A maintenance decision of a foreign court must, as a rule, go through an appropriate recognition and enforcement (tanıma ve tenfiz) process before it can be enforced by compulsory execution in Türkiye. The conditions that apply are not determined by looking at MÖHUK alone. The country where the decision was issued, the type of maintenance, the nature of the decision and the relevant international conventions are examined together. The fact that a divorce has been entered in the civil registry does not, by itself, show that the maintenance claim has become collectible in Türkiye.
This guide is addressed to the creditor who wishes to obtain a result in Türkiye on the basis of a decision issued in a foreign country, and to the debtor who will defend against an enforcement request. The enforcement court is not a higher court that recalculates the maintenance from scratch; it examines the conditions under which the foreign decision may take effect in Türkiye. [1, 2]
What consequences do recognition and enforcement produce?
Recognition concerns accepting the res judicata effect or the conclusive evidentiary effect of the foreign decision. Enforcement (tenfiz), on the other hand, allows the decision to be executed in Türkiye. If the foreign decision merely establishes the existence of a legal situation, recognition may be sufficient; if attachment and collection are sought on the basis of a ruling ordering payment of money, enforcement comes into play. Where the decision contains provisions on termination, increase or refund, the nature of each provision is assessed separately. [1, Art. 50, 57–59]
A divorce decision may contain provisions on divorce, custody, maintenance and costs together. It should not be assumed that all of them are subject to the same convention or the same application procedure. If the maintenance part is severable, partial enforcement may be requested. The request must clearly state in whose favor, and for which period and amount, execution is sought.
Which convention applies must be determined first
Applications within the scope of the 2007 Hague Convention
The 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, which entered into force for Türkiye on 1 February 2017, applies when its scope conditions are met in terms of contracting States, time and type of maintenance. The core scope is maintenance arising from a parent-child relationship and owed to a person under the age of 21; the permitted reservations of the contracting States must be checked. Whether spousal maintenance is claimed together with child maintenance or independently affects, in particular, the scope of central authority assistance. [2, Art. 2][3]
Türkiye’s declarations extending the Convention to children under 25 who are in education and to certain other family maintenance obligations do not automatically produce the same result in another country. The reciprocity of such an extension is checked on the basis of the other State’s declaration regarding the same obligations and the same Chapters of the Convention. These declarations are not a rule of Turkish substantive law that creates a right to maintenance up to age 25 for everyone.
Türkiye has chosen the alternative procedure in Article 24 for recognition and enforcement. For that reason, the time limits and stages belonging to the Convention’s other procedure should not be transposed unchanged to all applications in Türkiye. Türkiye also has a reservation concerning the maintenance arrangements under Article 30. A settlement approved by the court, which is a decision within the meaning of Article 19, should not be confused with the separate category of maintenance arrangements under Article 30. [3]
The 1973 Convention and the role of MÖHUK
If the 2007 Convention applies between the two States and to the specific claim, its relationship with earlier conventions is resolved through Articles 48–49 and other relevant provisions. For a claim outside its scope, the 1973 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations, other agreements or MÖHUK may come into play. The 1956 New York Convention is not, on its own, a provision that makes every foreign judgment directly enforceable. Cooperation and the conditions for recognition and enforcement are examined separately. [2, 4, 5]
| Framework that may apply | Basic check | Generalization to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| 2007 Hague | Contracting State status, scope, declarations and enforceability of the decision | Every type of maintenance and every document is within scope |
| 1973 recognition and enforcement | Both States being parties and the conditions of the convention | All of MÖHUK’s conditions are always added |
| MÖHUK | Finality and the conditions of Art. 54 | Conventions are not taken into account at all |
| 1956 New York | Transmission and collection assistance | The foreign decision is directly a Turkish enforcement title |
How are the competent court and jurisdiction determined?
The general provision in MÖHUK Article 51 and the special subject-matter jurisdiction of family courts are assessed together. The recognition and enforcement of maintenance decisions in family law matters is handled within the family court system. Where there is no family court, the relevant court acts as a family court. [7] As to territorial jurisdiction, the court at the place of residence in Türkiye of the person against whom enforcement is sought comes into play; failing that, the place where that person resides; and failing that, one of the courts of Ankara, Istanbul or Izmir. [1]
This order should not be confused with the rules that determine jurisdiction in a new maintenance action. Filing an application through a central authority does not in every case remove the need for a judicial decision; it ensures that the application file is transmitted to the relevant authority and that the necessary cooperation is provided.
