Judgments Enforceable Before Finality, and Their Exceptions

Research and preparation date: October 10, 2026

As a rule, a court judgment does not need to become final before it can be submitted for enforcement. Many judgments on monetary claims may be made the subject of enforcement based on a judgment while an appeal or an appeal on points of law is pending. However, the nature of the judgment, the special provisions of the law and any decision to defer enforcement must be examined together. The right question is not only "Has the judgment become final?" It is: "Can this judgment, for this claim item and this enforcement route, be enforced today?" [M1, M2]

This guide explains which judgments may be enforced without waiting for finality, how to prepare an enforcement request based on a judgment, how an enforcement order differs from a payment order, and the routes open to the debtor. Maintenance, eviction, labour receivables, negative declaratory actions, rent determination, de facto expropriation, arbitration and mediation are also addressed where distinctions change the outcome.

The general rule and the concept of finality

The difference between a court decision and a final decision

When a court gives a ruling on a dispute, the proceedings may end at that level of jurisdiction, although the ordinary remedy may still be open. Formal finality refers to the stage at which the ordinary remedy can no longer be used for the relevant part of the judgment. Failure to apply within the time limit, a valid waiver or the completion of review on appeal are different grounds of finality. Which remedy is open is assessed together with the date of the decision and the transitional provisions that apply.

A finality endorsement shows when and to what extent finality occurred. The presence of an endorsement does not by itself remove a defect such as irregular service. Nor does the absence of an endorsement mean in every case that the decision has not yet become final. Particularly in files with several claims, it must be determined which part of the judgment has been taken to appeal.

Articles 350 and 367 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) proceed from the principle that an application for appeal or for appeal on points of law does not automatically stop enforcement. The same articles separate decisions on personal status, family law and rights in rem in immovable property. In these fields finality is awaited; the special position of maintenance is reserved. Finality may also be required in other cases arising from special regulations or settled case law. [M1]

Enforcement before finality does not mean every step can be taken immediately

The commencement of enforcement, the making of an attachment, the move to sale and the payment of money to the creditor are separate stages. The notification of the enforcement order, the statutory period for performance, the conditions for sale and any decisions to stop enforcement are examined at their own stages. The sentence "a judgment may be enforced before it becomes final" does not allow those stages to be skipped.

For example, enforcement based on a judgment may be started for a claim for wages. But proceeding to attachment before a properly issued enforcement order has been served on the debtor and the relevant period has run may create a different unlawfulness. Likewise, although an application for appeal is not sufficient on its own, a later decision to defer enforcement affects the continuation of enforcement. File management requires that the suitability at the time of opening be monitored together with suitability at later stages.

Request for enforcement based on a judgment and the enforcement order

What the enforcement request initiates

The creditor asks the enforcement office, on the basis of a court judgment or a document which the law recognizes as having the character of a judgment, for the judgment to be carried out. This application is the request for enforcement based on a judgment. A new claim action is not brought; enforcement of the existing judgment is sought. However, a claim that does not appear in the operative part of the judgment, a new head of loss or another debtor may not be added to the enforcement request in order to extend the scope of the judgment.

Party details, the basis court and file information, the performance sought, the principal claim, interest and costs must be kept separate in the request. Where payment or partial recovery has been made, the offset must be visible. The request must be capable of being linked line by line to the operative part of the reasoned judgment, so that both the enforcement office and the debtor can check what is sought and on what judgment it is based.

The general venue rule for enforcement based on a judgment is set out in Article 34 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK). However, where there is a foreign decision, a special enforcement procedure, insolvency or another special situation, the relevant rule must be examined separately. It would be wrong to extend the phrase "it may be brought anywhere" to all types of enforcement. [M2]

An enforcement order and a payment order are not the same document

The basic document of this article is the enforcement order. For the enforcement of a judgment ordering payment or the provision of security, Article 32 of the İİK applies. The enforcement office serves on the debtor an enforcement order matching the judgment it relies on. The seven-day period for payment here must not be confused with the objection system of enforcement without a judgment through the general attachment procedure.

The payment order is the document used, for example, in enforcement without a judgment through the general attachment procedure. The effect of an objection to the debt made in time under that procedure on enforcement is different from the defence routes in enforcement based on a judgment. A debtor in enforcement based on a judgment who merely tells the enforcement office "I object to the debt" does not produce the automatic suspension that applies in enforcement without a judgment. Whatever route the non-compliance with the judgment, payment, deferral, limitation or lack of finality falls under, that route and its conditions must be used. [M2]

The process involves three separate documents: the court judgment shows the decision whose enforcement is sought; the request for enforcement based on a judgment is the creditor's application; and the enforcement order is the document the enforcement office sends to the debtor. Keeping their functions separate ensures that both the application and the debtor's route of defence are correctly identified.

