish translation package is essential.

Should the Award Be Apostilled?

This issue should be handled carefully.

The New York Convention itself requires a duly authenticated original award or duly certified copy; it does not formulate its document requirement simply as “every award must have an apostille.”

In practice, however, authentication of foreign official or notarized documents may involve:

• apostille;
• consular legalization;
• certification;
• or another accepted method,

depending upon the nature of the documents and the issuing jurisdiction.

The safest approach is therefore to determine the Turkish court’s documentary requirements before filing rather than assuming that an ordinary PDF copy of the arbitral award will be sufficient.

Certified Turkish Translation

Foreign arbitral awards are frequently lengthy documents.

An ICC, LCIA, SIAC, SCC or ad hoc award can run to hundreds of pages.

Nevertheless, the Turkish court must be able to determine:

• parties;
• arbitration agreement;
• seat;
• procedural history;
• claims;
• jurisdiction;
• operative award;
• interest;
• costs;
• and whether the award falls within the arbitration clause.

MÖHUK Article 61 expressly requires duly certified translations of the arbitration agreement and award documents.

A poor translation can generate avoidable problems regarding:

• terminology;
• amount awarded;
• interest;
• identity of parties;
• scope of the arbitration agreement;
• or whether part of the award exceeds jurisdiction.

High-value enforcement proceedings therefore require technically accurate legal translation.

What Does the Turkish Court Actually Review?

An enforcement case is not supposed to become a complete retrial of the arbitration.

The enforcement court’s task is to determine whether one of the limited statutory or Convention grounds for refusal exists.

This is fundamental to the New York Convention system.

Article III requires contracting states to recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce them under local procedural rules, while Article V contains the limited grounds on which recognition or enforcement may be refused.

MÖHUK Article 62 establishes a largely parallel set of refusal grounds under Turkish law.

The Turkish court therefore does not normally ask:

“Did the arbitral tribunal interpret the contract exactly as I would have?”

Instead, the court asks questions such as:

“Was there a valid arbitration agreement?”

“Was the losing party properly notified?”

“Was the party able to present its defence?”

“Did the tribunal remain within the arbitration agreement?”

“Is the dispute arbitrable under Turkish law?”

“Would enforcement violate Turkish public policy?”

Ground 1: No Arbitration Agreement

The existence of a valid arbitration agreement is the foundation of arbitration.

MÖHUK Article 62 provides that enforcement must be refused where no arbitration agreement exists or no arbitration clause was included in the underlying agreement.

The New York Convention similarly permits refusal where the arbitration agreement was invalid under the law selected by the parties or, absent a choice, under the law of the country where the award was made.

This can become particularly important where:

• the contract was never signed;
• the arbitration clause was contained in separate standard terms;
• one company alleges it never consented;
• the signatory lacked authority;
• the contract was transferred;
• a non-signatory was added to arbitration;
• or several interrelated contracts contain inconsistent dispute-resolution clauses.

An enforcement claimant should therefore preserve not only the arbitral award but also the entire documentary basis of the arbitration agreement.

Separability of the Arbitration Clause

International arbitration generally treats the arbitration clause as legally separable from the underlying contract.

Turkish International Arbitration Law expressly reflects this principle.

Article 4 states that an objection asserting invalidity of the main contract does not automatically make the arbitration agreement invalid.

Accordingly, a debtor cannot necessarily prevent enforcement simply by arguing:

“The underlying sales agreement was invalid, therefore the arbitration clause never existed.”

The validity of the arbitration agreement requires a separate legal analysis.

Ground 2: Incapacity or Invalid Arbitration Agreement

The New York Convention permits refusal where a party to the arbitration agreement lacked capacity under the applicable law or the arbitration agreement itself was invalid under the law chosen by the parties or, failing such choice, the law of the seat.

MÖHUK Article 62 similarly addresses invalidity of the arbitration agreement according to the law chosen by the parties or, absent such choice, the law of the place where the award was made.

In corporate disputes, questions can arise concerning:

• board authority;
• representation authority;
• signature circulars;
• power of attorney;
• corporate capacity;
• and whether the person agreeing to arbitration could legally bind the company.

