A maintenance order issued by a foreign court can be modified; however, the country in which the modification may be sought depends on who makes the request and where the parties live. The existence of an order enforced (tenfiz) in Türkiye does not mean that a Turkish court is competent in every case to change the amount. In particular, Article 18 of the 2007 Hague Convention restricts, under certain conditions, a debtor from seeking a modification in another country.
A maintenance creditor’s request for an increase, a debtor’s request for a reduction or termination, the application of an annual increase clause and the refund of an overpayment are different legal issues. This guide explains which application should be considered when circumstances change after a foreign decision. The competence to hear the new action, as well as how the resulting decision will take effect in the country where the maintenance is collected, should be considered from the outset. [1, 2]
Why must enforcement be distinguished from modification of maintenance?
Enforcement (tenfiz) is aimed at carrying out an existing foreign judgment in another country. An action for modification, on the other hand, aims at increasing or reducing the amount, or terminating the obligation, in light of later circumstances. An enforcement court does not behave like a court that re-examines the merits of the foreign judgment from the beginning because the debtor’s income has fallen. Article 28 of the 2007 Convention prohibits a re-examination of the merits of the decision. [1]
If the decision already contains annual indexation, merely applying the formula may be a matter of calculation that does not require a new action for increase. By contrast, the claim that the existing formula is inadequate or should be removed requires a different legal examination. First, what the judgment says must be read, and a calculation dispute must be separated from a change in the amount.
In which country can an action for modification be brought?
First, the parties’ new centers of life and the existing decision are determined
The country where the decision was issued, the habitual residence of the creditor and the debtor at that time and today, the type of maintenance and the person making the request are recorded together. The date and continuity of the move matter. Transferring an address registration to another country may not by itself show that the center of life has actually changed.
If an application in Türkiye is being considered, Article 40 of the Law on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK) and the relevant domestic jurisdiction rules are considered; if the conditions are met, Article 41 as well. Applicable treaty limitations are added on top of this. The city where the earlier enforcement court sits is not the automatic venue for a new action for modification. For an application in a foreign country, that country’s jurisdiction rules are likewise examined separately. [2]
When does Article 18 of the 2007 Hague Convention restrict the debtor?
If the maintenance decision was issued in the Contracting State in which the creditor is habitually resident and the creditor continues to live there, the debtor cannot, as a rule, ask in another Contracting State for the decision to be modified or for a new decision to be made. The provision limits a debtor’s ability, relying solely on his or her own move, to force the creditor to pursue the case in a different country. [1, Art. 18]
It cannot be said that this rule applies to every foreign decision. Whether the decision was issued in the State of the creditor’s habitual residence, whether the creditor remains there, the Contracting State relationship and the scope conditions are checked. The provision does not apply in the same way to all actions for increase brought by the creditor; the limitation in the text concerns an initiative by the debtor.
What are the exceptions in Article 18?
Among the exceptions, the Convention lists, apart from disputes concerning maintenance for children, the parties’ written agreement on jurisdiction; the creditor’s acceptance of the other authority’s jurisdiction without timely objecting to it; the inability of the authority of the State of origin to exercise jurisdiction to modify, or its refusal to do so; and the impossibility of recognizing or enforcing the original decision in the State in which the application is made. The conditions of each exception must be documented. [1]
For example, the recognition of a foreign decision appearing difficult is not the same as the non-recognition condition actually being met. Moreover, the existence of an exception does not by itself give the court seized general jurisdiction; that court must also have its own basis of jurisdiction. It is particularly important that the written-agreement exception on jurisdiction cannot be used for maintenance for children.
| Situation | First legal check | Result that does not follow automatically |
|---|---|---|
| The debtor moved to Türkiye, the creditor stayed in the country of the decision | Conditions of Art. 18 | That an action for reduction can be brought in Türkiye |
| The creditor moved to another country | Current habitual residence and new jurisdiction | The old decision lapsing on its own |
| The creditor requests an increase | Territorial jurisdiction and applicable law | The Art. 18 prohibition applying unchanged against the debtor |
| The decision was enforced in Türkiye | A separate basis of jurisdiction for modification | The enforcement court changing the amount |
| The original decision cannot be recognized | The Art. 18 exception and the route of obtaining a decision | Every possibility of refusal giving an unlimited right to bring a new action |
Which country’s law applies in an action for modification?
