Recognition and Enforcement of Interim Arbitral Awards in Turkey

The recognition and enforcement of interim arbitral awards in Turkey is a legally complex subject because the term “interim award” does not have a single universally accepted meaning.

An arbitral tribunal may issue several decisions before rendering the document described as its final award. Some of these decisions conclusively resolve a separate claim or issue. Others merely preserve the existing position until the tribunal can decide the merits. Certain decisions order immediate payment, while others regulate evidence, confidentiality, asset preservation or contractual performance.

The title chosen by the tribunal is not always decisive.

A document called an “interim award” may finally determine liability or require payment of an undisputed amount. Such a decision may possess the essential characteristics of an enforceable arbitral award even though the arbitration continues on damages or other claims.

Conversely, a document called an “award” may only grant a temporary injunction that the tribunal can modify or terminate at any time. That decision may operate more like an interim measure than a final adjudication capable of recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention.

The distinction is particularly important when the losing party has assets in Turkey.

The successful party must determine whether it should:

• Apply for recognition of the decision;
• Apply for recognition and enforcement;
• Seek an equivalent interim measure from a Turkish court;
• Wait for a final or partial award;
• Request that the tribunal convert the relief into a clearly final award;
• Commence parallel asset-protection proceedings.

Turkey’s legal framework distinguishes between arbitral awards and interim protective measures. International Arbitration Law No. 4686 expressly permits tribunals to issue partial awards and separately regulates interim injunctions and interim attachments. Foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced principally under the New York Convention and Articles 60 to 63 of Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure.

This article examines how Turkish law distinguishes final, partial, interim and provisional decisions, which decisions may qualify for enforcement, how emergency arbitrator decisions are treated and what practical steps should be taken when urgent arbitral relief must produce legal effects in Turkey.

Why Terminology Matters

International arbitration practice uses several expressions that may appear similar but describe legally different decisions.

These include:

• Final award;
• Partial award;
• Interim award;
• Provisional award;
• Award on jurisdiction;
• Procedural order;
• Interim measure;
• Emergency arbitrator decision.

A recognition or enforcement application should not rely exclusively on the heading appearing on the first page.

The Turkish court may need to examine what the tribunal actually decided, whether that decision is binding, whether the tribunal can reconsider it and whether the operative section imposes an obligation capable of compulsory enforcement.

The distinction between an award and an interim measure is important because Turkish law provides different procedural mechanisms for each.

What Is a Final Arbitral Award?

A final award ordinarily resolves all claims submitted to the tribunal and brings the arbitration proceedings to an end, subject to correction, interpretation or an additional award concerning an omitted claim.

Under Article 13 of International Arbitration Law No. 4686, arbitration proceedings terminate when the final award is rendered or when one of the other statutory termination events occurs. Article 14 regulates the form and content of arbitral awards, including the tribunal’s reasoning, the relief granted, the seat, date and signatures.

A final award may order:

• Payment of money;
• Performance of a contractual obligation;
• Delivery of property;
• Damages;
• Interest;
• Costs;
• Declaratory relief.

Where the award was rendered outside Turkey, recognition or enforcement will ordinarily be sought under the New York Convention or Law No. 5718.

What Is a Partial Arbitral Award?

A partial award finally decides one or more separable claims or issues while the arbitration continues concerning other matters.

For example, a tribunal may issue:

• A partial award on liability while reserving quantum;
• A partial award ordering payment of undisputed invoices;
• A partial award concerning one contract in a multicontract dispute;
• A partial award dismissing certain claims;
• A partial award on a separate counterclaim;
• A partial award resolving contractual interpretation before determining damages.

Article 14 of International Arbitration Law No. 4686 expressly states that, unless the parties agree otherwise, the tribunal may issue partial awards. The domestic arbitration provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure contain the same principle.

A genuine partial award is not merely temporary. It is final concerning the matter it decides.

The tribunal should not ordinarily reconsider the resolved issue later in the same proceedings merely because another claim remains pending. This finality is one of the strongest reasons for treating a true partial award as capable of independent challenge and enforcement.

