Private International Law,
Recognition and Enforcement

The nationality of the parties, habitual residence, domicile, company seat, assets, and the places of contract, performance and harm are determined. The family, inheritance, contract, commercial, tort, property or company-status dimension of the dispute is classified under separate conflict-of-laws rules.

• Special conflict rules in cases of multiple nationalities, refugee status or statelessness.
• The status of the parties, the dates of events and the result sought in Türkiye.

The domestic rule of territorial jurisdiction, MÖHUK Article 40 and the special provisions on international jurisdiction are examined together. The jurisdiction of the Turkish court is distinguished from the applicable law and from the enforceability of the judgment in another country.

• International jurisdiction and the applicable substantive law are separate examinations.
• The subject of the action and protective jurisdiction provisions may limit a foreign-court clause.

In obligations with a foreign element, whether the parties’ choice of a foreign court meets the conditions of MÖHUK Article 47 is assessed. Written form, a specific legal relationship, a field not subject to exclusive jurisdiction, the defendant’s objection and the possibility that the chosen court declines jurisdiction are examined.

• A valid choice of court does not mean that a choice of law has also been made.
• The first objection, the position of the foreign court and the litigation timetable in Türkiye are monitored together.

Connecting factors such as the personal law, habitual residence, place of business, the most closely connected law, the location of the property or the place of the event are determined. In a file with a choice of law, the scope and validity of the choice and mandatory limits are addressed separately.

• Each relationship has its own conflict rule; priority of special treaties and mandatory limits.
• Where the same state has different regional laws, identifying the relevant unit.

The Turkish judge applies foreign law ex officio and may use the parties’ assistance in establishing its content. Current statutes, secondary legislation, official statements, academic opinion and, where necessary, the opinion of a foreign legal expert are submitted to the file by an appropriate method; where the content cannot be established, the result under MÖHUK Article 2 is assessed.

• Researching not only the text of the statute but also its force on the date of the transaction and how it is applied.
• If the content cannot be established despite all research, application of Turkish law under MÖHUK Article 2/2.

It is examined whether the result of applying the foreign provision in the concrete case, not the provision itself, creates a manifest conflict with Turkish public policy. Overriding mandatory rules of Turkish law that are compulsory in view of their regulatory purpose and field of application are determined separately.

• The function of public-policy intervention is distinguished from that of overriding mandatory rules.
• That foreign law differs does not by itself prevent its application.

Dispute concepts and preliminary questions are assessed under the relevant conflict rules. Under MÖHUK Article 2/3, the renvoi of foreign law to another law is taken into account in disputes concerning the personal law and family law. This rule is not automatically extended to inheritance disputes; special provisions and applicable treaties are examined separately.

• A choice of law, unless expressly agreed otherwise, refers to the chosen substantive law.
• Clarifying that the same legal concept has a different scope in different countries.

The issuing authority, type of judgment, parties, subject of the action, operative part, finality, service and need for execution are examined. It is determined which route is required: recognition, enforcement, administrative registration, a new action or another form of international cooperation.

• A court judgment, an administrative decision, an arbitral award and a special treaty are not subject to the same route.
• Provisions on personal rights in a foreign criminal judgment may be assessed separately under MÖHUK Article 50/2; they are not confused with a criminal sanction.

A recognition request is prepared for acceptance in Türkiye of the res judicata or conclusive-evidence effect of a foreign judgment that does not require execution. The non-application to recognition of the reciprocity condition required for enforcement, and other MÖHUK obstacles, are addressed according to the concrete judgment.

• Under MÖHUK Article 58, the reciprocity condition is not required for recognition.
• Under Article 59, the res judicata or conclusive-evidence effect is assessed from the moment the foreign judgment becomes final.

An enforcement action is conducted for execution in Türkiye of a ruling on money, maintenance, damages, delivery or another performance. Reciprocity, public policy, exclusive jurisdiction, the objection of excessive jurisdiction and the right of defense are reviewed.

• The performance ruling sought, severable parts and the assets in Türkiye on which execution will be carried out.
• An enforcement judgment does not guarantee actual collection of the claim; the execution stage is planned separately.

Related detailed page: International Debt Collection and Cross-Border Enforcement

It is investigated at which stage the judgment became final under the law of the country where it was rendered, the ordinary legal remedy, the finality certificate and whether a separate enforceability document is required. It is checked that the document was not merely issued but belongs to the correct judgment and to all parts of the operative provisions.