Determining the competent court does not answer this question by itself. In Türkiye, the 1973 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations is examined, having regard to the priority of treaties. The basic connecting factor is the creditor’s habitual residence; if that cannot be established, a sequence of common national law and the law of the court may come into play. For which period a change of habitual residence will be effective is also assessed under the Convention’s own rule. [3, Art. 4–6]
For divorced spouses, Article 8 specifically regulates the effect of the law applied to the divorce on maintenance and its modification. This provision does not automatically subject child maintenance in a divorce judgment to the law of divorce. Apart from Türkiye’s reservations and the scope of the Convention, the relevant provisions of MÖHUK are considered separately. [2, 3, 4]
The 2007 collection convention and the 2007 applicable law protocol are not the same instrument. Türkiye’s being a party to the collection convention does not require a Turkish court to apply the Protocol on its own motion. In an action before a foreign court, however, that country’s own private international law system may lead to a different result. For this reason, relying solely on Turkish maintenance provisions in the petition is not sufficient in every file.
Which changes are documented for an increase, reduction or termination?
The picture at the time of the first decision must be compared with today’s. The child’s education and health needs, the care arrangement, the creditor’s income, the debtor’s ability to pay and necessary expenses are shown with concrete documents. Which change is legally sufficient is determined by the applicable substantive law; a single Turkish precedent cannot be carried over to all foreign laws.
In a claim of leaving a job or a decline in income, the start date, continuity, job-search status and other income matter. The formation of a new family or the birth of another child should not be presented as automatically removing the earlier obligation on its own. Likewise, a rise in the exchange rate alone cannot be regarded as a definite ground for reduction independent of the debtor’s real income and expenses.
| Alleged change | Documents to be compared | Possible counter-assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Income has decreased | Earlier and current payroll, document of leaving the job | There may be other income or a temporary decrease |
| The child’s expenses have increased | School, health and care documents | The necessity and sharing of the expense may be disputed |
| The creditor has income | Current income and needs records | The income may not fully cover the needs |
| The country has changed | Residence, school, work and living arrangements | A temporary stay may not be a change of habitual residence |
| An overpayment was made | Periodic calculation and the new judgment | The right to a refund and its starting date are separately required |
What should be done if there are decisions or actions in more than one country?
The date, party, beneficiary, period and amount information of all decisions should be gathered in a single timeline. The existence of two judgments concerning the same child does not always mean that there are two independent claims. One of the decisions may have modified the other, covered only a certain period or resolved a different dispute. In recognition and enforcement, irreconcilable decisions and the rules on lis pendens (derdestlik) are also examined separately. [1, Art. 22][2]
Bringing a new action does not by itself stop the enforcement of the old maintenance. A stay of enforcement, interim protection and the effect of the new judgment are assessed under the procedure of the country concerned. If the debtor reduces the amount on his or her own, a shortfall debt may arise while the old decision remains in force. When a payment is made, it should be stated clearly for which judgment and which period it is made.
What do Court of Cassation decisions show about modification and past payments?
In the decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi) dated April 7, 2011, E.2011/4944, K.2011/5866, the removal of Turkish maintenance was sought on the ground of a duplicate obligation arising from a foreign maintenance decision. However, it mattered that the issue concerning the same foreign decision had been assessed in an earlier final proceeding; reaching a removal outcome by raising the same fact again was not considered correct. [5]
This decision does not say that the decisions of both countries will necessarily be collected together. The concrete lesson is that a request for modification should not be limited to repeating a fact already dealt with in the earlier proceeding, and that new circumstances should be explained. Moreover, the decision predates Türkiye’s becoming a party to the 2007 Convention; it cannot replace today’s Article 18 examination.
The decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated November 30, 2023, E.2023/3939, K.2023/5839, on the other hand, concerns the recognition and enforcement of a judgment on the termination of foreign maintenance and past payments. The judgment issued after the correct foreign decision subject to the request was identified was upheld. [6]
The decision cannot be relied upon to claim that, in case of reduction or termination, all past payments will be refunded automatically. From which date the new judgment is effective, whether it contains a refund order, which of its effects is sought in Türkiye, and the legal basis of a separate refund request are separate questions. Modification of the old decision and recovery of completed payments are not the same examination.