Which documents should the application file contain?
A complete and legible copy of the foreign decision is the starting document. However, the first page alone or the section showing the payment amount may not be enough. It must be clear between whom the decision was made, what is to be paid from which date, the escalation formula, and whether the ruling has been changed by later decisions.
| Document | What it shows | Special check |
|---|---|---|
| Certified copy of the decision | Scope of the ruling and its parties | Correct date and file number |
| Certificate of finality or enforceability | The effect required by the applicable regime | The two are not the same requirement under every regime |
| Service and defense documents | Proper summons and an opportunity to defend | Especially for a decision rendered in absentia |
| Periodic account of arrears | Accrued claim and payments | Index, interest and set-off are separate |
| Translation and any required authentication | Understanding and verification of the document | Authentication exemption in the convention |
Is finality required in the same way in every case?
MÖHUK Article 50 takes as its basis a judgment that has become final under the law of the foreign country. By contrast, Article 20(6) of the 2007 Convention requires that the decision be effective in the State of origin for recognition, and enforceable there for enforcement. The 1973 Convention also contains a special provision on provisionally enforceable decisions and provisional measures. The statement "No foreign maintenance decision can be used without a certificate of finality" is therefore not correct for every regime. [1, 2, 4]
Apostille and translation are not an automatic package
Article 38 of the 2007 Convention removes the requirement of legalization or similar formality for matters within the Convention. The 1973 recognition and enforcement convention also contains an exemption concerning the authentication of documents. Giving a mandatory apostille list in every file may therefore cause unnecessary expense. Whether the exemption applies to the specific document and application route should be checked; the need for a translation should be treated separately from authentication. [2, Art. 38, 44][4, Art. 17]
On what grounds may enforcement be refused?
Depending on the regime applied, a manifest contradiction with public policy, a deficiency in the right to a defense, irreconcilable decisions and the relevant jurisdictional conditions are important. Under the MÖHUK route, reciprocity is also examined for enforcement; the same reciprocity condition is not required for recognition. For an application within a convention, on the other hand, the conditions of the convention are the basis. [1, Art. 54, 58][2, Art. 20–22]
The debtor’s failure to attend the foreign hearing is not, by itself, a ground for refusal. Whether the debtor was duly summoned, was able to prepare a defense, and the objection conditions of the relevant regime are investigated. Nor should the fact that the foreign maintenance amount is higher than the amount customary in Türkiye be presented as constituting, by itself, a violation of public policy.
The merits of the decision are not re-heard in an enforcement examination. A later reduction in income would, as a rule, be the subject of a separate application to modify the amount. On the other hand, a defense that payment has been made or that the debt has ended must be raised, with supporting documents, within the applicable procedure. If the same payment appears both in the foreign account and in the Turkish enforcement file, an offsetting mechanism must be set up to prevent double collection.
What practical errors do Court of Cassation decisions reveal?
In the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) dated 30 November 2023, E.2023/3939, K.2023/5839, the recognition and enforcement in Türkiye of a ruling concerning the termination of foreign maintenance and past payments was examined. At an earlier stage of the file, a judgment given on the basis of a decision with a different date, rather than the foreign decision that had been requested, was the ground for reversal; the later judgment given on the basis of the correct decision was upheld. [6]
This decision does not mean that past payments will be automatically refunded in every case where foreign maintenance is terminated. What matters in practice is correctly identifying the identity and scope of the foreign ruling that is the subject of the request. The first-instance reasoning in the text of the decision and the Court of Cassation’s evaluation of the outcome should also be read separately.
The procedural history of the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 2 April 2024, E.2024/2612, K.2024/2311 describes, as errors, a defense-rights problem arising from service made at an address in Türkiye instead of the debtor’s known address abroad, and the conclusion, based on the 1956 Convention, that there was no legal interest in enforcement. The subject of the final 2024 review, however, is a request for correction of the decision relating to the clarification (tavzih) procedure. Assessments made at earlier stages of the proceedings should not be presented as new case law on all present-day applications under the 2007 Convention. [5]
How are enforcement and modification requests distinguished after enforcement?