• The date of the judgment, the date of service, finality and enforceability are distinguished from one another.
• The different conditions for arbitral awards and special treaties are not mixed into the general court-judgment regime.

In enforcement, it is investigated whether there is a bilateral or multilateral treaty between the state of the judgment and Türkiye, and whether there is reciprocity based on a statutory provision or on actual practice. The scope of the treaty in terms of subject, time and persons, and reservations and declarations, are verified.

• That the treaty is in force between the two states, its subject-matter and temporal scope, and reservations.
• A definite enforcement result is not inferred merely from the name of an agreement or a list of countries.

It is examined whether the dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts. The claim that the foreign court considered itself competent without a genuine connection to the case or the parties is assessed on the objection of the party against whom enforcement is sought and under the MÖHUK criteria.

• Disputes concerning rights in rem in immovable property located in Türkiye are addressed separately.
• Not every mandatory rule of territorial jurisdiction in domestic law is treated as exclusive jurisdiction in the international sense.

The operative result of the foreign judgment is examined in terms of fundamental rights, safeguards of defense and the indispensable principles of the Turkish legal order. That foreign law differs from Turkish law is not by itself treated as a ground for rejection.

• The concrete result of the ruling, fundamental rights and procedural safeguards.
• Showing a concrete conflict instead of a general objection that repeats the examination of the merits.

It is examined whether the person against whom the judgment was rendered was duly summoned to the foreign court and represented, and whether a judgment rendered in that person’s absence complies with the law of the country. Raising the objection within the time limit before the enforcement court, and service records, are important.

• Summons and representation in the foreign case and service of the enforcement action in Türkiye are examined separately.
• Submitting the documents on which the objection under MÖHUK Article 54/1-ç is based.

That a judgment was rendered in absence does not automatically lead to rejection. The statement of claim, notice of hearing, address, method of service, time to respond and notice of legal remedies are examined together, and the MÖHUK conditions are assessed.

• The address used, the language and form of the notice, the time to respond, and the judgment and legal-remedy records.
• Not having taken part in the foreign proceedings does not by itself lead to rejection of the judgment.

Recognition or enforcement may be sought only for the necessary severable parts of the foreign judgment. Separate outcomes such as divorce, custody, maintenance, matrimonial property regime and damages are each handled according to their own legal nature.

• Framing the request for the divorce status alone or for a particular claim alone.
• Examining from the text of the judgment whether interdependent parts of the ruling can be separated.

If a foreign judgment is to be invoked in another Turkish case as res judicata or conclusive evidence, the conditions for examining recognition as a preliminary issue are assessed. Lis pendens, prior judgments and the risk of conflicting judgments are investigated through the chronology of the file.

• Conflicting judgments, prior case files and finality dates.
• Not assuming that a pending case in a foreign country automatically ends the case in Türkiye.

The statement of claim, simplified procedure, proper composition of the parties, service abroad, evidence, the scope of the judgment, and the appeal and cassation stages are managed. Finality of the enforcement judgment and the execution process are followed on a separate timetable.

• That the judgment has been complied with, or a reason that prevents compliance, may be a defense subject under MÖHUK Article 55.
• Security obligations of foreign nationals, reciprocity and treaty exemptions are examined within the framework of Article 48.

The Notification Law, bilateral agreements, the 1954 Hague Civil Procedure Convention, the 1965 Hague Service Convention and country declarations are examined. In files requiring a document or witness procedure through a foreign authority, the applicable letters rogatory and evidence convention route is determined.

• The 1965 Hague Service Convention and the declarations of the country concerned; suitable translation and address information.
• Sending an e-mail or message is not the automatic equivalent of properly effected international service.

The status of the state in which the document was issued and the state in which it will be used as a party, the type of document, exceptions, the competent apostille authority and the chain of certification are examined. It is explained that an apostille does not verify the content of the document or the enforcement conditions; translation and notarial procedures are planned separately.

• An apostille concerns the signature, the capacity of the signatory and the source of the seal; it does not approve the merits of the judgment.
• Country- and document-specific exemptions; where necessary, consular certification and a separate translation procedure.