Two separate checks on the short decision and service

Writing the reasoned judgment and serving the judgment on the other party are different acts. Where finality is not required, the fact that service has not yet been made is not, by itself, an obstacle to enforcement. However, this result does not mean that the short decision in the hearing record, or any interlocutory decision, is suitable for enforcement based on a judgment. The enforcement basis must be a judgment, or a document of the character of a judgment, in law.

Special application and waiting conditions are also preserved. Where a claim requires a prior notice of bank account details to the administration, possession of the reasoned judgment does not remove that condition. It is therefore useful to keep separate the file records "judgment written", "judgment served", "judgment final" and "preliminary application completed" when a file is opened. [M1, A1, M3]

Enforcement before finality of monetary and performance judgments

Source table and field of application

The table below lists the types of claim together. The entries on the claim to ownership (istihkak), the matrimonial property regime and the claim for compensation for unjust occupation (ecrimisil) should be applied only after examining the content of the judgment, not merely the title of the action.

Explanation of practice: The existence of a judgment ordering payment is a strong starting point, but it is not the only criterion. Compensation that is an accessory of divorce and independent compensation for a wrongful act cannot be given the same result. The general classification in the table should be read for payment judgments in which these particular links are absent.

Claims, compensation and labour receivables

For contractual price, pecuniary or non-pecuniary compensation for a wrongful act, and labour receivables such as severance, notice pay, wages and overtime, the general rule is that finality is not awaited. The fact that non-pecuniary compensation arises from an infringement of personality rights does not turn a monetary judgment into a judgment that changes the civil status of the person. The same distinction is important for monetary compensation awarded under the Intellectual and Artistic Works Law (FSEK).

Before enforcement, the claim must be checked for whether it is stated gross or net, the start and type of interest in the judgment, the payments to be offset, and the scope of liability of each debtor. For example, if the judgment does not establish joint and several liability, that liability cannot be created by the enforcement request. Where there are several debtors, the person against whom each paragraph of the judgment is to be enforced must be stated separately.

A debtor's defence that "I have appealed the judgment" does not by itself stop enforcement. However, the enforcement calculation exceeding the judgment, or failure to take into account a payment made after the judgment, are separate grounds for application. The creditor's lawyer should also explain regularly to the client the difference between the amount won and the amount that can be collected.

Annulment of objection and continuation of the existing enforcement

A decision annulling an objection allows enforcement without a judgment, which had been stayed, to continue. How compensation for denial in enforcement and the costs of the proceedings awarded in the judgment are to be collected is determined by reviewing the existing file and the operative part together. A structure seeking to collect the same principal claim twice, in both the old file and the new file, cannot be established.

Before the question of finality arises, a file reconciliation is necessary: against which enforcement was the objection made, for what amount the court annulled the objection, and which items are already in the enforcement? It is wrong to request attachment by stating "the objection has been annulled" for an amount outside the scope of the decision. Continuation under Article 67 of the İİK must be distinguished from the independent enforcement of another judgment. [M2]

Direct recovery of payment and recovery arising from a negative declaratory action

The term recovery of payment (istirdat) may cover two different procedural histories. Money paid when it is asserted that no debt existed may have been the subject of a direct action for recovery. Or a negative declaratory action may first have been brought, and the action become one for recovery because the payment was made during the proceedings. This distinction has consequences for finality and for the route of repayment.

The decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (HGK) dated March 9, 2021, E.2017/8-1873, K.2021/230, requires finality for recovery arising from a negative declaratory action; for a direct action for recovery it accepts the general regime of monetary judgments. The decision also emphasizes the route under Article 72(5) of the İİK for the return of an amount previously collected in enforcement. For this reason, rather than automatically opening a new enforcement for each judgment ordering repayment, the possibility of restoring the enforcement to its former state in the existing file should be examined. [K1]

In practice the necessary documents are the petition, the date and proof of payment, the existing enforcement file and the reasoned judgment. The mere word "recovery" in the title of the judgment is not enough. A wrong distinction may lead to an unnecessary enforcement and to costs arising in favour of the other party.

Matrimonial property receivable, compensation for unjust occupation and ownership claim

A monetary claim arising from the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime is not the same concept as an accessory of a divorce judgment. The need for a divorce to be final before the liquidation action can be heard must be distinguished from the enforceability of the separate money judgment given at the end of liquidation. The phrase "the property itself cannot be claimed" in the source table should not be taken as an absolute proposition covering every matrimonial property scenario. The payment arrangement under Article 239 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) and whether the judgment really contains money or an in rem right are important. [M8]

In compensation for unjust occupation, money is claimed for the use of the property. However, the existence of a dispute over ownership or some other right in rem in the same file requires the judgment as a whole to be examined. The reasoning and the operative part must be read together; no conclusion should be drawn merely from the title of the claim or from the presence of a monetary sum in the final judgment.