What Is an Interim Arbitral Award?

The expression “interim award” is used inconsistently.

It may refer to a decision that:

• Finally determines liability;
• Resolves jurisdiction;
• Decides the applicable law;
• Orders immediate payment;
• Grants temporary relief;
• Preserves assets;
• Prohibits specified conduct pending the final award.

The legal character of the decision therefore depends on its substance.

An interim decision that finally resolves a separable legal or monetary claim may function as a partial award.

A decision that only preserves the status quo and remains freely modifiable by the tribunal is more likely to be treated as an interim measure.

The central question is not simply whether the arbitration continues. The question is whether the particular issue has been decided finally and whether the decision imposes a binding obligation suitable for recognition or compulsory execution.

What Is an Interim Measure?

An interim measure is temporary protection granted before the final resolution of the dispute.

Common examples include orders:

• Preventing the disposal of shares;
• Preserving goods or evidence;
• Maintaining contractual performance;
• Protecting confidential information;
• Preventing the dissipation of assets;
• Requiring security;
• Preserving the status quo;
• Restricting the calling of a guarantee.

Article 6 of International Arbitration Law No. 4686 permits an arbitral tribunal, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, to grant an interim injunction or interim attachment at the request of a party. The tribunal may require security.

However, the tribunal cannot issue an interim measure that must be executed through compulsory enforcement authorities, requires action by another public authority or directly binds third parties.

This limitation reflects a fundamental principle: arbitrators derive their authority from the parties’ agreement, while state courts possess coercive powers over banks, registries, enforcement offices and non-parties.

Interim Awards and Interim Measures Are Not the Same

A partial or interim award may finally decide a substantive right.

An interim measure does not normally determine the final merits. It protects the effectiveness of the proceedings until a later decision is made.

For example:

Decision A: The respondent is liable under the contract, while damages will be determined later.

This decision may constitute a final partial award on liability.

Decision B: The respondent must not transfer its shares until the final award.

This is normally an interim protective measure.

Decision C: The respondent must immediately pay EUR 1 million representing an admitted and undisputed debt, while the parties’ remaining claims continue.

This may constitute an enforceable partial award if the payment obligation is finally determined.

Decision D: The respondent must deposit EUR 1 million into escrow as security until the tribunal decides the claim.

This is ordinarily an interim measure rather than a final monetary award.

The distinction must be assessed through the operative section, reasoning, applicable arbitration rules and law of the seat.

Recognition and Enforcement Are Different

Recognition and enforcement are related but distinct.

Recognition

Recognition gives legal effect to the arbitral decision in Turkey.

A recognised award may be relied upon:

• As conclusive evidence;
• To establish res judicata;
• To prevent relitigation of a decided issue;
• In related corporate or insolvency proceedings;
• As the legal basis for another application.

Enforcement

Enforcement permits the award creditor to use Turkish state authority to compel compliance.

Depending on the operative relief, enforcement may lead to:

• Seizure of bank accounts;
• Attachment of receivables;
• Sale of property;
• Delivery of movable assets;
• Performance through enforcement proceedings;
• Recovery of interest and costs.

A decision may be capable of recognition but not meaningful compulsory enforcement.

For example, an award finally determining jurisdiction or contractual interpretation may have legal significance but contain no executable payment or performance order.

The Legal Framework for Turkish-Seated International Awards

Where Turkey is the seat and the dispute contains a foreign element, International Arbitration Law No. 4686 generally governs the proceedings.

Article 14 expressly authorises partial awards. Article 15 provides that an arbitral award may be challenged only through an action to set it aside and regulates when the award becomes executable.

Following the rejection of a setting-aside action, the competent court issues a certificate confirming that the award is enforceable. The certificate may also be issued after the challenge period has expired or where the parties have validly waived their right to bring the relevant challenge, subject to the statutory review of arbitrability and public policy.

Because Article 14 classifies partial decisions as arbitral awards and Article 15 measures the setting-aside period from notification of the award, a prudent party should treat each genuine partial award as independently capable of triggering the statutory challenge period.

