Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments

The recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered by foreign courts so that they may produce legal effects in another country is one of the important subjects of private international law. As a general rule, a judgment rendered by the court of a state produces its legal effects only within the legal order of that state. However, where the parties to the judgment or their assets are located in another country, it may be necessary for the foreign judgment to produce legal effects in that country as well.

Under Turkish law, the legal effects of foreign court judgments in Türkiye are regulated by the Turkish Code on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure No. 5718 (MÖHUK). In this regard, particularly Articles 50–59 of the MÖHUK are of importance.

In determining whether a foreign court judgment may produce legal effects in Türkiye, it is first necessary to determine whether recognition or enforcement is required. Although recognition and enforcement are distinct legal institutions, both are fundamentally aimed at enabling a foreign court judgment to produce certain legal effects within the Turkish legal order.

The Concept of a Foreign Court Judgment

A foreign court judgment is a judgment rendered by a court of a state other than Türkiye and which has become final under the law of the state in which it was rendered.

For the provisions of the MÖHUK concerning foreign court judgments to apply, there must first be a judgment rendered by a foreign court. In addition, the judgment must have become final under the law of the country in which it was rendered, which is particularly important for enforcement.

A judgment rendered by a foreign court may concern civil law, commercial law, family law, or other areas of private law. However, the legal effects that the judgment will produce in Türkiye depend on the nature of the judgment and the specific legal effect sought under Turkish law.

The Concept of Recognition

Recognition means accepting that a foreign court judgment produces the effects of res judicata or conclusive evidence in Türkiye.

The primary purpose of recognition is to ensure that a foreign court judgment produces legal effects in Türkiye without requiring the dispute to be adjudicated again.

For example, if the parties wish a divorce judgment rendered by a foreign court to alter their marital status in Türkiye as well, recognition of the foreign divorce judgment may be required.

Recognition does not aim to reopen the foreign judgment or reassess its merits in Türkiye. The Turkish court examines whether the conditions necessary for the foreign court judgment to be recognized within the Turkish legal order have been satisfied.

The Concept of Enforcement

Enforcement means rendering a judgment issued by a foreign court enforceable in Türkiye.

Pursuant to Article 50 of the MÖHUK, the enforcement of judgments rendered by foreign courts in civil matters and which have become final under the law of the state in which they were rendered is subject to an enforcement decision by the competent Turkish court.

Accordingly, the principal purpose of enforcement is to grant the foreign court judgment enforceability through compulsory execution in Türkiye.

For example, if a foreign court orders one person to pay a specific amount of money to another person and the debtor has assets in Türkiye, an enforcement decision will generally be required in order for the foreign judgment to be executed in Türkiye.

The Difference Between Recognition and Enforcement

The fundamental difference between recognition and enforcement lies in the nature of the legal effect sought to be given to the foreign court judgment in Türkiye.

Recognition enables a foreign court judgment to produce the effects of res judicata or conclusive evidence in Türkiye.

Enforcement, on the other hand, enables the foreign court judgment to be compulsorily executed in Türkiye.

Therefore, although an assessment concerning recognition is inherent in an enforcement decision, not every recognition necessarily requires enforcement.

For example, if a foreign divorce judgment is intended merely to alter the person’s marital status in Türkiye, recognition may be sufficient. By contrast, if a foreign court has rendered a judgment ordering the payment of money and the creditor wishes to enforce that judgment against the debtor’s assets in Türkiye, enforcement will be required.

Legal Basis of Enforcement

The primary provision governing the enforcement of foreign court judgments under Turkish law is Article 50 of the MÖHUK.

Pursuant to Article 50 of the MÖHUK, the enforcement in Türkiye of judgments rendered by foreign courts in civil matters and which have become final under the law of the state in which they were rendered is subject to an enforcement decision by the competent Turkish court.

This provision demonstrates that a foreign court judgment cannot, as a general rule, be directly subjected to compulsory execution in Türkiye.