A recognition action is conducted so that a divorce, separation, nullity or annulment judgment rendered by a foreign court produces personal-status effects in Türkiye. The marital, inheritance and civil-registry consequences after the date of the judgment are examined case by case.

• If the conditions for administrative registration are not met, the court route; proper composition of the parties and the jurisdiction of the family court.
• The relationship of civil-registry, remarriage and inheritance consequences to the date on which the foreign judgment became final.

Related detailed page: International Family Law, Divorce and Custody

Under Article 27/A of Law No. 5490 and the relevant Regulation, an application to the competent diplomatic mission or the population directorate (nüfus müdürlüğü) is assessed for a final foreign judgment that falls within the scope. Where one of the parties is deceased or a foreign national, the other party who is a Turkish citizen, or that party’s attorney, may apply alone. The other conditions and the capacity of the applicant are still examined.

Where a joint application is required, being present at the same time is not mandatory; the interval between separate applications must not exceed ninety days. This period is different from the ninety-day period granted for completing a missing document. Special power of attorney, finality, certification and translation are checked according to the file.

• The foreign nationality of the former spouse or the record of death; the statutory conditions for a sole application.
• That the registration does not automatically make enforceable the maintenance, custody, matrimonial property regime and damages provisions other than the divorce.

The commission’s grounds for rejection are examined from the standpoints of missing documents, public policy, a pending case, a prior rejection or a scope problem. If the conditions are met, recourse is made to the courts with a recognition or enforcement request before the competent family court.

• Separating missing documents, a pending case or the ground of a prior rejection.
• Determining the appropriate judicial route from the rejection decision and prior file information.

For a foreign custody, personal contact (access) or child-protection judgment, any applicable international convention is investigated first. In relationships to which the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention applies, the recognition and execution regime may differ from the general MÖHUK route. The best interests of the child, habitual residence, jurisdiction and the need for interim measures are assessed together.

• Under the convention, recognition and securing enforceability may be different stages.
• Addressing the judgment in terms of changed circumstances and the child’s location and safety.

An allegation of wrongful removal or retention of a child under the 1980 Hague Convention and Law No. 5717 is examined. The central authority, habitual residence, actual exercise of custody rights, exceptions to return and urgent measures are conducted as a special process distinct from recognition and enforcement.

• A return proceeding does not replace a final decision on the merits of custody.
• Prompt review of the file concerning the effect of the timing of the application and the convention exceptions.

Related detailed page: International Child Abduction and Return of the Child

The scope, periods, currency, interest and amendment decisions of the child or spousal maintenance judgment are examined. A maintenance convention applicable between the states concerned, central authority assistance and special execution conditions are investigated. The general finality and reciprocity conditions of MÖHUK are not applied in the same way to all files without examining the special convention regime.

• Accrued and future maintenance, payments and period calculation.
• The personal, subject-matter and country scope of applicable instruments, including the 2007 Hague Convention.

Whether the matrimonial property regime, compensation, costs or money ruling in a foreign divorce judgment can be separated from the divorce status is assessed. Taking into account that administrative registration does not make these claims enforceable, the need for enforcement or a new action in Türkiye is determined.

• Distinguishing whether the ruling creates a claim or directly creates a right in rem in immovable property.
• Whether a new action is needed in Türkiye and the time-limit regime for the claims.

The effect in Turkish law of foreign judgments on parentage, paternity, adoption, name and surname, and personal status is examined. Public policy, the interests of the child, civil registration and the provisions of special international conventions are separated out.

• The nature of the issuing authority and the applicability of special conventions.
• Assessing the civil record, child protection and public policy in the concrete case.

The effect of a foreign certificate of inheritance, court judgment or estate procedure on movable and immovable property in Türkiye is assessed. The law applicable to rights in rem in immovable property, the jurisdiction of Turkish courts and land registry practice are examined separately.

• Different rules under MÖHUK Article 20 for inheritance and for immovable property in Türkiye.
• The nature and scope of a foreign certificate of inheritance and whether a separate document or action is needed in Türkiye.

Related detailed page: Foreign Heirs and International Estate Matters

The form of the will, capacity, revocation, the nature of a foreign probate or estate administration decision and the way it can be used in Türkiye are determined. The need for multilateral conventions, certification, translation, a certificate of inheritance and a new action is determined according to the file.

