First determine for what purpose the order will be used abroad
Presenting a custody document to the child’s school, showing authority to represent the child in a medical procedure, taking back a child who has not been handed over despite the order, and enforcing obstructed contact days are not the same procedure. In the first two examples, acceptance of the legal effect of the order and documentation of the authority to represent the child may be sufficient. In the others, it may be necessary to request enforcement or implementation from the competent authorities of the foreign country.
When preparing the application, the desired result should be stated clearly instead of “I want to have the order recognized”: handover of the child to a specified person, the child’s stay with the parent during a holiday period, regular video contact, or acceptance of the authority to represent the child before a specific institution. This clarity both helps choose the right authority and avoids unnecessary document and procedural costs.
Does filing an enforcement (tenfiz) action in Türkiye make a Turkish order enforceable abroad?
The provisions on recognition and enforcement in Article 50 et seq. of the Law on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK) concern the effect of foreign judgments in Türkiye. The enforcement of an order issued in Türkiye in Germany or another country is addressed within the procedure of the destination country and the applicable conventions. The idea that obtaining a second “enforcement” (tenfiz) decision in Türkiye will automatically produce results in every foreign country is not correct. [1]
Which international route can be used?
The 1996 Hague Convention is an important starting point for custody and personal contact. It entered into force for Türkiye on February 1, 2017. However, the destination country’s status as a party, the Convention’s entry into force between the two countries, the date of the order, its territorial scope and any relevant declarations must be examined. The temporal scope under Article 53 of the Convention is also significant; the same mechanism cannot be assumed for an older order. [2] [3]
Depending on the circumstances, the 1980 European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children, other agreements or the domestic law of the destination country may come into play. The Ministry of Justice’s explanations distinguish the different functions of these conventions and their central authority channels. It cannot be said that all routes will be used together in every file or that one of them is always faster. [4]
The initial differences for Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States
| Destination country | First legal check | Practical point of attention |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | Route of recognition and enforcement under the 1996 Convention | The competent local authority, the language of the documents and the procedure to be applied |
| United Kingdom | The 1996 Convention and the procedure of the relevant legal jurisdiction | The distinction between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland |
| United States of America | A different basis of recognition, because the official HCCH table contains no ratification/entry-into-force record | The law of the relevant state and any other applicable regulation |
This table is not a definitive result or a complete list of procedures for any country. Information on party status for Germany and the United Kingdom, and the difference between signature and ratification for the United States, should be rechecked at the start of the application. The fact that the destination country is a member of the European Union also does not mean that the mechanisms for the circulation of judgments within the EU will automatically apply to a Turkish order. [3] [5]
The difference between recognition by operation of law and enforceability
Article 23 of the 1996 Convention provides that protection measures within its scope are recognized by operation of law in the other contracting states. This means that a separate recognition action is not necessarily required in advance in every case. However, the relevant institution may hesitate about the nature or effect of the order, and the other party may also object to recognition. The ability to request a decision on recognition or non-recognition under Article 24 of the Convention may help resolve this uncertainty in advance.
Where compulsory enforcement is needed, a declaration of enforceability or registration for the purpose of enforcement is requested in the destination state under Article 26, for a measure that is enforceable in the state where it was issued. Under Article 28, actual enforcement is carried out according to the law of that state. While the right under the Turkish order is protected, the place of handover, the enforcement officer or the local form of the procedure may differ in the destination country. [2]
Can a temporary custody or personal contact order also be used?
Not every order bearing the label “temporary” falls outside the scope. Temporary or urgent orders may also be assessed within the Convention’s system of protection measures. However, the basis of jurisdiction, whether the order is in force, its enforceability in Türkiye and its territorial effect must be examined. Presenting only an old copy of a measure that has expired or been lifted by a later order is not sufficient.
For this reason, a single list stating that “an finality endorsement is always obtained” should not be applied to every file. The situations in which a final judgment must have become final are different from an enforceable temporary measure. The document submitted to the destination authority should correctly show the nature of the order and its current enforceability.
On what grounds may a recognition or enforcement request be refused?
Under the Convention, the merits of the order are not re-examined; Article 27 limits this. However, the grounds for non-recognition are examined. Important examples include the issuing authority’s jurisdiction not being based on the relevant rules of the Convention, the person whose parental responsibility is affected not having been heard in the required manner, or a manifest contradiction with public policy when the best interests of the child are taken into account.