These matters should ideally be investigated before arbitration begins rather than first appearing at the enforcement stage.

Ground 3: Failure to Notify the Losing Party

Procedural fairness is one of the central protections under both the Convention and Turkish law.

MÖHUK Article 62 provides a refusal ground where the party against whom enforcement is sought was not properly informed about appointment of the arbitrators or was deprived of the opportunity to present claims and defences.

Article V of the New York Convention similarly protects a party that did not receive proper notice of appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present its case.

The key issue is not merely whether the losing party participated enthusiastically.

The issue is whether it had a genuine procedural opportunity to participate.

A respondent who receives proper notice but chooses not to participate cannot necessarily defeat enforcement simply because the arbitration proceeded in its absence.

Ground 4: Inability to Present the Defence

The right to be heard extends beyond initial notification.

A party may argue that it was effectively prevented from presenting its case because of serious procedural irregularity.

Potential allegations can concern:

• lack of meaningful notice;
• refusal to allow a material submission;
• unequal procedural treatment;
• inability to respond to evidence;
• or another fundamental denial of procedural fairness.

However, enforcement proceedings should not become an opportunity to convert every procedural disagreement into a defence-right violation.

The question is whether the irregularity reaches the serious threshold contemplated by the Convention and Turkish enforcement rules.

Ground 5: Improper Composition of the Arbitral Tribunal

The parties are generally free to determine how their tribunal will be constituted.

Problems can arise if the tribunal was formed in violation of:

• the arbitration clause;
• institutional arbitration rules;
• agreed appointment procedures;
• or the law of the seat where no valid party agreement governs the question.

Article V of the Convention permits refusal if composition of the arbitral authority or arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or, failing agreement, with the law of the country where arbitration took place.

MÖHUK Article 62 contains the equivalent principle.

For example:

A contract requires three arbitrators.

The dispute is decided by one arbitrator despite the respondent’s timely objection.

That issue can become highly relevant at enforcement.

Ground 6: Procedural Rules Were Not Followed

Arbitration is based heavily on party autonomy.

Parties may select:

• ICC Rules;
• LCIA Rules;
• SIAC Rules;
• SCC Rules;
• UNCITRAL Rules;
• or another procedural framework.

The tribunal must then conduct the arbitration consistently with the applicable agreement and mandatory rules.

MÖHUK Article 62 expressly recognizes improper tribunal selection or procedure as a potential refusal ground where it violated the parties’ agreement or, absent agreement, the law of the country where the award was made.

Not every minor procedural deviation should necessarily destroy enforcement.

But substantial departure from the agreed structure can create risk.

Ground 7: The Tribunal Exceeded Its Authority

An arbitral tribunal derives its jurisdiction from the arbitration agreement.

It cannot simply decide unrelated disputes outside the parties’ consent.

MÖHUK Article 62 provides that if an award concerns matters not contained in the arbitration agreement or exceeds the scope of the arbitration clause, enforcement may be refused in relation to that part.

The New York Convention also expressly recognizes this principle and permits partial enforcement where matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from matters outside the arbitration agreement.

This is commercially important.

Suppose an award contains:

• USD 2 million for breach of a supply contract; and
• a separate determination outside the arbitration agreement.

If the portions are legally separable, the valid part does not necessarily have to fall with the invalid part.

Partial Enforcement of an Arbitral Award

International businesses sometimes assume that enforcement is always “all or nothing.”

That is not correct.

Both the New York Convention and MÖHUK recognize the possibility that the tribunal may have exceeded jurisdiction only in relation to part of the award.

Where the valid and invalid portions can be separated, the portion within the tribunal’s jurisdiction may potentially still be enforced.

This can be extremely important in multi-claim construction, shareholder or international sales disputes.

Ground 8: The Award Is Not Yet Binding

MÖHUK Article 60 allows enforcement of a foreign award that has become final and enforceable or binding on the parties.

MÖHUK Article 62 also provides a refusal ground where the award has not yet become final, enforceable or binding under the relevant law or procedure.

The New York Convention uses the concept of whether the award has become binding on the parties.