Waiting for the final award on all remaining claims may create a risk that a challenge against the earlier partial award will be considered late.

Enforcement of Turkish-Seated Partial Awards

A partial award rendered in a Turkish-seated international arbitration should generally be capable of enforcement where it:

• Finally resolves a separable claim;
• Contains clear and unconditional relief;
• Satisfies the formal requirements for an award;
• Has been properly notified;
• Is no longer subject to a suspensive setting-aside process;
• Concerns an arbitrable matter;
• Does not violate public policy.

The fact that the tribunal continues to hear other claims should not by itself prevent enforcement of the matter finally determined.

For example, where a tribunal finally orders payment of an admitted principal amount but reserves disputed damages and interest, the payment award may be independently executable.

A different conclusion may apply if the decision expressly states that it is provisional, subject to reconsideration or dependent on the tribunal’s later findings.

Domestic Arbitration Provides a Useful Comparison

Domestic arbitration in Turkey is governed by Articles 407 to 444 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Article 436 allows partial awards. Article 414 provides a specific court mechanism under which a tribunal-ordered interim measure may be declared enforceable by the court, provided that a valid arbitration agreement exists.

The international arbitration regime under Law No. 4686 uses a different formulation.

Where a party fails to comply with an interim measure granted by an international arbitral tribunal, the opposing party may ask the competent court for assistance by requesting a judicial interim injunction or attachment.

This distinction is important.

Under the international regime, the court does not necessarily place an enforcement stamp directly on the tribunal’s interim measure. It may instead assess the application under Turkish interim-relief standards and issue its own judicial measure.

Foreign Arbitral Awards under the New York Convention

The New York Convention establishes the principal international framework for recognising and enforcing foreign and non-domestic arbitral awards.

Its objective is to ensure that qualifying foreign awards are recognised as binding and generally capable of enforcement in contracting states, subject to limited refusal grounds.

The Convention does not provide a detailed universal definition separating:

• Final awards;
• Partial awards;
• Interim awards;
• Provisional orders.

The enforcing court may therefore need to examine the decision’s substance and effect under the law governing the arbitration.

A foreign decision is more likely to qualify as an award where it conclusively resolves an independent claim or issue and is binding on the parties.

A temporary and freely modifiable protective order faces a substantially less certain enforcement position.

Foreign Arbitral Awards under Law No. 5718

Articles 60 to 63 of Law No. 5718 regulate the enforcement and recognition of foreign arbitral awards where applicable, while preserving Turkey’s international treaty obligations.

Article 60 states that a foreign arbitral award may be enforced where it has become final and executable or is binding on the parties. Article 63 applies the enforcement framework to recognition applications as well.

This wording is important because it refers not only to formal finality but also to binding effect.

A foreign partial award may therefore qualify where it is binding and final concerning the issue decided, even though the tribunal continues to consider other claims.

A revocable interim measure presents a more difficult case. Although it may be contractually binding, its temporary and modifiable nature may lead the court to conclude that it is not an arbitral award capable of ordinary recognition or enforcement under Articles 60 to 63.

The issue should be assessed case by case. Turkish legislation does not establish an express and comprehensive foreign-interim-measure enforcement regime equivalent to the regime applicable to final foreign awards.

Functional Test for an Interim Decision

When deciding whether a foreign interim decision qualifies for recognition or enforcement, the following questions are likely to be important:

Did the Tribunal Finally Decide a Claim?

A decision finally ordering payment of a debt is more likely to qualify than an order requiring temporary security.

Can the Tribunal Reconsider the Decision?

If the tribunal may freely amend or revoke the decision, it resembles an interim measure rather than a final award.

Does the Decision Impose Clear Relief?

An enforceable operative section should identify the obligation, amount, currency, deadline and responsible party.

Is the Decision Binding under the Law of the Seat?

Article 60 of Law No. 5718 and the New York Convention framework make binding effect a central consideration.

Does the Decision Resolve a Separable Issue?

A partial award may be final concerning one claim while other claims remain pending.

