Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments

The recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered by foreign courts is one of the important subjects of private international law. As a general rule, a judgment rendered by a court of one state produces 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 International Private and Procedural Law No. 5718 (MÖHUK). In particular, the provisions set out in Articles 50–59 of MÖHUK are of importance in this regard.

In determining whether a foreign court judgment may produce legal effects in Türkiye, it is first necessary to establish whether recognition or enforcement is required. Although recognition and enforcement are distinct legal institutions, both are fundamentally aimed at allowing 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 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 proceedings.

A judgment rendered by a foreign court may concern civil, commercial, 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 particular legal effect sought under Turkish law.

The Concept of Recognition

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

The principal purpose of recognition is to enable a foreign court judgment to produce legal effects in Türkiye without the need for a retrial.

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

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

The Concept of Enforcement

Enforcement means making a judgment rendered by a foreign court enforceable in Türkiye.

Under Article 50 of MÖHUK, the enforcement in Türkiye of judgments rendered by foreign courts in civil proceedings 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 give the foreign judgment the effect of being subject to compulsory execution in Türkiye.

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

The Difference Between Recognition and Enforcement

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

Recognition allows the foreign court judgment to produce the effect of res judicata or conclusive evidence in Türkiye.

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

Therefore, while every enforcement proceeding involves an assessment concerning the recognition of the foreign judgment, not every recognition proceeding necessarily requires enforcement.

For example, if a foreign divorce judgment is intended only to alter a person’s marital status in Türkiye, recognition may be sufficient. By contrast, if a monetary judgment rendered by a foreign court is intended to be compulsorily executed against the debtor’s assets in Türkiye, enforcement is required.

The Legal Basis of Enforcement

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

According to Article 50 of MÖHUK, the enforcement in Türkiye of judgments rendered by foreign courts in civil proceedings 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, for a judgment rendered by a foreign court to be enforceable in Türkiye, the Turkish legal order must grant that judgment enforceability subject to certain conditions.

The Finality Requirement for Enforcement

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

This requirement is one of the fundamental elements of Article 50 of MÖHUK.

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

What is important is not whether the judgment has become final under Turkish law, but whether it has become final under the law of the state in which the judgment was rendered.

Therefore, in enforcement proceedings, it is necessary to establish when and according to which procedure the foreign court judgment became final.

The Reciprocity Requirement in Enforcement

MÖHUK does not impose 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 Turkish court judgments does not, in every case, constitute an obstacle to the enforcement of a foreign court judgment in Türkiye.

However, reciprocity is expressly regulated in certain provisions of MÖHUK. Therefore, reciprocity in the context of enforcement should be distinguished from other matters, such as the requirement for foreigners to provide security in litigation.

Jurisdiction of the Foreign Court

One of the important requirements for enforcement concerns the international jurisdiction of the foreign court.

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

In assessing the jurisdiction of the foreign court, particular importance is attached to whether the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts has been violated.

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 concerning the enforcement of foreign court judgments is the absence of a violation of public policy.

Under Article 54 of 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 the foreign law or foreign 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 properly summoned and must have had an adequate opportunity to exercise the right of defence.

Under Article 54 of MÖHUK, for a foreign court judgment to be enforced in Türkiye, the person against whom enforcement is sought must have had the opportunity to participate in the proceedings in accordance with the law of the state in which the judgment was rendered.

In particular, situations in which the defendant was not informed of the proceedings before the foreign court, was not properly served with process, or was seriously deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right of defence may constitute an obstacle to enforcement.

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

Pending Proceedings Concerning the Same Matter Before Turkish Courts

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

Where there is a substantial overlap between the proceedings before the foreign court and the proceedings in Türkiye in terms of the parties, subject matter, and legal grounds, the issues of lis pendens and recognition and enforcement must also be assessed under Turkish law.

The purpose of such rules is to prevent conflicting judgments from arising concerning the same dispute.

Exclusive Jurisdiction of Turkish Courts

The exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts is particularly important when assessing the jurisdiction of the foreign court for enforcement purposes.

Where Turkish law provides that a particular dispute may be heard exclusively by Turkish courts, enforcement of a foreign court judgment concerning the same matter may not be possible 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 an area falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts.

The Court with Jurisdiction over Enforcement Proceedings

Under Article 51 of MÖHUK, the Civil Court of First Instance (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) has 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 an enforcement action be brought before the proper court.

Territorial Jurisdiction in Enforcement Proceedings

Article 51 of MÖHUK also establishes a special rule concerning territorial jurisdiction in enforcement proceedings.

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

If neither of these places exists in Türkiye, one of the courts located in Ankara, Istanbul, or Izmir has jurisdiction.

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

Persons Entitled to Seek Enforcement

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

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

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

Documents Required for an Enforcement Application

When seeking enforcement, the foreign court judgment and the documents demonstrating that the judgment has become final must be submitted in accordance with the applicable procedural requirements.

In particular, the following documents are important under MÖHUK:

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

The apostille or other authentication procedures provided for under applicable international conventions may also become relevant when foreign official documents are to be used in Türkiye.

Scope of the Enforcement Review

In enforcement proceedings, the Turkish court does not retry the foreign court case from the beginning by reviewing the judgment in its entirety.

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

Accordingly, the Turkish court does not, as a general rule, reassess the foreign court’s findings concerning the facts or the correctness of the foreign law applied by that court.

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 reconsider 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 enforcement requirements established by MÖHUK.

Accordingly, 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, once a foreign monetary judgment has been enforced, the creditor may apply to the Turkish enforcement authorities and seek enforcement measures against the debtor’s assets located in Türkiye.

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

Partial Enforcement

Where a foreign court judgment contains several orders or determinations, it may be possible for certain parts of the judgment to be enforced in Türkiye while other parts cannot be enforced.

In such circumstances, partial enforcement may arise.

For example, if a foreign court judgment contains both an order for the payment of money 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 judgment rendered in one country had no legal value whatsoever in another country, the parties could be required to bring repeated proceedings in different countries concerning the same dispute.

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 supported.

The Role of International Conventions

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

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

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

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

Limits of the Public Policy Exception

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

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

A violation of public policy exists only where allowing the foreign judgment to produce legal effects in Türkiye is manifestly incompatible with the fundamental and indispensable principles of the Turkish legal order.

Recognition and Enforcement Considered Together

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

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

By contrast, where the only purpose is for the foreign judgment to create a legal status or produce a legal effect in Türkiye, recognition may be sufficient instead of enforcement.

For example, if a foreign divorce judgment is intended to produce an effect on a person’s marital status in Türkiye, as a general rule no enforcement measure is required. By contrast, if a foreign court has rendered a monetary judgment that is intended to be compulsorily executed 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 effect of res judicata or conclusive evidence in Türkiye, whereas enforcement makes the foreign court judgment enforceable in Türkiye.

The principal provision governing enforcement under Turkish law is Article 50 of MÖHUK. According to this provision, the enforcement in Türkiye of judgments rendered by foreign courts in civil proceedings 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.

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

The Civil Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over enforcement proceedings. In terms of territorial jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 51 of 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 in Ankara, Istanbul, or Izmir has jurisdiction.

In conclusion, foreign court judgments cannot, as a general rule, be directly enforced in Türkiye. In order for a judgment to become enforceable in Türkiye, an enforcement decision from a Turkish court must generally be obtained. However, where the foreign judgment is intended only to produce the effect 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.