In other words, in order for a judgment rendered by a foreign court to be enforceable in Türkiye, the Turkish legal order must grant such judgment enforceability subject to certain conditions.

The Requirement of Finality for Enforcement

In order for a foreign court judgment to be enforced, the judgment must have become final under the law of the country in which it was rendered.

This requirement constitutes one of the fundamental conditions under Article 50 of the MÖHUK.

Accordingly, if the foreign court judgment has not yet become final, an enforcement decision generally cannot be issued in Türkiye.

What is important here is that the judgment must have become final not under Turkish law, but under the law of the state in which the judgment was rendered.

Therefore, in enforcement proceedings, it must be established when and according to which procedure the foreign judgment became final.

The Requirement of Reciprocity in Enforcement

The MÖHUK does not establish a general reciprocity requirement for the enforcement of foreign court judgments.

This point is important. The fact that a foreign state does or does not recognize judgments rendered by Turkish courts does not, in every case, constitute an obstacle to the enforcement of a foreign court judgment in Türkiye.

However, the principle of reciprocity is separately regulated in certain provisions of the MÖHUK. Therefore, reciprocity in relation to enforcement must be distinguished from other matters, such as the requirement imposed on foreigners to provide security during legal proceedings.

Jurisdiction of the Foreign Court

One of the important requirements for enforcement is that the foreign court must have possessed international jurisdiction.

Under Article 54 of the MÖHUK, the Turkish court does not simply reassess whether the foreign court was competent according to the procedural law of its own country. Rather, it examines whether the foreign court’s jurisdiction was based on a connection that can be accepted under Turkish law.

In particular, it is important to determine whether the jurisdiction of the foreign court infringed upon the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts.

If a foreign court has rendered a judgment concerning a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts, the request for enforcement may be rejected.

Public Policy

One of the most important requirements for the enforcement of foreign court judgments is the absence of a violation of public policy.

Pursuant to Article 54 of the MÖHUK, a foreign court judgment must not be manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy.

Public policy refers to the fundamental values and mandatory principles of the Turkish legal system.

However, the mere fact that foreign law or a foreign court judgment differs from Turkish law does not, by itself, constitute a violation of public policy.

When assessing public policy, the specific consequences of the judgment and whether those consequences are compatible with the fundamental principles of the Turkish legal order must be taken into consideration.

Respect for the Right of Defence

Another important requirement for enforcement is that the defendant must have been duly summoned and given an adequate opportunity to exercise the right of defence.

Under Article 54 of the MÖHUK, for a foreign court judgment to be enforced in Türkiye, the person against whom enforcement is sought must have been given the opportunity to participate in the proceedings in accordance with the law of the country in which the judgment was rendered and must not have been deprived of his or her right of defence.

In particular, failure to inform the defendant of the proceedings abroad, failure to duly serve the relevant documents, or serious restrictions on the defendant’s right of defence may constitute an obstacle to enforcement.

The primary purpose of this provision is to ensure that the recognition of foreign court judgments in Türkiye is compatible with fundamental procedural guarantees.

Pending Proceedings Concerning the Same Matter in Turkish Courts

The existence of pending proceedings in Türkiye concerning the same subject matter may also be relevant to the enforcement of a foreign court judgment.

In particular, where there is a substantial overlap between the proceedings before the foreign court and the proceedings pending in Türkiye in terms of the parties, subject matter, and legal grounds, the issue must also be assessed under the Turkish rules concerning lis pendens and recognition and enforcement.

The purpose here is to prevent conflicting judgments concerning the same dispute from arising.

Exclusive Jurisdiction of Turkish Courts

When assessing the jurisdiction of a foreign court for enforcement purposes, the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts is particularly important.

Where Turkish law provides that a particular dispute may be adjudicated exclusively by Turkish courts, a judgment rendered by a foreign court concerning the same matter may not be enforceable in Türkiye.

Therefore, the enforcement court examines not only whether the foreign court acted in accordance with the jurisdictional rules of its own country, but also whether the foreign court’s judgment interferes with the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts.