Is the Relief Temporary?

An order operating only until the final award, tribunal modification or a specified event is less likely to be treated as an independently enforceable award.

How Did the Tribunal Describe Its Intention?

The tribunal’s express statement that it finally disposes of a claim is relevant, although the title alone is not conclusive.

Examples of Decisions Likely to Qualify

The following decisions are stronger candidates for recognition or enforcement in Turkey:

• A partial award ordering payment of undisputed invoices;
• A partial award finally determining ownership of contractual receivables;
• An award finally resolving liability while reserving quantum;
• A partial award dismissing specified claims with final effect;
• An award determining a severable counterclaim;
• An award ordering payment under a separate contractual obligation.

The applicant should demonstrate that the tribunal has exhausted its authority regarding the matter decided and that the issue will not be reopened in the remaining proceedings.

Examples of Decisions Facing Greater Difficulty

The following decisions are less likely to qualify as ordinary foreign arbitral awards:

• An order preserving the status quo;
• A temporary prohibition on transferring shares;
• A security-for-costs order;
• An order requiring evidence preservation;
• A procedural document-production order;
• A temporary escrow deposit;
• An order operating only until the tribunal decides otherwise;
• A decision expressly subject to later reconsideration.

These measures may still be contractually binding.

However, binding contractual effect is not always sufficient to transform a temporary procedural or protective decision into an award suitable for recognition and execution through the ordinary foreign-award regime.

Enforcement of Foreign Interim Measures in Turkey

Where the foreign tribunal has granted an interim measure and Turkish assets or conduct are involved, applying directly for recognition and enforcement may not always be the most effective strategy.

The applicant should consider requesting an equivalent interim measure from a Turkish court.

Article 6 of International Arbitration Law No. 4686 permits a party to seek interim protection from Turkish courts before or during arbitration. The existence of an arbitration agreement does not prevent such an application. The provisions concerning judicial interim protection also apply where the arbitration is seated outside Turkey.

A Turkish court application may be particularly necessary where relief must bind:

• A Turkish bank;
• The land registry;
• The commercial registry;
• An enforcement office;
• A warehouse;
• A third-party custodian;
• A person that did not sign the arbitration agreement.

The foreign tribunal’s decision may support the application by demonstrating urgency and the arbitral assessment of the dispute.

Nevertheless, the Turkish court will apply its own procedural rules and will not necessarily treat the foreign measure as automatically executable.

Emergency Arbitrator Decisions

Emergency arbitration allows a party to obtain urgent relief before the ordinary tribunal has been constituted.

Under the ISTAC Emergency Arbitrator Rules, the emergency arbitrator may grant appropriate interim measures, require security and issue a written reasoned decision. The decision is binding on the parties, who undertake to comply without delay.

However, an ISTAC emergency arbitrator decision is not permanently final.

It may be modified or terminated when circumstances change. The subsequently constituted tribunal is not bound by it and may modify or terminate it. The emergency decision also ceases to be binding in specified circumstances, including the rendering of the arbitral award unless the tribunal decides otherwise.

These characteristics make classification as an enforceable arbitral award uncertain.

The decision is contractually binding, but it is temporary, reviewable by the ordinary tribunal and designed to preserve the situation before a full tribunal can act.

Where compliance is not voluntary, an application to the competent Turkish court for equivalent interim relief will often be more reliable than attempting ordinary recognition and enforcement as though the emergency decision were a final monetary award.

Is an Emergency Arbitrator an Arbitral Tribunal?

Another issue is whether the decision was rendered by a body falling within the relevant statutory and treaty concept of an arbitral tribunal.

Emergency arbitrators derive their authority from the arbitration agreement and incorporated institutional rules. Their decisions may be binding between the parties.

However, they act before constitution of the ordinary tribunal, perform a temporary function and cannot finally decide the merits.

These features may influence whether a Turkish court classifies the document as an “arbitral award” or as a contractually binding interim decision.

Parties should therefore avoid assuming that labelling an emergency decision an “award” guarantees recognition under the New York Convention or Law No. 5718.