Therefore, the enforcement applicant should identify the award’s procedural status under the law of the seat.

Questions can include:

• Was there an internal arbitral appeal?
• Is the award final under institutional rules?
• Has correction or interpretation been requested?
• Has the award become binding?
• Has a court suspended it?

These issues should be documented rather than assumed.

Ground 9: The Award Has Been Set Aside

An international arbitration award has a legal “seat.”

The courts of the seat generally have supervisory authority over the award, including jurisdiction over set-aside proceedings.

Article V of the New York Convention permits refusal where the award has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority in the country in which—or under the law of which—the award was made.

MÖHUK Article 62 similarly provides that enforcement is refused where the award has been annulled by the competent authority of the country associated with the award.

This is why the seat of arbitration is not merely a location chosen for hearing convenience.

It determines the legal home of the arbitration and can have major consequences for later enforcement.

What If an Annulment Case Is Still Pending?

This creates a different problem.

The award may not yet have been set aside, but the losing party may be challenging it before the courts of the seat.

Article VI of the New York Convention allows the enforcement court to adjourn its decision where a set-aside or suspension application is pending before the competent authority at the seat.

At the request of the award creditor, the enforcement court may also require the opposing party to provide suitable security.

For example:

A Swiss award is being challenged before the Swiss courts while the claimant simultaneously seeks enforcement in Istanbul.

The Turkish strategy may then need to address:

• whether proceedings should continue;
• whether enforcement should be adjourned;
• whether security should be requested;
• and the prospects of the foreign annulment application.

Ground 10: The Dispute Is Not Arbitrable Under Turkish Law

Not every legal dispute can be resolved through private arbitration.

MÖHUK Article 62 expressly provides that enforcement must be refused where the subject matter of the dispute cannot be resolved by arbitration under Turkish law.

The New York Convention also allows enforcement states to refuse an award where the subject matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration under local law.

International Arbitration Law No. 4686 gives an important example: disputes concerning rights in rem over immovable property located in Turkey and disputes that are not subject to the parties’ free disposition fall outside its arbitrability framework.

This creates an important drafting issue.

A contract may have a broad arbitration clause, but arbitration cannot override every mandatory limitation on arbitrability.

Turkish Real Estate and Arbitration

Real estate disputes require careful distinction.

A dispute involving:

• payment under a construction agreement;
• damages arising from a property transaction;
• contractual obligations concerning a development project;

may be arbitrable depending on its nature.

But a dispute directly requiring determination or transfer of rights in rem over immovable property located in Turkey can raise arbitrability problems because such rights fall within the statutory limitation identified by Law No. 4686.

International contracts connected with Turkish real estate should therefore distinguish between:

contractual claims

and

direct claims concerning Turkish registered property rights.

Ground 11: Turkish Public Policy

Public policy — kamu düzeni — is probably the most frequently discussed enforcement objection.

MÖHUK Article 62 provides that enforcement can be refused where the arbitral award is contrary to Turkish public policy or general morals.

The New York Convention similarly permits refusal where recognition or enforcement would be contrary to public policy in the enforcing state.

However, public policy should not become a disguised appeal on the merits.

A losing party should not automatically be able to prevent enforcement merely by arguing:

“The arbitrators interpreted the contract incorrectly.”

or:

“Turkish law would have produced a different result.”

or:

“The damages were too high.”

The public-policy inquiry concerns whether enforcing the award would conflict with fundamental principles of the Turkish legal order.

Public Policy Does Not Mean Every Mandatory Turkish Rule

This distinction is essential.

International arbitration would lose much of its effectiveness if enforcement could be refused whenever the foreign tribunal reached an outcome different from what a Turkish court might have reached.

The structure of Article V of the Convention and Article 62 of MÖHUK demonstrates that refusal grounds are exceptional controls over enforceability, not a broad mandate to retry the merits.

A Turkish enforcement court should therefore focus on the effect of enforcement on fundamental Turkish legal principles rather than conducting a fresh calculation of the parties’ commercial rights.

What Is Not Normally a Public-Policy Review?