The Court Having Subject-Matter Jurisdiction over Enforcement Proceedings

Pursuant to Article 51 of the MÖHUK, the civil court of first instance (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) has subject-matter jurisdiction over enforcement proceedings.

Accordingly, an enforcement action seeking to make a foreign court judgment enforceable in Türkiye must, as a general rule, be brought before the civil court of first instance.

Since rules concerning subject-matter jurisdiction are matters of public policy, it is important that the enforcement action be brought before the proper court having subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Court Having Territorial and International Jurisdiction over Enforcement Proceedings

Article 51 of the MÖHUK also establishes a specific jurisdictional rule for enforcement proceedings.

Accordingly, the court at the domicile or habitual residence in Türkiye of the person against whom enforcement is sought has jurisdiction.

If that person has neither a domicile nor a habitual residence in Türkiye, one of the courts of Ankara, Istanbul, or İzmir has jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the MÖHUK establishes a specific system concerning both subject-matter jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction in enforcement proceedings.

Persons Entitled to Request Enforcement

Persons who have a legal interest in the enforcement of a foreign court judgment in Türkiye may request enforcement.

For example, a creditor in whose favour a foreign court has rendered a judgment and who wishes to enforce that judgment in Türkiye may bring an enforcement action.

The person requesting enforcement must have a legal interest in exercising the right arising from the foreign court judgment in Türkiye.

Documents Required for an Enforcement Application

In an enforcement application, the foreign court judgment and documents demonstrating that the judgment has become final must be duly submitted.

Under the MÖHUK, the following documents are particularly important:

• the original foreign court judgment or a duly certified copy thereof,
• a document demonstrating that the judgment has become final,
• where necessary, a Turkish translation of the foreign court judgment,
• documents demonstrating that the relevant documents have been duly authenticated.

The apostille or other authentication procedures prescribed by applicable international conventions may also be relevant when foreign public documents are to be used in Türkiye.

Scope of the Enforcement Review

In enforcement proceedings, the Turkish court does not rehear the case by reviewing the foreign court’s judgment from the beginning.

The purpose of the enforcement review is to determine whether the foreign court judgment satisfies the conditions established by the MÖHUK for enforcement.

Accordingly, the Turkish court does not, as a general rule, reassess the foreign court’s findings of fact or whether the foreign law applied by the foreign court was correctly interpreted.

This principle is referred to as the prohibition of revision.

The Prohibition of Revision

The prohibition of revision means that the enforcement court may not review the merits of the foreign court judgment.

For example, if a foreign court has determined that a contract is valid, the Turkish court does not reassess at the enforcement stage whether the contract was correctly interpreted from the perspective of substantive law.

The task of the Turkish court is to determine whether the foreign court judgment satisfies the conditions for enforcement prescribed by the MÖHUK.

Therefore, enforcement proceedings do not constitute a new trial on the merits.

Effects of an Enforcement Decision

Once an enforcement decision has been granted, the foreign court judgment becomes enforceable in Türkiye.

As a result, it becomes possible to enforce the judgment through compulsory execution against the debtor or the debtor’s assets located in Türkiye.

For example, following the enforcement of a foreign judgment concerning a monetary claim, the creditor may apply to the Turkish enforcement authorities and initiate enforcement proceedings against the debtor’s assets located in Türkiye.

Therefore, enforcement constitutes the mechanism through which a foreign court judgment acquires actual enforceability within the Turkish legal order.

Partial Enforcement

Where a foreign court judgment contains multiple orders or claims, it may be possible to enforce certain parts of the judgment in Türkiye while enforcement of other parts may not be possible.

In such cases, partial enforcement may arise.

For example, if a foreign court judgment contains both an order to pay a monetary amount and another provision that may produce consequences contrary to Turkish public policy, the enforceability of the part satisfying the relevant requirements may be assessed separately.