The distinction between upholding and dismissing an ownership claim (istihkak) is preserved in the source table. For decisions upholding a claim based on a finding of ownership, and their accessories, the case law requires finality. However, the context in which the ownership claim was raised in the action and enforcement must be identified; the ownership procedure under the İİK, the general ownership action and the compensation judgment must not be merged under one heading. The academic debate on this area is connected with the enforceability of judgments and the effect of a declaratory judgment. [A1]

Distinguishing the claims in unfair competition and trademark infringement

The source study emphasizes that there is disagreement on decisions concerning the prevention of unfair competition and infringement of trademark rights. That debate should be preserved: a finding of infringement, an order to stop conduct, an amendment of a register entry and monetary compensation are different outcomes of a judgment. It is not enough to treat each item in the same file as requiring or not requiring finality, merely by looking at the name of the action. The judgment on monetary compensation must be examined separately from the judgment determining the existence of the right or its status in the register.

In practice, the first step is to identify which paragraph of the judgment is to be enforced. The second step is to assess whether that paragraph depends on another part of the judgment. The third step is to compare the relevant special law and the current case law on the same type of claim. The debatable characterization in the source text cannot be presented as an undisputed rule requiring every trademark or unfair competition judgment to be final. The reasoning in the enforcement request must be clear enough to show why the performance is regarded as enforceable. [M1, A1]

Two decisions show why the distinction matters. The judgment of the 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 8. HD) dated June 15, 2017, E.2015/7812, K.2017/9171, which included not only prevention of infringement but also annulment of the trademark and its deletion from the register, was not regarded as appropriately dismissed on the ground that the complaint of lack of finality was out of time. In its decision of January 24, 2013, E.2012/12775, K.2013/715, the same Chamber had already made final the infringement and unfair competition part; for the compensation and lawyers' fee judgment after the quashing, finality was not separately required. The second decision cannot be generalized by removing the condition that the first part is final. Both decisions must be read in their own legislative context. [K8, K9] For readers facing a similar situation, the article How Is a Receivable Collected in Türkiye? may provide guidance.

Identifying the correct enforcement route in maintenance decisions

Interim maintenance interlocutory decision

Interim maintenance ordered while divorce proceedings are pending is intended to meet the need for subsistence until the end of the case. Finality of the divorce is not awaited for this protection to apply. However, that an interlocutory decision is immediately enforceable is not the same thing as its being a basis for enforcement based on a judgment. The routes for collecting maintenance claims are discussed in the article What to do if maintenance is not paid.

In its decision of March 13, 2019, E.2018/6085, K.2019/4240, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. HD) did not consider it appropriate to start enforcement based on a judgment and send an enforcement order on the basis of an interlocutory decision. For an interim maintenance interlocutory decision, enforcement without a judgment through the general attachment procedure and the situation in which maintenance is later tied to a judgment must be distinguished. The nature of the document held on the date of the enforcement request is decisive. [K3]

For this reason, in a file it must be determined under which decision the maintenance was fixed, from which date it runs, whether the interlocutory decision was changed and what payments have already been made. The same month's amount may not be demanded twice, under both the interlocutory decision and the final judgment. This error is easily avoided when monthly periods and payments are recorded in a schedule.

Maintenance as an accessory of divorce

When assessing the enforcement of poverty and child maintenance awarded for the period after divorce, the finality of the divorce judgment is important. The divorce part may have become final while only the amount of maintenance has been taken to appeal. In such a case, it is incomplete to say that the whole judgment, as a single piece, is still not final. The extent of finality must be examined together with the period for which maintenance is sought. The general framework of maintenance types is summarized in the article types of maintenance and their conditions.

Maintenance under an independent maintenance judgment or a judgment increasing maintenance is not in the same position as maintenance tied to a divorce judgment that has not yet taken effect. The short general account in the source, which classifies all maintenance in the same way, should be applied with these distinctions in mind. For the special protection of maintenance, Articles 350 and 367 of the HMK and Article 36 of the İİK do not permit deferral of enforcement; but this rule does not make an incorrect enforcement route or an incorrect period calculation lawful. Details of maintenance increase actions are set out in the article maintenance increase action. [M1, M2]

Example: In the judgment, if interim maintenance is ordered during the action and child maintenance is ordered once the divorce becomes final, the two periods are calculated separately. The start and transition dates are taken from the judgment. The collection of maintenance debt for the period during the action is not postponed entirely on the ground that "the divorce is not yet final"; the enforcement basis and route are chosen correctly.

Eviction and decisions concerning immovable property

Source table and the distinction of rights in rem

The presence of an immovable property in the file does not in every case require finality. A personal right arising from a lease relationship and a judgment concerning the ownership or a limited right in rem in the property are different.

Explanation of practice: The phrase in the eviction row, "Art. 367 of the HMK does not apply here", should be understood as meaning that the finality exception provided for judgments concerning the ownership of an immovable property does not apply, rather than that the whole of Article 367 is inapplicable. The rules that an appeal or appeal on points of law does not as a rule stop enforcement, and that enforcement may be deferred, retain their importance.