The enforcement proceeding should generally not become a new determination of:

• witness credibility;
• interpretation of the commercial contract;
• ordinary evidentiary disputes;
• mathematical calculations already resolved by the tribunal;
• interpretation of foreign substantive law;
• or the commercial reasonableness of the award.

If the losing party could relitigate all of those matters, international arbitration would cease to provide finality.

The New York Convention’s limited refusal structure is designed precisely to prevent such a second full trial.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is not identical for every refusal ground.

Under MÖHUK Article 62, the party resisting enforcement bears the burden of proving several grounds, including:

• lack of proper representation;
• improper notice or inability to present the case;
• invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• irregular tribunal composition or procedure;
• excess of jurisdiction;
• and the lack of binding or enforceable status or annulment of the award.

By contrast, Turkish courts can independently examine issues including:

• public policy; and
• arbitrability.

This procedural allocation is highly important when preparing enforcement pleadings.

Can the Turkish Court Recalculate the Award?

Generally, the enforcement court’s role is not to issue a new judgment replacing the arbitrators’ decision.

Suppose the tribunal orders:

EUR 8,500,000 principal

plus

5% annual contractual interest

and

EUR 600,000 arbitration costs.

The Turkish court’s primary role is to determine whether that award satisfies the enforcement requirements.

The court is not ordinarily conducting a new damages trial.

However, the operative award must be clear enough to permit execution, and any component that independently violates an enforcement limitation may require separate analysis.

Costs and Court Fees

Foreign award creditors should budget not only for lawyers and translations but also for:

• court fees;
• notification costs;
• expert or translation expenses where required;
• appeal costs;
• and subsequent enforcement expenses.

Turkish Court of Cassation jurisprudence has characterized foreign arbitral award recognition and enforcement proceedings as proceedings subject to fixed rather than proportional judgment fees, rather than treating them as ordinary monetary performance actions.

This can be commercially significant in high-value arbitrations because the award amount itself may be extremely large.

Appeals Against an Enforcement Decision

MÖHUK Article 61 applies the procedural rules of Articles 55–57 by analogy to foreign arbitral awards.

Under those rules, decisions granting or refusing enforcement are subject to the ordinary appellate framework, and the statutory enforcement structure provides that appellate review suspends execution of the enforcement judgment.

An award creditor should therefore distinguish between:

obtaining a favourable first-instance enforcement ruling

and

having an enforcement judgment capable of being finally executed following the applicable review process.

This distinction can affect asset-recovery planning.

Recognition of a Foreign Arbitral Award

Sometimes the successful party does not immediately need execution.

It may instead need the award recognized for:

• res judicata;
• defence in another Turkish proceeding;
• determination that an issue has already been resolved;
• or another legal effect.

Article 63 provides that recognition is governed by the same rules applicable to enforcement.

Therefore, the same core questions concerning:

• arbitration agreement;
• due process;
• arbitrability;
• public policy;
• scope of jurisdiction;
• and binding status

remain relevant.

New York Convention or MÖHUK: Which One Applies?

This is a central strategic question.

The first step should be to determine:

1. where the award was made;
2. whether that country is a New York Convention contracting state;
3. whether the underlying legal relationship is commercial under Turkish law; and
4. whether another applicable treaty exists.

Turkey’s New York Convention reservation limits Convention application to awards made in another contracting state and disputes regarded as commercial under Turkish law.

If those requirements are satisfied, the New York Convention ordinarily forms the central enforcement framework.

If the Convention does not apply, MÖHUK Articles 60–63 may still provide a domestic route to recognition and enforcement.

The “More Favourable Right” Principle

Article VII of the New York Convention contains another important feature.

The Convention does not eliminate rights that a party may have under another treaty or the domestic law of the country where enforcement is sought.

In other words, the Convention is intended to create an international enforcement framework without necessarily preventing an award creditor from relying on a more favourable domestic or treaty-based route where legally available.

For Turkey, this means that the relationship between:

• the New York Convention;
• MÖHUK;
• and any applicable bilateral or multilateral treaty

should be examined strategically rather than mechanically.

Example: ICC Award Seated in London Against a Turkish Company

Assume a French manufacturer sells industrial machinery to a Turkish company.