How should the application plan be prepared?
In a hypothetical example, suppose the maintenance decision was issued in Germany while the creditor lived there, and the debtor later moved to Türkiye. If the creditor continues to live in Germany, the debtor must assess Article 18 of the 2007 Convention before requesting a reduction in Türkiye. Moving to Türkiye alone is not a sufficient ground. If an exception is claimed, its document and the Turkish court’s separate basis of jurisdiction must be shown.
In another example, if the creditor and the child have also left the country of the decision, the continuing-habitual-residence condition of Article 18 is examined again. Even so, it cannot be said that the court of the new country is competent on its own. Jurisdiction, applicable law and acceptance of the new decision in the country of enforcement are three separate inquiries that are linked to one another.
Article 10 of the 2007 Convention provides, for the creditor and the debtor, for certain applications for modification within the central authority system. This assistance can make it easier to transmit the application; it is not a guarantee of winning or of jurisdiction. After a decision for modification, the old and new debt periods should be separated, and the relevant collection authorities should be informed about the new judgment and the payments made.
Conclusion
A person who wishes to change a foreign maintenance decision should first determine not the amount but the correct country of application. Especially in cases where the debtor has changed countries, Article 18 of the 2007 Hague Convention is of critical importance. When jurisdiction, applicable law, changed circumstances and the effect of the new decision in the country of collection are considered together, the risk of unnecessary actions and conflicting calculations is reduced.
Related articles: Maintenance from a Spouse or Parent Living Abroad: Competent Court, Applicable Law and Service of Documents; Recognition and Enforcement in Türkiye of a Foreign Court’s Maintenance Decision; Collecting Abroad a Maintenance Decision Issued in Türkiye: Application Routes and Required Documents; Reduction and Termination of Maintenance: Which Changes Are Grounds for an Action?; Action to Increase Maintenance Against a Parent Abroad.
Frequently Asked Questions
I have returned to Türkiye; can I reduce the foreign maintenance here?
Not in every case. The jurisdiction of the Turkish court and, where it applies, the limitation in Article 18 of the 2007 Convention are examined together.
Is enforced maintenance now regarded as a Turkish decision?
Its becoming enforceable in Türkiye does not mean that the power to modify passes to the Turkish court in every case.
If the creditor moves to another country, does the decision end?
No. The move may affect the examination of jurisdiction and applicable law; the existing decision does not lapse on its own.
Does Article 18 prohibit the creditor’s action for increase in the same way?
The limitation in the article concerns the debtor’s attempt to obtain a modification or a new decision in another country. The creditor’s application is assessed separately.
Is a written jurisdiction agreement sufficient for child maintenance?
The written-agreement-on-jurisdiction exception in Article 18 is not provided for disputes concerning maintenance for children.
If my income has fallen, can I reduce the payment immediately?
Paying less on your own decision may give rise to a debt. The valid decision and the appropriate route for modification or interim protection should be followed.
Does a rise in the exchange rate necessarily lead to a reduction?
No. The applicable law, real income, expenses and the currency of the decision are assessed together.
Is a new action needed when there is already a provision for increase?
Merely applying the existing indexation formula may be a matter of calculation. Changing the formula or an additional increase is assessed separately.
If I obtain a termination decision, do I get back past maintenance?
Not automatically. The date from which the decision takes effect, the refund provision and the relevant legal basis are examined separately.
Does a new action stop the old enforcement?
Bringing an action does not by itself result in an automatic stay. A protection or stay order properly issued by the competent authority may be required.
Sources and legal bases
- HCCH, 2007 Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, in particular Arts. 10, 18, 22, 28 and 32. Full text.
- Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK), Arts. 1–2, 14, 19, 40–41 and 50–59. Ministry of Justice text.
- HCCH, 1973 Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, Arts. 4–8. Full text.
- HCCH, Türkiye’s reservations to the 1973 Convention and status table of the 2007 Protocol on the Law Applicable.
- Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, April 7, 2011, E.2011/4944, K.2011/5866. Full text of the decision.
- Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, November 30, 2023, E.2023/3939, K.2023/5839. Full text of the decision.
Source check date: October 14, 2026.