Eviction based on a lease contract

A judgment ordering the vacating of leased premises does not, as a rule, decide to whom the ownership belongs. For this reason it may be enforced without waiting for finality. However, it must be checked before which court and at the end of which procedure the eviction was ordered, which enforcement act is requested, and whether a decision to stay enforcement exists. A special waiting period for eviction decisions of the enforcement court cannot be used as a common period for all eviction judgments. [M2, K6]

Where eviction and a rent claim are in the same file, the performances must be recorded separately. Delivery of the leased premises does not mean that the arrears of rent have been paid, and payment of a money debt does not by itself remove every eviction judgment. A delivery protocol concluded after enforcement, and the record of who took the keys and on what date, affect later disputes.

Prevention of interference, demolition and claims arising from contract

In a judgment preventing interference, the nature of the legal relationship between the parties is examined. Where there is a dispute about ownership, a judgment for removal of a structure (kal), or the creation or cancellation of a right in rem, the question of finality is different. A judgment for the bare price under a works contract is not the same as a judgment requiring the registration of a share in the land or of an independent unit.

In this area some summary lists which give a definitive result by looking at the name of the action are misleading. The reasoning and the operative part help to understand what the judgment has decided; but the part to be enforced is the operative part. An enforcement officer cannot replace the court, alter the judgment or derive a new performance from the reasoning.

The decision of the Civil General Assembly of June 24, 2026, E.2025/704, K.2026/407 concretizes this distinction. In an action for cancellation of a land registry entry and registration of title, or, if that is impossible, for compensation, the immovable property was auctioned to a third party during the proceedings, and finally money compensation was awarded. The Special Chamber considered that the discussion of a right in rem during the proceedings was sufficient for finality. The majority of the Civil General Assembly, however, held that enforcement of the judgment would not alter the land registry and accepted enforcement before finality, treating the judgment as a claim for money. The contrary view was also put forward in the Assembly, but was not adopted by the majority. [K10]

For this reason, the approach in the source study that "the relationship discussed in the reasoning is looked at" cannot be turned into an absolute criterion that pushes the nature of the judgment into the background. In particular, requiring automatic finality, on the basis of a land registry claim made at the start of the action, for a judgment ordering only payment of money is incompatible with the approach of the current decision. The effect of the specific judgment on the register, its paragraphs and their interdependence must be explained together.

The current position on expropriation and de facto expropriation

An obstacle of finality and a condition of prior payment are different

The former obstacle of finality contained in Provisional Article 14 of Law No. 2942 on Expropriation, for amounts awarded for de facto expropriation, was annulled by the Constitutional Court (AYM) in its decision of February 4, 2021, E.2019/89, K.2021/10. For this reason, it is wrong to wait for all such claims to become final on the basis of an internet list that reproduces the former provision. However, the legal basis of the claim and the special provision at the date of enforcement must be identified. [K4]

The written notice of bank account details and the thirty-day payment period under Article 4 Supplementary of Law No. 2942 are a separate condition. The date on which the notice reached the administration, the authority of the person giving it and the performances requested in the judgment must be documented. If payment is not made within the period, enforcement under the general provisions becomes possible. That finality is not required does not mean that a preliminary application is not required either. [M3]

Files concerning assessment of the price, registration, increase of the price, de facto interference and legal interference must not be fitted into a single template. In particular, in a different judgment concerning the return of the price after ownership has passed to the administration, the valid result for the first compensation judgment cannot be applied automatically. The connection of the return judgment with the right in rem and the special procedure on which it is based must be examined separately.

The August 2026 amendment affects the exemption from security

The Constitutional Court's decision of May 13, 2026, E.2026/24, K.2026/106, was published in the Official Gazette No. 33333 of August 7, 2026. The Court annulled the exemption from security in the second paragraph of Article 4 Supplementary for actions claiming compensation for de facto expropriation. Consequently, the statement in the source that the administration may in every case request deferral of enforcement without security cannot be used in its current form. [K5]

The scope of the decision must be carefully limited. The annulment does not mean that all the provisions of Article 4 Supplementary have disappeared; the written notice of bank details and the thirty-day payment arrangement are kept separate from it. In addition, whether a debtor who is the State, or who benefits from legal aid, falls within the provision under Article 36 of the İİK must be assessed separately, taking into account the legal nature of the administration as debtor. It cannot be assumed that every public legal entity falls within this scope merely because it is a public institution.

The majority reasoning of the decision criticizes making it harder for a person whose property has been unlawfully interfered with to reach their claim. The dissent assesses the provision differently, in terms of procedural security and public resources. In practice the result should not be extended to "enforcement proceeds freely at every stage"; the conditions of enforcement, the basis of the security and the decision to defer must each be checked separately. [K5]

Other judgments: arbitration and mediation documents

Source table

This table shows together the different bases of court judgments and of documents which the law recognizes as having the character of a judgment. The explanation on the signature and endorsement in the mediation row must be completed with the following current distinctions.