With respect to the hearing of the child, the special condition of Article 23/2-b is taken into account: except in cases of urgency, the child was not given the opportunity to be heard in violation of the fundamental principles of procedure of the requested state. This provision should not be read to mean that a child of every age must necessarily give testimony in court by the same method. Other grounds for refusal include incompatibility with a later measure of the kind specified in the Convention and, in cross-border placement of a child in foster care or institutional care, violation of the Article 33 procedure. [2]
Why do service of process and the right to be heard matter from the outset?
Properly notifying the other party of the case during the proceedings in Türkiye and providing an opportunity for defense are also important for use abroad. Merely preparing a translation of the reasoned judgment does not remove this problem afterwards. Keeping the service of process and hearing records makes it possible to show, when necessary, which opportunities were given.
The other party’s failure to attend a hearing is not the same as never having been given an opportunity to be heard. Similarly, dissatisfaction with the custody outcome does not give a right to debate the merits of the order again from the beginning in another country. The application file should be prepared clearly enough to show these distinctions.
Which documents should the application file contain?
The definitive document list is determined by the destination authority and the route chosen. Nevertheless, the preparation below forms the basis of a file that correctly presents the order and the desired result. Parts of documents containing unnecessary personal data should not be copied indiscriminately; a secure method of transmission should be used for confidential addresses or protection information.
| Document or information | Function | Point to check |
|---|---|---|
| A complete copy of the order obtained from the competent authority | Shows the scope of the right and the obligation | Annexes, later amendments, the operative part |
| The required finality or enforceability document | Explains the current legal status of the order | The distinction between a final judgment and a temporary measure |
| Service of process and hearing records | Show that procedural safeguards were met | The right person, address, date and procedure |
| The required identification details of the child and the parties | Ensure the order is linked to the persons concerned | Name discrepancies, date of birth, consistency of translation |
| A translation accepted by the destination authority | Makes the order understood | Language, certification requirement and completeness |
| A concrete enforcement request and a chronology of events | State which procedure is requested | Obstructed contact, handover and return dates |
Is an apostille required in every case?
No. Article 43 of the 1996 Convention exempts documents sent or delivered under the Convention from legalization and similar formalities. If another route is used, an apostille, consular legalization or a different exemption is assessed separately. The procedural route should be determined first, and the form of the documents prepared afterwards. Even where an apostille is required, it is not an approval that makes the content of the order correct or enforceable in the foreign country.
What should be kept in mind regarding translation?
Concepts such as custody, parental responsibility, personal contact, temporary measure and enforceability should be translated in a way consistent with the legal usage of the target language. Dates, times, holidays and handover obligations in the Turkish provision should be neither narrowed nor broadened. The languages of communication under Article 54 of the Convention should not be confused with the destination court’s own translation requirements; language reservations are checked separately.
What does the certificate under Article 40 of the 1996 Convention provide?
This certificate, which the competent authority may issue, can show in what capacity a person acts and what powers the person has. It may help explain the authority to represent the child before a school or an institution. However, it should not be assumed to be the only mandatory form in all states or to replace the enforcement process under Article 26. The competence of the authority to which the application is made and the conditions for issuing the certificate should be checked.
What is the role of central authorities and a local lawyer?
According to the Ministry of Justice’s explanation, the General Directorate for Foreign Relations and the European Union carries out the central authority function in Türkiye under the 1996 Convention, performing the task in coordination with the Ministry of Family and Social Services. Cooperation between central authorities is important for the exchange of information and for determining the appropriate application route. [4]
An application to a central authority and a request for a declaration of enforceability or enforcement before a foreign court are not the same procedure. The possibility of applying directly to the competent authority and the need for local representation are assessed according to the procedure of the destination country. A consulate is also not, on its own, the enforcement authority that carries out the handover of a child in a foreign country. Representation by a lawyer, translation, fees and legal aid conditions vary by country; it cannot be said that every file will be free of charge.
The application should explain clearly where the child is located, the order to be enforced, the procedure requested and any security risk. The file should not be distributed anew to every authority without control. Particularly in cases involving a confidential address or a risk of violence, care is taken that sharing information does not endanger the child or a family member.
What if contact or handover does not take place even though the order has been recognized?
First, it should be determined which stage has been completed: the order may have been accepted only in law; enforceability may not yet have been obtained; or, even though this stage has been passed, the local enforcement request may remain incomplete. A regular record should be kept showing the dates of applications and orders, the replies given and the steps not taken. Instead of settling for the explanation that “the file is ongoing,” it should be made concrete which procedure is expected from which authority.
What does the ECtHR’s Shaw v. Hungary judgment show?