Procedural Orders Are Generally Not Awards

A procedural order ordinarily regulates how the arbitration will proceed.

It may address:

• Submission deadlines;
• Document production;
• Hearing dates;
• Witness evidence;
• Confidentiality;
• Translation;
• Cybersecurity;
• Allocation of hearing time.

Such an order does not normally resolve a substantive claim.

Even where the order is binding within the arbitration, it is generally not suitable for recognition or compulsory enforcement as an arbitral award.

Where non-compliance affects the proceedings, the tribunal may respond through:

• Adverse inferences;
• Cost allocation;
• Exclusion of evidence;
• Procedural sanctions;
• Determination on the existing record.

If compliance requires third-party or coercive action in Turkey, judicial assistance may need to be requested through the applicable procedural mechanism.

Awards on Jurisdiction

A tribunal may decide jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before determining the merits.

The legal effect of a jurisdictional decision depends on what it decides.

A decision declining jurisdiction and terminating the entire case may constitute a final award.

A decision confirming jurisdiction and allowing the case to continue may not contain relief requiring compulsory enforcement.

Recognition may nevertheless become relevant if a party commences parallel litigation and attempts to relitigate the jurisdictional question.

The classification and challenge route should be examined under the law of the seat and the wording of the decision.

Competent Turkish Court

Under Article 60 of Law No. 5718, the parties may agree in writing on the Turkish first-instance court before which enforcement will be sought.

In the absence of such agreement, territorial jurisdiction is connected with:

• The Turkish domicile of the party against whom enforcement is requested;
• Its habitual residence, where no domicile exists;
• The place where assets capable of enforcement are located, where neither exists.

For an international commercial dispute, the application will ordinarily be brought before the competent Commercial Court of First Instance.

The applicant should identify both subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction before filing. An urgent application concerning a temporary decision may lose much of its commercial value if proceedings begin before the wrong court.

Documents Required for Enforcement

Article 61 of Law No. 5718 requires the applicant to submit:

• The original arbitration agreement or a duly authenticated copy;
• The original foreign arbitral award or a duly authenticated copy;
• Certified translations of those documents;
• The required number of copies for the opposing parties.

Where an interim or partial decision is involved, the applicant should also consider submitting:

• The applicable arbitration rules;
• The tribunal’s procedural order explaining the decision’s status;
• Evidence of proper notification;
• Evidence that the decision is binding under the law of the seat;
• Confirmation that the tribunal cannot reconsider the resolved claim;
• Any later correction or interpretation decision;
• A legal opinion on the effect of the decision at the seat.

These additional materials may help the Turkish court understand why a decision called “interim” should nevertheless be treated as a final partial award.

The Importance of the Operative Section

The operative section should state precisely what the respondent must do.

A decision may be difficult to enforce where it merely declares that:

• A party “should” act;
• Payment will become due after a later calculation;
• The claimant is entitled to an amount not yet quantified;
• The obligation depends on a future event;
• The tribunal will determine the remedy later.

A stronger operative section identifies:

• The party owing the obligation;
• The exact amount or performance;
• The currency;
• The payment or performance deadline;
• Interest;
• Costs;
• Whether the determination is final;
• Which issues remain reserved.

Parties seeking an independently enforceable partial award should ask the tribunal to eliminate ambiguity.

Refusal Grounds

Article 62 of Law No. 5718 contains limited grounds for refusing enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.

These include:

• Absence of an arbitration agreement;
• Conflict with public policy or general morality;
• Non-arbitrability under Turkish law;
• Improper representation;
• Lack of notice or inability to present the case;
• Invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• Irregular tribunal constitution or procedure;
• Excess of jurisdiction;
• The award not being final, executable or binding, or having been set aside.

The New York Convention contains corresponding limited grounds and is intended to prevent a full reconsideration of the merits.

For an interim decision, the most significant objections are likely to concern:

• Whether the document qualifies as an award;
• Whether it is binding;
• Whether it remains subject to modification;
• Whether the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction;
• Whether the relief is arbitrable;
• Whether enforcement would conflict with Turkish public policy.