• The real function of opening a foreign will or an estate administration decision.
• That a document bears an apostille does not show that a direct transaction can be made for every asset in Türkiye.

Recognition or enforcement of judgments on companies, shareholders, sales, distribution, services, licenses and commercial claims is conducted. The competent commercial court, reciprocity, a jurisdiction agreement, interest, costs and the enforceability of the operative part are examined.

• Determining the commercial nature and the special subject-matter jurisdiction rules from the concrete judgment.
• That the money ruling, interest and litigation costs are clear and severable.

Principal, type and start date of interest, litigation costs, attorney fees and currency are separated out from the operative part. The form of proceedings in Turkish execution law, exchange rate and payment objections are planned for the stage after the enforcement judgment.

• Deducting payments or collections already made; preventing double collection.
• Examining the statute of limitations and execution conditions in light of the applicable law and the dates of the judgment and acts.

The effect of a judgment on the formation, capacity, organ authority, shareholding or dissolution of a foreign company on its branch, shareholding and assets in Türkiye is examined. Registry procedure, recognition, enforcement and the applicable company law are distinguished from one another.

• The status of the legal entity, authority to represent and current trade registry records.
• Not assuming that a foreign organ decision is subject to the same regime as a court judgment.

The effect of a foreign bankruptcy, a composition-type (konkordato) process or a restructuring judgment on the debtor and assets in Türkiye is assessed. Universality, territoriality, the Turkish execution and bankruptcy order, public policy and whether a special recognition mechanism exists are examined.

• Not assuming that a foreign bankruptcy automatically causes liquidation or a bar on enforcement proceedings in Türkiye.
• Creditor rights, local assets and the appropriate application under the Turkish execution and bankruptcy system.

It is investigated whether a foreign judgment that is not yet final or is provisional in nature is a judgment within the meaning of MÖHUK Article 50. The conditions for an independent precautionary attachment or interim injunction against assets in Türkiye are assessed separately from the main action and the enforcement process.

• Not establishing an automatic enforcement result for a foreign interim decision that is not final.
• Prima facie proof, security, and subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction conditions for an injunction or attachment in Türkiye.

The scope of the parties’ express or unambiguous choice of law, its application to the whole contract or a part of it, and later changes are examined. Protective or mandatory provisions, such as those for consumers, employment, insurance and immovable property, are also taken into account.

• The clarity and scope of the choice of law and the effect of a later change on third parties.
• That a choice of substantive law does not replace a choice of a foreign court or an arbitration clause.

Choice of court, arbitration, mediation, applicable law, address for service and enforcement of judgments are drafted as complementary clauses. Provisions that conflict with one another or are difficult to apply in practice are eliminated before the contract is signed.

• Consistency between the dispute-resolution provision and the contract’s language and governing text.
• Assessing, when the contract is made, where the judgment will be applied.

Choice of law and court is assessed in international sales, agency, distributorship, franchise, license, transport and service relationships. The applicability of uniform law texts such as the CISG and matters outside their scope are determined separately.

• The applicability of the CISG and matters it does not regulate, such as validity or title.
• Consistency among the provisions on delivery, payment, termination, liability and security.

The place of damage, place of the act, common habitual residence, the more closely connected law and the injured party’s option are examined under the relevant MÖHUK provisions. The competent court, applicable law, insurance and enforcement of the foreign judgment are handled in the same strategy.

• Separately determining the laws of the countries connected with the damage, the product and the act.
• The connection of the statute of limitations to the law applicable to the relationship, and existing insurance records.

Special conflict and international-jurisdiction provisions protecting the weaker party are assessed. To what extent a choice of foreign law or court can affect the mandatory protection of the employee, the consumer or the insured is determined according to the concrete relationship.

• A choice of foreign law does not mean that special protections can be removed in every case.
• The place where the work is actually performed, the consumer’s connection and the type of insurance relationship.

The application of a final recognition or enforcement judgment at the civil registry, land registry, trade registry, bank, enforcement office or other relevant institution is followed. No registration or collection request beyond the scope of the foreign judgment is made; the judgment, the enforcement judgment and the finality records are submitted together.

• The effect of the legal remedy on execution; MÖHUK Article 57 and the relevant procedural provisions.
• If a Turkish judgment must be applied in a foreign country, separate coordination with that country’s regime and a competent local attorney.