In its judgment of 26.07.2011 in Shaw v. Hungary (Application No. 6457/09), the ECtHR assessed whether the authorities had acted with sufficient speed and effectiveness regarding the return of a child who had been taken from France to Hungary and regarding the child’s relationship with the father; it held that the right to respect for family life had been violated. Particularly significant were the inadequate steps taken after an enforceable return order and the prolonged period without contact. [6]
This case is not directly about the recognition of a Turkish order under the 1996 Convention; the 1980 Hague Convention and the EU regulation of that time played a role in the case. The limited practical lesson here is that obtaining an order is not enough on its own and that delay may leave a lasting effect on the parent–child bond. The child’s interests and proportionality must be protected at the enforcement stage as well.
At what stage are child abduction and modification of the order separated?
If a child has been wrongfully removed or retained, the 1980 Hague return route, where its conditions are met, should be assessed separately and without delay. Merely pursuing a procedure to have a custody order recognized does not replace a return application in every case. A return request and the merits of custody are different matters; a return order does not itself automatically grant custody to either parent.
If the child lawfully establishes a life in another country and circumstances change, modification of the existing arrangement may come into question. Under Article 14 of the 1996 Convention, the continuation of the earlier measure and the modification power of the new competent authority are examined together. An enforcement or execution review is not the general route for re-establishing the merits of a custody order. If the child now needs a different schedule, a new arrangement should be requested from the appropriate competent authority.
Example: Enforcing a Turkish personal contact order in Germany
Consider a hypothetical case in which a Turkish court has established three weeks of personal contact in the summer holiday and the child lives in Germany. First, the scope and currency of the order, the basis of international jurisdiction and the temporal applicability of the Convention are checked. Then the copy requested by the destination authority, the information on enforceability and the translation are prepared. If there is no voluntary compliance, the necessary enforceability and local enforcement steps are assessed.
Having bought a plane ticket does not guarantee that the child will be handed over that day. The handover point, accompaniment, passport and travel documents, and the obligation to return should be clarified in advance. If the child’s school calendar persistently conflicts with the dates in the order, the enforcing authority should not be expected to rewrite the order in practice; an appropriate judicial route for modification should be considered.
Conclusion
The enforcement of a Turkish custody or personal contact order abroad should be planned through the right country and the right application route. Recognition, enforceability and actual enforcement are different stages that complement one another. If the current copy of the order, information on enforceability, procedural safeguards and document preparation suited to the destination country are addressed together, it becomes possible to see at which stage the application stands and what is missing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a Turkish custody order automatically valid in every country?
No. The applicable convention and the law of the destination country are examined. The principle of recognition by operation of law under the 1996 Convention is also not an unlimited rule for all countries and all orders.
If I obtain an apostille, can I take the child into my care?
An apostille alone does not give authority to take over the child or enforceability in a foreign country. In fact, documents under the 1996 Convention may be exempt from legalization. The application route should be determined first.
Can a consulate ensure the handover of the child?
A consulate does not take the place of the foreign country’s court or enforcement authority. It may provide information and assistance with related procedures; for compulsory handover, the competent local procedure is followed.
Is an finality endorsement always required for a temporary order?
It is assessed according to the nature of the order. An enforceable temporary measure should be distinguished from a final judgment, and the current legal status of the order should be correctly documented for the destination authority.
How many months does enforcement abroad take?
The destination country, the route, service of process, objections, missing documents and local enforcement conditions change the outcome. No single reliable period can be given for all countries. The urgency of the need and the effect of delay on the child should be made concrete in the application.
Will a foreign court examine the custody issue from the beginning?
In recognition and enforcement review under the 1996 Convention, the merits cannot, as a rule, be reassessed. Examination of the grounds for refusal and a request to the competent authority to modify the order because of new circumstances are different procedures.
Sources and legal bases
1 — Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK), Art. 50–59. Official text; these provisions concern the effect of a foreign judgment in Türkiye.
2 — HCCH, Hague Child Protection Convention of 1996; in particular Art. 14, 23–28, 29–38, 40–43 and 53–54. Official text.
3 — HCCH, 1996 Convention status table: parties, entry into force, declarations and authority records.
4 — Ministry of Justice, General Directorate for Foreign Relations and the European Union, Child Abduction and Custody (Çocuk Kaçırma ve Velayet).
5 — Department of Justice Northern Ireland, 1996 Hague Convention; United Kingdom entry-into-force information and the Convention framework.
6 — ECtHR, Shaw v. Hungary, 26.07.2011, Application No. 6457/09; in particular §§65–78, final on 26.10.2011. HUDOC case record.