No Review of the Merits

The Turkish enforcement court should not decide whether the tribunal interpreted the underlying contract correctly.

It should not ordinarily reconsider:

• The credibility of witnesses;
• The calculation of liability;
• The weight of expert evidence;
• Ordinary errors of law;
• Commercial reasonableness;
• The tribunal’s factual conclusions.

The court may examine the decision sufficiently to determine whether it qualifies as an enforceable award and whether a statutory refusal ground exists.

This distinction is particularly important where the respondent attempts to characterise a disagreement with the tribunal’s reasoning as an argument that the decision is not final.

Partial Enforcement

A foreign decision may contain both enforceable and non-enforceable elements.

For example, the tribunal may:

• Finally order payment of an admitted debt;
• Temporarily preserve certain assets;
• Reserve damages for later determination.

The Turkish court may be asked to enforce only the final payment component.

Law No. 5718 permits refusal concerning the part of an award that exceeds the arbitration agreement, while the general enforcement framework allows a decision to be enforced wholly or partially.

Separability should be addressed expressly in the application.

The claimant should identify the precise paragraphs of the operative section for which enforcement is sought.

Interim Decisions and Pending Challenges at the Seat

The respondent may argue that the decision is being challenged or reviewed at the seat.

A true partial award may be subject to a setting-aside action even though the remaining arbitration continues.

A temporary measure may instead be subject to modification by the tribunal without a separate annulment process.

The applicant should determine:

• Whether the challenge period has expired;
• Whether a challenge has been filed;
• Whether enforcement is suspended under the law of the seat;
• Whether the decision remains binding;
• Whether the tribunal has modified the decision;
• Whether a final award has replaced it.

A Turkish court may refuse enforcement where the award has not become binding, has lost enforceability or has been set aside by the competent authority.

Recognition without Immediate Enforcement

A party may seek recognition of a partial award even where compulsory execution is not yet necessary.

Recognition may be useful where the decision finally establishes:

• Contractual liability;
• Ownership of a claim;
• Validity of an agreement;
• Interpretation of a contractual provision;
• The absence of jurisdiction;
• A party’s legal status under the contract.

Article 63 of Law No. 5718 applies the foreign-award enforcement provisions to recognition.

The applicant should still demonstrate that the decision is a binding arbitral award rather than a preliminary procedural opinion.

Practical Example: Partial Award on Liability

Assume that a foreign-seated tribunal decides that a Turkish company breached a supply agreement.

The tribunal issues a document titled “Interim Award on Liability” and states that:

• Liability is finally determined;
• The finding will not be reconsidered;
• Quantum will be determined in a later phase.

The claimant may seek recognition of the liability determination in Turkey.

Immediate compulsory enforcement may be limited because no amount has yet been awarded. However, recognition may prevent the respondent from relitigating liability in related Turkish proceedings.

Once the tribunal issues the quantum award, monetary enforcement may proceed.

Practical Example: Payment of an Undisputed Amount

Assume that the respondent admits owing USD 2 million but disputes a further USD 8 million.

The tribunal issues a partial award ordering immediate payment of USD 2 million and reserves the remaining claim.

This decision is a strong candidate for independent enforcement because it:

• Finally determines a separable monetary claim;
• States the exact amount;
• Imposes an unconditional payment obligation;
• Is not intended to be reconsidered.

The applicant should provide evidence that the award is binding at the seat and comply with the New York Convention and Law No. 5718 document requirements.

Practical Example: Asset-Freezing Order

Assume that a foreign tribunal orders the respondent not to transfer funds from a Turkish bank account until the final award.

The bank did not sign the arbitration agreement.

The tribunal cannot directly control the Turkish bank or enforcement authorities.

Attempting ordinary enforcement of the order as a final arbitral award would involve substantial uncertainty.

The more effective route will generally be to request a Turkish judicial interim measure, supported by the arbitration agreement, tribunal order and evidence of urgency. Article 6 of Law No. 4686 preserves access to Turkish courts for this purpose.