Explanation of practice: Performance or non-performance of an act is governed in principle by Article 30 of the İİK. Article 31 is assessed separately for easements; the requirement of finality for a judgment concerning ownership of immovable property cannot be removed by reference to that article. In the mediation document, the mediator's signature and the cases where an endorsement is mandatory by law cannot be omitted.

Delivery of movables and performing an act

Where a judgment orders delivery of a movable, it is important that the thing demanded is specific, matches the judgment and what procedure applies if delivery does not take place. In a judgment on performing or not performing an act, the performance and the person from whom it is expected must also be clear. The enforcement office cannot complete the judgment by itself by imposing a technical obligation not established in the decision.

For example, the delivery of a particular machine and the payment of the price of that machine are not the same claim. Performances cannot be substituted for each other without an option given by the judgment or a statutory conversion mechanism. Acts such as having the work done by a third party, determining the cost or preventing the breach are carried out within the relevant enforcement judgment. The question of finality does not replace these conditions of application.

Domestic arbitration, international arbitration and foreign arbitral awards

In domestic arbitration within the scope of the HMK, bringing an action for annulment of the award and an appeal against the decision on that action do not automatically stop enforcement. The guarantee and the possibility of a stay provided by the law must be assessed separately. Article 15/A of the International Arbitration Law No. 4686 provides that bringing an action for annulment automatically stops enforcement; Article 15/B deals separately with the document of enforceability. Confusing these two regimes leads either to needlessly delaying an enforceable award or to starting enforcement on an award whose conditions of enforcement have not yet arisen. [M1, M4]

The enforcement in Türkiye of a foreign arbitral award is further linked to recognition and enforcement (tenfiz) and to any applicable international treaty provisions. The language of the award, the fact that one party is foreign, or the name of the arbitration centre alone do not solve the whole problem. The seat of arbitration, the arbitration regime to be applied, the binding force of the award and the necessary court steps must be identified. A decision of a consumer arbitration committee must not be equated with these types of arbitration either.

Signature and endorsement on a mediation settlement document

Under Article 18(4) of Law No. 6325, outside the cases where an endorsement of enforceability is mandatory by law, a settlement document signed jointly by the parties, their lawyers and the mediator is regarded as a document of the character of a judgment without an endorsement. There is a separate special regulation for the joint signature of lawyers and the mediator in commercial disputes. For this reason the sentence in the source table that mentions only the signature of the parties and lawyers is incomplete. [M5]

For the transfer of immovable property, or the creation of a limited right in rem, and for disputes falling under Article 18/B, the mandatory endorsement provisions must be taken into account separately. For property, the special rules on registration after endorsement and on the finality of the relevant decision should also be researched. Completeness of signatures, the power of representation, the scope of the agreement and whether it contains a specific performance suitable for enforcement are checked together.

A conversation or a final minute which is drawn up only because of mediation activity does not automatically become a basis for enforcement based on a judgment. A debt whose payment date has not yet arrived may not be demanded early on the ground that the document has the character of a judgment. The instalments, condition and order of performance of the settlement must be clearly shown in the enforcement calculation. The subject of the application is not the need to bring a new action, but the enforceability and scope of the document in hand.

Judgments requiring finality and special situations

Source table

The table below is the list of exceptions of the source study. The effect of a declaratory judgment, the accessories of a judgment, the special route of execution and the pre-enforcement application conditions are dealt with separately in the explanations.

Explanation of practice: Being on this list does not mean that the decision will necessarily be enforced by the classic money enforcement process. Determination, change of register entry, personal contact with the child and the provision to be applied by the institution produce different results. Finality does not remove the absence of a performance order. The family law row should be read together with the special position of maintenance, and the criminal row together with the type of judgment and the procedure of collection.

Judgments on persons, family law and ships

For provisions affecting a person's status, such as name, surname, age, civil register, emancipation, filiation and adoption, the order of finality is important. Implementation of a judgment in the civil register or another register and the collection of the costs attached to it are different operations, but the connection between them should not be overlooked. A divorce's status consequence other than money is also not an ordinary monetary claim enforcement.

As regards ships, the provision of Article 31/a of the İİK mentioned in the source table should not be reduced to a distinction between flag and register. Equally, it is not correct to treat every money claim with an economic link to a ship as "a judgment on an in rem right in a ship". A freight or other contract claim and a judgment on ownership, delivery or a right in rem over the cargo of a ship are examined according to their own nature.