Their contract provides:

ICC arbitration, seat London, English language.

A dispute arises.

The tribunal awards the French manufacturer:

• EUR 4 million principal;
• interest;
• and arbitration costs.

The Turkish company refuses to pay.

The company owns:

• a factory in Kocaeli;
• Turkish bank accounts;
• vehicles;
• and receivables from customers.

The practical enforcement strategy would involve several stages.

Stage 1 — Confirm Convention Status

The United Kingdom is a New York Convention contracting state, and Türkiye applies the Convention to awards made in another contracting state where the dispute is commercial.

Stage 2 — Prepare the Documents

Obtain:

• authenticated/certified award;
• arbitration agreement;
• institutional documentation where relevant;
• and properly certified Turkish translations.

Stage 3 — Identify the Turkish Court

Determine jurisdiction using MÖHUK Article 60 and the commercial nature of the case.

Stage 4 — Anticipate Refusal Arguments

The debtor may argue:

• invalid arbitration clause;
• lack of notification;
• inability to present its defence;
• excess of authority;
• public policy;
• or that the award is being challenged in England.

These must be assessed against the Convention and MÖHUK refusal grounds.

Stage 5 — Obtain Enforcement

If the court concludes that the statutory and Convention conditions are satisfied, enforcement can be granted.

Stage 6 — Proceed Against Turkish Assets

The creditor then uses Turkish execution mechanisms against the debtor’s available assets.

Asset Recovery Should Begin Before the Enforcement Case

International parties frequently make a strategic error.

They focus entirely on proving that the award is enforceable but do not investigate whether the debtor actually has assets.

Before or alongside the enforcement process, the creditor should consider identifying:

• real estate;
• Turkish bank relationships;
• vehicles;
• machinery;
• shares;
• receivables;
• trademarks or intellectual property rights;
• and other assets.

The real commercial question is not merely:

“Can we win the enforcement case?”

It is:

“If we win, what can we collect?”

Can Protective Measures Be Sought?

Where there is a real risk that the award debtor will dissipate assets, provisional Turkish remedies may need to be considered under the applicable procedural and enforcement rules.

International Arbitration Law No. 4686 itself recognizes the role of Turkish courts in interim measures and precautionary attachment in arbitration-related disputes, including circumstances where the seat is outside Turkey for the provisions specified by the statute.

The availability of a particular protective measure against assets during a foreign award enforcement strategy depends on the legal basis, nature of the monetary claim and procedural circumstances.

It should therefore be considered at the outset rather than only after enforcement proceedings end.

Enforcement Against Bank Accounts

Once the foreign award becomes enforceable within the Turkish system, Turkish enforcement law may allow the creditor to pursue qualifying bank receivables belonging to the debtor.

For companies, bank enforcement can be particularly effective where operating accounts remain active.

However, successful recovery depends on:

• identifying the debtor correctly;
• distinguishing subsidiaries from parent companies;
• determining actual ownership of funds;
• and avoiding assumptions that every company within a corporate group is liable for the award.

An award against Company A cannot automatically be enforced against Company B merely because they share shareholders.

Separate legal personality remains relevant.

Enforcement Against Turkish Real Estate

A foreign arbitral award ordering payment of money can potentially support enforcement against Turkish real estate owned by the debtor after the Turkish enforcement requirements are satisfied.

This is different from asking a foreign tribunal directly to determine an in rem property right over Turkish immovable property.

The former concerns execution of a monetary award against an asset.

The latter may raise arbitrability problems under Turkish law.

This distinction is crucial.

Enforcement Against Company Shares

If the award debtor owns shares in a Turkish company, those interests may become relevant to enforcement strategy subject to Turkish corporate and enforcement rules.

For holding-company structures, the creditor should identify:

• exact shareholder;
• company type;
• percentage ownership;
• encumbrances;
• and whether the shares have economic value.

Again, enforcement proceeds against the property of the actual debtor, not automatically against every related company.

Arbitration Award Against the Turkish State or a Public Entity

Awards against:

• the Republic of Türkiye;
• municipalities;
• state-owned entities;
• or other public-sector bodies

require substantially more complex analysis.