Practical Example: Emergency Share Transfer Restriction

An ISTAC emergency arbitrator prohibits a shareholder from transferring its shares pending constitution of the tribunal.

The decision is binding between the parties but can be modified by the ordinary tribunal and may cease to bind when the final award is issued.

Where the restriction must affect the commercial registry or a third-party purchaser, a Turkish court measure should be considered immediately.

The emergency decision may provide persuasive support, but it should not automatically be assumed to have the same enforcement status as a final arbitral award.

Drafting Recommendations

Parties expecting that interim decisions may require enforcement in Turkey should address the issue during contract drafting.

The arbitration clause may state that the tribunal may issue:

• Final awards;
• Partial awards;
• Interim awards finally disposing of separable claims;
• Interim and conservatory measures;
• Emergency decisions.

The clause should preserve access to Turkish courts for urgent protection.

A suitable provision may state:

“The arbitral tribunal may issue final, partial and interim awards finally determining any separable claim or issue. Any such award shall be binding upon the parties immediately upon notification.

The tribunal and any emergency arbitrator may grant interim, conservatory and protective measures. Nothing in this arbitration agreement shall prevent a party from applying to a competent court for interim attachment, injunctive relief, preservation of evidence or enforcement assistance. Such an application shall not constitute a waiver of arbitration.”

This language cannot override mandatory Turkish enforcement law, but it clarifies the parties’ intention and helps distinguish final partial awards from temporary measures.

Recommendations for Arbitral Tribunals

Where the tribunal intends a decision to be independently enforceable, it should:

• Describe it as a partial or interim award;
• Identify the legal basis for issuing it;
• State that the matter is finally determined;
• Clarify that the resolved issue will not be reconsidered;
• Separate decided claims from reserved claims;
• Include a clear operative section;
• State the amount, currency and deadline;
• Comply with formal award requirements;
• Explain whether the decision is subject to correction or challenge;
• Avoid combining final monetary relief and temporary measures ambiguously.

Where the tribunal intends only temporary protection, it should describe the decision accurately as an interim measure or procedural order.

Clear drafting reduces enforcement disputes.

Recommendations for Award Creditors

Before filing in Turkey, the creditor should determine:

• The seat of arbitration;
• The law governing the decision;
• Whether the decision is final concerning the issue;
• Whether the tribunal may modify it;
• Whether it contains executable relief;
• Whether it has been challenged;
• Whether Turkish assets exist;
• Whether court interim relief would be faster;
• Whether third parties must be bound;
• Whether partial recognition or enforcement should be requested.

The creditor should also obtain certified documents and Turkish translations without delay.

Urgent relief may lose its commercial purpose during a lengthy dispute over classification.

Recommendations for Respondents

A respondent opposing enforcement should identify the correct legal objection rather than seeking a full merits review.

Potential issues include:

• The decision is not an arbitral award;
• It remains provisional and modifiable;
• It is not binding under the law of the seat;
• The tribunal lacked jurisdiction;
• The arbitration agreement is invalid;
• The respondent was denied an opportunity to present its case;
• The relief exceeds the arbitration agreement;
• The matter is not arbitrable;
• The decision has been suspended or set aside;
• Enforcement would violate public policy.

Where only part of the decision is defective, the respondent should address whether the remaining part can be separated and enforced.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an interim arbitral award be enforced in Turkey?

Potentially. A decision called an interim award may be enforceable if it finally and bindingly determines a separable claim or issue. A temporary, revocable protective measure is less likely to qualify as an ordinary enforceable foreign arbitral award.

Can a partial arbitral award be enforced before the final award?

Yes, where the partial award finally resolves a separable claim and satisfies the applicable statutory and treaty conditions. Turkish International Arbitration Law expressly permits partial awards.

Does the name of the decision determine whether it is enforceable?

No. The court should examine the substance, binding effect, finality and operative relief rather than relying only on labels such as “interim,” “partial” or “provisional.”

Can an award on liability be enforced before quantum is determined?