The current implementing unit for the delivery of a child

The delivery of a child and the enforcement of decisions on personal contact with a child must not be described according to the former enforcement office model. Under the system of Article 41/A et seq. of Law No. 5395, duties and judicial support and victim services are performed by the directorates; where there is no directorate, the clerks' offices of the civil courts of law designated by the Ministry are responsible. Articles 25, 25/a, 25/b and 341 of the İİK were repealed and the new practice has applied nationwide since May 8, 2023. The best interests of the child are the basis. Interim measures and the enforcement of the final decision must not be compressed into the same sentence on finality. [M6]

The decision of the Civil General Assembly E.2013/8-2200, K.2015/1223, cited in the source, is dated April 17, 2015. This decision shows the importance of the finality requirement for public order and for the supervision of the court. However, it cannot be used as a basis for applying the former child delivery enforcement procedure as it stands today. Benefiting from the principle of a decision does not justify ignoring the changes to competence and procedural rules made after the decision date. [K7]

Negative declaratory judgments, rent determination and accessories of the judgment

The effect of a negative declaratory judgment

A judgment declaring negative declaratory relief determines that a debt does not exist. It is not correct to enforce that declaratory part like a payment order. Its effect on a continuing enforcement, the restoration of the enforcement to its former state and the collection of compensation or costs awarded are separate headings. Articles 72 of the İİK on acceptance, rejection and return must be read together.

In its decision of May 18, 2022, E.2019/8-239, K.2022/675, the Civil General Assembly did not consider appropriate the enforcement, before finality, of the costs of litigation and the lawyers' fee in a judgment on negative declaratory relief. The decision also discusses whether a complaint on this subject should be tied to a time limit. The majority did not find sufficient the opposing view which gave weight to the nature of a money claim. For this reason, the statement "the lawyers' fee is in any case a money claim" cannot be used to override the regime of the main judgment. [K2]

In rent determination, finality does not create a performance judgment

A decision determining the rent and a decision ordering payment of a particular rent arrears are different. When a rent determination decision becomes final, an important threshold is crossed as to whether the accumulated difference can be claimed. However, a bare determination judgment does not for that reason itself become, automatically, a performance judgment for which enforcement on a judgment can be carried out for the rent difference. The rent difference claim must be claimed by the appropriate enforcement or action route. Making a general attachment enforcement without a judgment and, in the event of objection, treating a finalized rent determination judgment as a document under Art. 68 of the İİK, is one of the routes mentioned in the study; the scope of the objection and the calculation must be examined separately.

The Joint Chambers Decision of November 12, 1979, E.1979/1, K.1979/3, deals with the relationship between finality and maturity; the decision of November 24, 1995, E.1994/2, K.1995/2, deals with interest running from finality on a rent difference that has become clear, without a further notice. The execution of the costs and lawyers' fees awarded by the decision must not be confused with the collection of the rent difference. [K6]

Example: Where the court has determined the new monthly rent for a future period, the difference for past months is calculated showing the period, the rents paid and the date of finality separately. If the decision determines only the monthly amount, writing the total difference in the enforcement request does not turn that total into a claim that the judgment has ordered. Correct interest calculation does not correct the wrong type of enforcement.

Lawyers' fees, costs of proceedings and partial finality

For a lawyers' fee and costs of proceedings accessory to a main judgment that must become final, early enforcement must not be made on the ground that they are "an independent money claim". The converse is also true: a general rule cannot be established that the costs in a money judgment that does not require finality will necessarily wait for finality. Accessoriness to the main judgment applies once the correct main judgment has been identified.

Independent claims may exist within the same judgment. In that case, rather than evaluating the whole judgment under a single label, it is examined which paragraph is attached to which claim. The finality of the divorce part may require separate assessment only for the accessories whose amount is disputed and for independent property claims in the same file. The Court of Cassation, for example, must examine the nature of the paragraph in question for items awarded at a different stage, such as the lawyers' fee for a hearing. [K1, K2]

Foreign judgments, Court of Audit, criminal and labour law

Recognition and enforcement of foreign court and arbitral judgments

That a foreign court judgment is enforceable in the country where it was given does not mean that it has the same enforceability in Türkiye directly. The conditions of recognition and enforcement under Article 50 et seq. of the MÖHUK and the suspensive effect that Article 57/2 links to a remedy are taken into account. For foreign arbitral awards, Articles 60–62, the reference in Article 61/2 and any applicable international agreement must be separately assessed. [M7] For details see the article on a foreign creditor's collection of a monetary claim in Türkiye.

The file must contain the foreign judgment, the certificate of finality or binding force, a duly certified translation, service and the recognition order together. Recognition and enforcement do not have the same purpose: recognition of the res judicata effect alone does not in every case give power of compulsory collection. For the cross-border collection aspect, the question of the foreign person's collection of a monetary claim in Türkiye may be examined. For details see the article Enforcement of Foreign Court Money Decisions in Türkiye.