Questions may involve:

• state immunity;
• execution immunity;
• public property;
• investment treaties;
• ICSID;
• public-service concession arbitration;
• and characterization of the relevant assets.

Such cases should not be treated as ordinary enforcement against a private commercial debtor.

Different treaty and public-law considerations may dominate.

ICSID Awards Are a Separate Category

An ICSID award should not automatically be processed as though it were an ordinary New York Convention commercial arbitral award.

ICSID awards are governed by the separate enforcement regime contained in the ICSID Convention, which requires contracting states to recognize the pecuniary obligations imposed by an ICSID award as if they were a final judgment of their own courts, subject to the Convention’s rules.

Therefore, before filing any Turkish proceeding, the creditor should first identify:

What kind of arbitral award is this?

• ICC?
• LCIA?
• SIAC?
• SCC?
• ad hoc UNCITRAL?
• investment treaty?
• ICSID?

The answer determines the correct enforcement architecture.

Common Mistakes in Foreign Arbitral Award Enforcement

Treating Enforcement as a New Commercial Lawsuit

The Turkish court is not being asked to decide the original breach-of-contract dispute again.

Filing Without the Arbitration Agreement

MÖHUK Article 61 expressly requires the arbitration agreement or clause.

Filing an Uncertified Translation

The required Turkish translations must satisfy the procedural certification requirements.

Failing to Check New York Convention Status

Turkey’s reservation limits Convention application to awards made in another contracting state.

Ignoring the Commercial Reservation

Turkey also limits its New York Convention obligations to disputes regarded as commercial under Turkish law.

Confusing an International Turkish Award With a Foreign Award

A Turkish-seated international arbitration falls into a different procedural regime.

Treating Every Legal Error as Public Policy

Public policy is an enforcement control, not a general appeal on the merits.

Ignoring a Pending Set-Aside Case

Article VI of the Convention specifically addresses the relationship between enforcement and foreign annulment proceedings.

Waiting Until the Debtor Moves the Assets

Enforcement planning should begin before asset dissipation occurs.

Assuming the First-Instance Enforcement Judgment Means Immediate Collection

Applicable appellate proceedings can affect when execution proceeds.

Frequently Asked Questions About Foreign Arbitral Awards in Turkey

Is Turkey a party to the New York Convention?

Yes. Türkiye acceded on 2 July 1992.

How many states are currently parties to the New York Convention?

The UN Treaty Collection recorded 172 parties as of 10 August 2026.

Did Turkey make reservations to the Convention?

Yes. Turkey applies the Convention on a reciprocity basis to awards made in another contracting state and only to disputes considered commercial under Turkish law.

Can an ICC award issued in London be enforced in Turkey?

Potentially yes, assuming the New York Convention and Turkish enforcement conditions are satisfied.

Can an LCIA award be enforced?

Potentially yes. The arbitral institution is less important than matters such as the seat, Convention applicability, arbitration agreement and refusal grounds.

Can a Singapore-seated SIAC award be enforced in Turkey?

Potentially yes, subject to the same enforcement analysis.

What if the award came from a non-New York Convention state?

The New York Convention may not apply because of Turkey’s reciprocity declaration, but MÖHUK Articles 60–63 should then be examined as a possible domestic enforcement route.

What documents do I need?

MÖHUK requires the arbitration agreement or clause, the qualifying arbitral award and duly certified translations.

Does the award need to be final?

It must have the status required by the applicable enforcement framework. MÖHUK refers to awards that are final and enforceable or binding on the parties.

Can Turkey refuse enforcement because the arbitrators made a legal mistake?

An alleged merits error does not by itself correspond to one of the limited Convention refusal grounds. The enforcement procedure is not intended to become a new appeal on the merits.

Can enforcement be refused for public policy?

Yes. Both the New York Convention and MÖHUK contain public-policy refusal grounds.

Can the court review arbitrability itself?

Yes. Turkish arbitrability is one of the grounds the enforcement court can consider.

Can a foreign arbitral tribunal decide ownership of Turkish real estate?

Direct rights in rem over immovable property in Turkey present serious arbitrability restrictions under Turkish law.