It may be recognised as a binding determination of liability. Compulsory monetary enforcement may not be possible until the amount payable is quantified.

Can an award ordering immediate payment be enforced while other claims continue?

Yes, where the payment obligation has been finally and independently determined and the decision qualifies as a binding partial award.

Can a foreign tribunal freeze a Turkish bank account directly?

No. A tribunal cannot ordinarily bind a Turkish bank that did not consent to arbitration or directly use Turkish compulsory enforcement authorities. A Turkish court measure will generally be required.

Can a Turkish court support a foreign-seated arbitration?

Yes. Article 6 of International Arbitration Law No. 4686 preserves access to Turkish courts for interim measures even where arbitration is involved.

Is an ISTAC emergency arbitrator decision binding?

Yes, between the parties under the ISTAC Rules. However, it may be modified or terminated and does not permanently bind the subsequently constituted tribunal.

Is every binding emergency decision enforceable under the New York Convention?

Not necessarily. Temporary, modifiable and provisional characteristics may prevent the decision from being treated as an arbitral award suitable for ordinary recognition and enforcement.

Can the Turkish court grant equivalent relief?

Potentially. The applicant may seek a Turkish judicial interim injunction or attachment under the applicable procedural conditions, using the arbitral decision as supporting evidence.

What documents are required?

The applicant must ordinarily submit the arbitration agreement, arbitral award and duly certified Turkish translations, together with the documents required by Turkish procedural law.

Can only part of an interim award be enforced?

Yes, where the final and enforceable portion can be separated from the temporary, jurisdictionally defective or non-enforceable portion.

Can the Turkish court reconsider the merits?

No. Recognition and enforcement proceedings are not a complete appeal. Review is limited to the applicable statutory and treaty grounds.

Can an award be enforced if it is still subject to modification?

Its enforceability will be significantly more uncertain. A decision that the tribunal may freely revoke or modify normally resembles an interim measure rather than a final award.

Should the creditor wait for the final award?

Not always. Waiting may be unnecessary where a genuine partial award finally grants executable relief. For a temporary measure, immediate Turkish court protection may be more effective.

Conclusion

Recognition and enforcement of interim arbitral awards in Turkey depends on the legal substance of the decision rather than its title.

A genuine partial award that finally determines a separable claim may be recognised or enforced even though the arbitration continues.

International Arbitration Law No. 4686 expressly allows tribunals to issue partial awards, and foreign-award legislation permits enforcement of decisions that are final, executable or binding on the parties.

Temporary interim measures require a different analysis.

An order preserving assets, maintaining the status quo or requiring temporary security may be binding contractually but still fail to qualify as an arbitral award for ordinary recognition and enforcement purposes.

Turkish international arbitration law therefore provides access to court assistance. Where a party fails to comply with a tribunal-ordered measure, the opposing party may seek a Turkish judicial injunction or attachment. This route is particularly important where relief must bind banks, registries, enforcement offices or other third parties.

Emergency arbitrator decisions illustrate the same distinction.

ISTAC emergency decisions are binding between the parties, but they remain temporary, may be modified by the ordinary tribunal and may cease to bind when the final award is rendered. Their treatment as enforceable awards is consequently less certain than the treatment of final partial awards.

Parties and tribunals should draft interim decisions carefully.

Where independent enforcement is intended, the tribunal should state that the decision finally disposes of a separable claim, include a clear operative order and distinguish the resolved matter from issues reserved for later determination.

Where the purpose is only temporary protection, the successful party should act quickly to obtain equivalent judicial relief in Turkey rather than relying exclusively on ordinary foreign-award enforcement proceedings.

The most effective strategy may therefore involve both arbitration and court protection.

A carefully coordinated approach can preserve assets, prevent irreversible harm and ensure that the eventual final award remains commercially meaningful.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The recognition or enforcement of an interim, partial or provisional arbitral decision depends on its wording, binding effect, law and seat of arbitration, applicable institutional rules, nature of the relief, Turkish procedural requirements and the circumstances of the intended enforcement. Case-specific Turkish legal advice should be obtained before filing an application.