Distinguishing Court of Audit judgments and administrative judgments

Article 53 of Law No. 6085 provides that Court of Audit judgments are carried out within ninety days after they become final. The same article states that the compensation amount is subject to statutory interest from the date of the judgment. This example shows that the finality condition and the start of interest cannot in every case be tied to the same date. [M9]

Court of Audit judgments cannot be placed in the same group as all the decisions of the administrative and tax courts. The regime of performance and the bank account notice under Article 28 of the İYUK, and the effect of the remedy under Article 52, are assessed separately. A list stating that every money judgment against the administration must necessarily await finality is not correct. The judicial branch and the special payment procedure must first be identified. [M10]

Financial consequences of criminal judgments and deferment of the announcement of judgment

The finality rule in Article 4 of Law No. 5275 relates to the execution of convictions. The classification the source table makes for the accessories of a criminal judgment should be read in that context. The collection procedure for the costs of the State and the route for collecting a lawyers' fee awarded in favour of the opposing party are not the same; the provision of Article 324 of the CMK is taken into account separately. [M11]

The decision of the 8th Civil Chamber of October 3, 2013, E.2013/7585, K.2013/14130, cited in the source, relates to an earlier practice that distinguished deferment of the announcement of judgment (HAGB) from a conviction. That decision cannot be used as a rule granting automatic enforcement permission in all HAGB files without examining later changes to the CMK and transitional provisions. The date of the HAGB decision, the remedy to which it was subject and the financial part of the judgment to be pursued must each be investigated separately.

Also, for compensation due to protective measures, the outdated phrasing "enforced without finality" must not be relied upon. Article 142(10) of the CMK provides, for these court decisions, a payment arrangement of thirty days following finality and written notice of bank account details to the administration. This special provision cannot be overridden merely by reference to the name of the court or to the fact that the claim is for money. [M11]

Labour receivable, service determination and reinstatement

A payment judgment on a labour receivable and a judgment determining service have different consequences. Article 4(2) of the Labour Courts Law No. 7036 provides that the institution applies the decision in the service determination proceedings only once its decision becomes final. For this reason, the non-finality enforcement logic used for a wage claim cannot be carried over unchanged to the implementation of insured service periods by the institution. [M12]

For reinstatement, Articles 20 and 21 of the Labour Law No. 4857 are read together. The final decision of the regional court of appeal, the worker's application to start work within ten business days from notice of the final judgment, and the employer's obligation to start the work within one month after the application are different stages. In assessing the recovery of pay for the period not worked and compensation for not starting work, it must be documented that the application was made in time and in proper form, the conduct of starting work and the content of the judgment. [M12]

Deferment of enforcement and complaint routes

An appeal or an appeal on points of law is not sufficient on its own

In a judgment which does not require finality, the debtor may face enforcement pressure even if an appeal has been made. Deferment of enforcement under Article 36 of the İİK is a protection with its own conditions for that situation. Filing the appeal, the existence of an acceptable security or a statutory exemption, and the taking of the necessary decision are assessed together.

After the amendment by Law No. 7343, the authority that decides is the enforcement court of the place where enforcement was carried out. A grace-period document showing an appropriate period, obtained from the enforcement office, and a decision to defer enforcement are not the same document. The presence in the file of a receipt showing that security was deposited does not by itself mean that all proceedings have stopped. It should also be remembered that this route is closed for maintenance provisions. [M2]

The application petition, the record of the appeal, the current file account, the nature of the security, the expiry of the grace period and the arrival of the court's decision at the enforcement file must be monitored together. No fixed number of days can be proposed for the grace period for everyone. The period given and the scope of the decision must be seen in the concrete file. Where an appeal on points of law is open after the decision of the regional court of appeal, the special rule on the continuing effect of the deferment must not be overlooked.

Complaint for lack of finality

Where enforcement of a judgment requiring finality is carried out before that condition is fulfilled, the matter may be brought before the enforcement court seeking annulment of the enforcement or enforcement order. In the decisions of the Civil General Assembly of 2015 and 2022 this defect was treated as a matter of public order and as an unlimited complaint. However, not every enforcement error is subject to an unlimited complaint. Interest calculations, service, payment and other procedural objections have their own rules. [K2, K7]

A complaint petition stating only that "the decision is not final" is not a sufficient working method. It must show which part of the judgment requires finality, why it was not final on the date of enforcement and which enforcement act was then carried out. The basis judgment, the service records, the appeal records and the enforcement request must be attached. Because under Article 22 of the İİK a complaint does not by itself stop enforcement, the need for a temporary stay is assessed separately. [M2]

It should not be relied upon that the enforcement officer will resolve all finality problems by themselves. Some decisions accept that this review must be carried out by the enforcement court. The statement in the academic study "the enforcement officer supervises ex officio" should not be equated with the court's supervision of public order. The decisions cited in the academic review show this distinction. [A1]

Later finality and quashing of the judgment

If the finality condition that had to exist when enforcement was opened occurred later, it must not be assumed that the first act became lawful in every respect. The complaint and the question of annulling the enforcement are assessed with the situation on the relevant date. An enforcement that has been annulled does not prevent a lawful new application once the conditions have been completed.

On the other hand, the later quashing or setting aside of a judgment that was collected before it became final creates a risk of restitution for the creditor. Article 40 of the İİK separately regulates the stopping of enforcement acts and the restoration of the enforcement to its former state. For restitution, conditions such as a final decision establishing that there was no debt, or that the debt was smaller, are examined. It cannot be said that each decision of quashing automatically produces a money refund on the same day. [M2]

The creditor's lawyer must explain the risk of the appeal route when reporting collection. The debtor's lawyer must monitor the submission of the decision of quashing or annulment to the enforcement file, which acts will stop, and whether the conditions for restitution have arisen. Timely reflection in the enforcement file of developments in the court file is as important as obtaining the decision.