What if I was never notified of the arbitration?

Lack of proper notification or inability to present the case can provide a refusal ground.

What if the tribunal exceeded the arbitration clause?

Enforcement may be refused for the part exceeding jurisdiction. If separable, the valid portion may potentially still be enforced.

What if the award has been annulled at the seat?

Annulment by a competent authority at the seat is a recognized ground for refusing enforcement.

What if an annulment case is still pending?

The New York Convention allows the enforcement court to adjourn the enforcement decision and potentially require security.

Is enforcement subject to a proportional court fee based on the award amount?

Turkish Court of Cassation decisions have held that foreign arbitral award recognition and enforcement proceedings are subject to fixed rather than proportional judgment fees.

Can only part of an award be enforced?

Yes, where the enforceable part can be separated from matters outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Can the award be recognized without immediate execution?

Yes. MÖHUK Article 63 provides for recognition under the enforcement rules.

Can I enforce against Turkish bank accounts?

After obtaining the legally required Turkish enforceability, qualifying debtor bank assets may be pursued through Turkish enforcement procedures.

Can I enforce against Turkish real estate?

A monetary award may potentially be executed against real estate owned by the debtor after enforcement. This is different from direct arbitral determination of an in rem right over Turkish land.

Step-by-Step Enforcement Checklist

Before filing an enforcement application in Turkey, the award creditor should answer the following questions:

1. Where was the arbitration seated?
2. Is the award truly foreign for Turkish enforcement purposes?
3. Is the seat located in a New York Convention contracting state?
4. Does Turkey’s reciprocity reservation apply?
5. Is the underlying legal relationship commercial under Turkish law?
6. Is there another treaty that could apply?
7. Is the award final, enforceable or binding?
8. Has a set-aside action been filed?
9. Has the award been suspended?
10. Has the award been annulled?
11. Is the original arbitration agreement available?
12. Is there a duly authenticated or certified copy of the award?
13. Are complete Turkish translations available?
14. Was the respondent properly notified of arbitration?
15. Did the respondent have a meaningful opportunity to present its case?
16. Was the tribunal appointed according to the agreement?
17. Did the tribunal follow the agreed procedural rules?
18. Did the award stay within the scope of the arbitration clause?
19. Is the dispute arbitrable under Turkish law?
20. Could enforcement create a serious Turkish public-policy issue?
21. Which Turkish court has territorial jurisdiction?
22. Where are the debtor’s Turkish assets?
23. Is a provisional protective measure necessary?
24. Has the debtor already made partial payment?
25. What appeal risks may delay execution?

A high-value enforcement case should normally begin with this analysis rather than simply translating the award and filing it.

Conclusion

Turkey provides a developed legal framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, principally through the New York Convention and Articles 60–63 of MÖHUK.

Türkiye has been part of the New York Convention system since its accession on 2 July 1992, and as of August 2026 the Convention has 172 contracting parties.

For international companies, this creates a powerful enforcement mechanism.

An arbitral award issued in London, Paris, Geneva, Singapore, New York or another Convention jurisdiction can potentially be transformed into enforceable rights against Turkish assets without retrying the original commercial dispute.

However, enforcement is not automatic.

The first question is whether the New York Convention applies at all.

Turkey made both of the principal Article I(3) reservations.

It applies the Convention only:

to awards made in another contracting state

and

to disputes considered commercial under Turkish law.

If these conditions are not satisfied, domestic enforcement under MÖHUK may still need to be examined.

The second question is whether the award is legally ready for enforcement.

MÖHUK Article 60 permits enforcement of foreign arbitral awards that have become final and enforceable or binding on the parties.

Award creditors should therefore determine whether:

• the institutional process is complete;
• correction or interpretation procedures remain pending;
• a set-aside application exists;
• or the award has been suspended.

The third issue is documentation.

MÖHUK Article 61 requires:

• the arbitration agreement;
• the arbitral award;
• and duly certified translations.

The New York Convention likewise requires authenticated or certified award and arbitration-agreement documentation together with translation where necessary.

Poor documentary preparation can therefore delay even a legally strong award.