The periods and persons covered by the enforced ruling must be transferred correctly to the enforcement request. For example, if the decision covers only a particular period of child maintenance, another spousal maintenance or a later period cannot be added automatically. If there is an escalation formula, the index and payment dates used in the calculation must be explained.
If a reduction or termination of maintenance is sought, the route for modification in the competent country is considered, rather than re-arguing the amount in the enforcement file. The effect in Türkiye of a new foreign decision is also addressed separately. The appeal routes and the consequences for suspension of enforcement must be checked under the procedure of MÖHUK and the applicable convention; the same automatic suspension should not be assumed in all files.
Conclusion
In collecting a foreign maintenance decision in Türkiye, choosing the right convention, submitting the right decision and documenting the right to a defense are decisive. When recognition, enforcement and modification of the amount are kept apart, both the application and the defense become concrete. The documents should not be reduced to a standard apostille and finality list before the applicable regime has been determined.
Related articles: Maintenance from a Spouse or Parent Living Abroad: Competent Court, Applicable Law and Service of Process; Collecting Abroad a Maintenance Decision Issued in Türkiye: Application Routes and Required Documents; Increasing, Reducing or Terminating a Foreign Maintenance Order: In Which Country Should the Action Be Brought?; How Foreign Court Money Judgments Are Enforced in Türkiye: A Guide to Tenfiz and Collection; How Is Child Maintenance Collected from a Mother or Father Living Abroad?.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is entering a foreign divorce in the civil registry enough to enforce maintenance?
No. Civil status registration and compulsory enforcement of a monetary ruling are different outcomes; the appropriate enforcement route for the maintenance is examined.
Can a bank account be attached on the basis of recognition?
Compulsory execution of a ruling ordering payment of money, as a rule, requires enforcement. A recognition decision alone does not produce that result.
Is an apostille required for every foreign decision?
No. The authentication exemptions of the applicable convention should be checked; the need for a translation is a separate matter.
If the debtor did not take part in the foreign case, will enforcement be refused?
Non-participation alone is not sufficient. Proper summons, the opportunity to defend and the relevant objection conditions are investigated.
Can a Turkish court reduce the maintenance amount in enforcement?
Enforcement is not a re-trial on the merits. A request for modification is assessed separately under the appropriate jurisdiction and legal rules.
Can I have only part of the maintenance enforced?
Partial enforcement is possible if the ruling is severable and the applicable regime allows it. The part requested must be clearly stated.
Is reciprocity required in all recognition requests?
MÖHUK Article 58 excludes the condition in Article 54(1)(a) for recognition. Requests within a convention, on the other hand, are examined under its own provisions.
Does a central authority application remove the need for a court?
No. Cooperation and application support are different from the authority to issue a recognition and enforcement decision.
Are payments made in the foreign country taken into account?
Payments must be documented by period and purpose. An account is prepared that prevents the same claim from being collected a second time.
Does an enforcement decision also cover later foreign modifications?
The effect of each new ruling is examined separately. An earlier enforcement does not automatically carry all the consequences of a foreign decision given later.
Sources
- Law No. 5718 (MÖHUK), Art. 1/2 and 50–59. Ministry of Justice text.
- HCCH, 2007 Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, especially Art. 2, 19–30, 38, 44 and 48–49. Full text.
- HCCH, 2007 Convention status table, Türkiye’s declarations and reservations. Official record.
- HCCH, 1973 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations, Art. 4–7, 12 and 17. Full text.
- Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, 02.04.2024, E.2024/2612, K.2024/2311. Full text of the decision.
- Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, 30.11.2023, E.2023/3939, K.2023/5839. Full text of the decision.
- Law No. 4787 on the Establishment, Duties and Trial Procedures of Family Courts, Art. 2 and 4; for references to the former Law No. 2675, MÖHUK Art. 64. Ministry of Justice text.
Source check date: 14 October 2026.