Importance of Recognition and Enforcement in Private International Law

The fundamental purpose of recognition and enforcement is to prevent the judicial systems of different states from becoming completely separate and impermeable from one another.

If a court judgment rendered in one country had no legal value whatsoever in another country, the parties could be required to bring the same dispute before courts in different countries repeatedly.

Through recognition and enforcement mechanisms, foreign court judgments may, subject to certain conditions, produce legal effects within the legal orders of other states.

In this way, legal certainty, procedural economy, and international judicial cooperation are promoted.

The Role of International Conventions

In matters concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments, international conventions to which Türkiye is a party are also important in addition to the provisions of the MÖHUK.

Pursuant to Article 1 of the MÖHUK, the provisions of international conventions to which Türkiye is a party are reserved.

Therefore, if a special international convention concerning recognition and enforcement exists between Türkiye and the state in which the foreign court judgment was rendered, it must first be determined whether that convention applies.

In particular, international conventions may contain specific provisions concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in areas such as commercial disputes, family law, the protection of children, and other specialized fields.

Limits of the Public Policy Exception

Public policy constitutes an important safeguard mechanism in the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments. However, interpreting the public policy exception too broadly may undermine the effectiveness of the recognition and enforcement system.

Therefore, the mere fact that a foreign court judgment differs from Turkish law, or that foreign law produces consequences different from those produced by Turkish law, does not constitute a violation of public policy.

A violation of public policy requires that the consequences of giving effect to the foreign judgment in Türkiye be manifestly incompatible with the fundamental and indispensable principles of the Turkish legal order.

Joint Consideration of Recognition and Enforcement

Although recognition and enforcement are distinct legal institutions, they may be considered together in practice.

Where a foreign court judgment is intended both to produce the effect of res judicata in Türkiye and to become enforceable, the requirements concerning recognition are also relevant within the enforcement process.

By contrast, if the foreign judgment is intended merely to establish a legal status or produce another non-executory legal effect in Türkiye, recognition may be sufficient instead of enforcement.

For example, where a foreign divorce judgment is intended to produce consequences concerning a person’s marital status in Türkiye, an enforcement procedure is generally not required. By contrast, where a foreign court has rendered a monetary judgment and the creditor wishes to enforce it through compulsory execution in Türkiye, enforcement is required.

Conclusion

The institutions of recognition and enforcement are of great importance in ensuring that foreign court judgments produce legal effects in Türkiye.

Recognition enables a foreign court judgment to produce the effects of res judicata or conclusive evidence in Türkiye, whereas enforcement makes the foreign court judgment enforceable in Türkiye.

Under Turkish law, the principal provision governing enforcement is Article 50 of the MÖHUK. Pursuant to this provision, the enforcement in Türkiye of judgments rendered by foreign courts in civil matters and which have become final under the law of the state in which they were rendered is subject to an enforcement decision by the competent Turkish court.

With regard to the requirements for enforcement, Article 54 of the MÖHUK is particularly important. Among other matters, the court considers whether the foreign court judgment is not manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy, whether it has become final under the law of the state in which it was rendered, whether the foreign court possessed an acceptable basis of international jurisdiction, and whether the opposing party was given an adequate opportunity to participate in the proceedings and exercise its right of defence.

The court having subject-matter jurisdiction over enforcement proceedings is the civil court of first instance. In terms of territorial jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 51 of the MÖHUK, the court at the domicile or habitual residence in Türkiye of the person against whom enforcement is sought has jurisdiction. If neither exists in Türkiye, one of the courts of Ankara, Istanbul, or İzmir has jurisdiction.

As a result, a foreign court judgment cannot, as a general rule, be directly enforced in Türkiye. In order for the judgment to become enforceable in Türkiye, an enforcement decision from a Turkish court must generally be obtained. However, if the judgment is intended only to produce the effects of res judicata or conclusive evidence in Türkiye, recognition may be sufficient depending on the circumstances of the case.

This system establishes a balance between accepting foreign court judgments in Türkiye and protecting the fundamental principles of the Turkish legal order.