The fourth issue is the limited nature of the Turkish court’s review.

The enforcement judge is not deciding the contractual dispute for a second time.

The New York Convention contains an intentionally narrow list of refusal grounds, and MÖHUK Article 62 closely reflects that structure.

Those grounds principally concern:

• existence and validity of the arbitration agreement;
• proper representation;
• notice;
• right to be heard;
• tribunal composition;
• arbitral procedure;
• excess of jurisdiction;
• binding status;
• annulment or suspension;
• arbitrability; and
• public policy.

An ordinary allegation that:

“The arbitrators got the case wrong”

is not the same thing as establishing one of these enforcement defences.

The fifth issue is public policy.

Public policy remains an important safeguard, but it should not transform enforcement proceedings into a disguised appeal.

International arbitration depends on respecting the finality of arbitral awards.

If Turkish courts reconsidered every issue of contract interpretation, factual evidence and damages, the international enforcement function of the New York Convention would be undermined.

The sixth issue is arbitrability.

Turkish law maintains certain restrictions on disputes that can be privately arbitrated.

International Arbitration Law No. 4686 expressly excludes disputes relating to rights in rem over immovable property situated in Turkey and disputes outside the parties’ dispositive authority.

International contracts involving Turkish real estate should therefore distinguish carefully between ordinary commercial claims and direct determination of Turkish property rights.

The seventh issue is the relationship between set-aside proceedings and enforcement.

Where an award has already been annulled by the competent authority at the seat, enforcement faces a serious statutory obstacle.

Where annulment is merely pending, Article VI of the New York Convention gives the enforcement court flexibility to adjourn the matter and allows the award creditor to request suitable security.

This can become strategically crucial where the losing party files a set-aside action primarily to delay payment.

The eighth issue is asset recovery.

A successful enforcement judgment is not the commercial objective by itself.

Collection is.

Before beginning proceedings, an award creditor should ask:

• Does the Turkish debtor own real estate?
• Does it operate bank accounts?
• Does it own vehicles or machinery?
• Does it have valuable receivables?
• Does it own shares?
• Is there evidence that assets are being transferred?

International arbitration enforcement should therefore be planned together with Turkish execution strategy.

A USD 10 million award against an asset-rich Turkish company may justify immediate and sophisticated enforcement planning.

A USD 10 million award against an empty shell company presents a completely different commercial problem.

Finally, international businesses should think about enforcement before the arbitration even begins.

When negotiating a dispute-resolution clause, parties should consider:

• seat of arbitration;
• institutional rules;
• enforceability under the New York Convention;
• location of counterparty assets;
• arbitrability;
• validity of the arbitration clause;
• and local enforcement risks.

The strongest arbitration clause is not simply the clause that sends a dispute to a prestigious tribunal.

It is the clause that ultimately produces an award capable of reaching the losing party’s assets.

For foreign companies seeking to enforce an arbitral award in Türkiye, the practical strategy can therefore be summarized as:

identify the award and seat → confirm New York Convention applicability → prepare the arbitration agreement and award → complete Turkish translations and authentication → identify refusal risks → locate Turkish assets → file before the competent Turkish court → defend against Article V/MÖHUK 62 objections → proceed to execution once enforcement is available.

International arbitration may determine who won the dispute.

Enforcement in Turkey determines whether that victory produces money.

Legal Disclaimer

This article provides general legal information concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Turkey as of August 2026.

It does not constitute legal advice concerning any particular arbitral award, arbitration agreement, enforcement proceeding or debtor.

The applicable procedure may vary depending upon:

• seat of arbitration;
• arbitral institution;
• country where the award was made;
• New York Convention status;
• applicable treaties;
• nature of the commercial relationship;
• wording and validity of the arbitration agreement;
• notification procedures;
• arbitral procedure;
• award status;
• set-aside proceedings;
• arbitrability;
• Turkish public policy;
• identity of the debtor;
• and location of assets in Türkiye.

Foreign companies holding substantial arbitral awards against Turkish individuals or companies should obtain award-specific Turkish enforcement advice before commencing proceedings or allowing identifiable Turkish assets to be dissipated.