File preparation and time limits before enforcement

A workable order of work for the creditor

The first step is to divide the judgment into its paragraphs. Opposite each paragraph, the debtor, the amount or performance, the start of interest, the need for finality and any earlier payment are recorded. The second step is to obtain a complete and properly issued copy of the document on which enforcement is based. The third step is to determine whether a special prior application or a condition of maturity exists.

Then the calculation is matched with the type of enforcement. Before an enforcement request is submitted, it is checked whether the same claim has been pursued in another file and whether there is a risk of double collection. After the application, the enforcement order, service and time records are checked. Developments in appeal or deferment are followed separately. This order keeps the collection objective within legal limits.

Document and control table

Time limits that must not be confused

This table is not an automatic time calculator. The date on which an electronic notification is legally deemed served, public holidays, the concept of business day and special transitional provisions must be treated separately in each file. Time limits for appeal or correction of decision stated in old decisions must not be carried over unchanged to a new decision.

Informing the client is part of file management

To tell the client only "we have filed for enforcement" is not enough. The claims for which enforcement was opened, the date of service on the other party, the next step, the present obstacle and the amount collected must be notified in an understandable way. In particular, the reason why claims awaiting finality are waiting, and why those that may be pursued without finality are being pursued, must be explained.

For the debtor, it must be clearly explained that the information "we have appealed" does not stop enforcement. The work done must be recorded in writing, the person responsible for the time limit must be identified, and each step carried out must be re-recorded. Regular information enables the client to understand their own file and turns a technical success into a reliable professional service.

Frequently asked questions

Can a court judgment be submitted for enforcement before it becomes final?

Yes, as a rule. However, the type of judgment, any special finality conditions and any decision to stop enforcement must be examined. The existence of a monetary judgment does not by itself remove all exceptions. Details: general rule.

In enforcement based on a judgment, is a payment order or an enforcement order sent?

In enforcement based on a judgment, an enforcement order under the relevant enforcement procedure is involved. The payment order and objection system of enforcement without a judgment through the general attachment procedure are different. Details: request for enforcement and enforcement order.

Does an appeal automatically stop an attachment?

No. The general rule is that an application does not stop enforcement. For a judgment that does not require finality, deferment of enforcement is assessed under the conditions of Article 36 of the İİK; there is a special prohibition for maintenance. Details: deferment and complaint.

Is a finality endorsement required in every enforcement?

No. For a judgment that does not require finality, the mere absence of an endorsement is not an obstacle to enforcement. For a judgment that requires finality, the condition and its scope must be documented. Details: concept of finality.

Must the divorce become final before interim maintenance can be enforced?

No. But the correct enforcement route must be chosen by distinguishing interlocutory decisions from judgments. For maintenance after divorce, child maintenance and poverty maintenance, a different finality assessment is made. Details: maintenance decisions.

Can an eviction judgment be enforced before it becomes final?

An eviction judgment based on a lease contract is, as a rule, enforceable. A judgment concerning a right in rem, the special waiting period and any decision to stay enforcement are examined separately. Details: eviction and immovable property decisions.

Is finality required for labour receivables?

Generally not, for monetary claims such as severance, notice pay, wages and overtime. Service determination and reinstatement are assessed under their own special conditions. Details: distinctions in labour law.

Can enforcement based on a judgment be made for the rent difference by a rent determination decision?

A bare rent determination judgment does not become a performance judgment on finality. The maturity of the difference, the start of interest and the appropriate collection route are dealt with separately. The enforcement of costs awarded must also be assessed separately. Details: rent determination.

Can a mediation settlement be submitted directly for enforcement?

If the signatures required by law for the character of a judgment and any mandatory endorsement of enforceability are complete, an appropriate enforcement may be carried out for the performance due within the scope of the document. Not every final minute has this power. Details: mediation documents.

In de facto expropriation, must one wait thirty days?

The written bank account notice and the payment period under Article 4 Supplementary are checked separately from the obstacle of finality. The 2026 Constitutional Court decision concerns the exemption from security; it has not removed the thirty-day arrangement completely. Details: expropriation and de facto expropriation.

Does enforcement stop when a complaint is made?

It does not stop automatically. A court decision is required under Article 22 of the İİK. The reason for the complaint, its time limit and the need for a temporary stay must be considered together. Details: complaint routes.

What happens if the judgment is quashed after collection?

The conditions of stopping and restitution under Article 40 of the İİK arise. Each quashing does not automatically produce restitution at the same time; the new judgment and the definitive determination that there is no debt are examined. Details: quashing of the judgment.

Basic concepts

Judgment (ilam): A duly issued copy of a court's decision delivered to the parties. Every minute or interlocutory decision is not a judgment.

Performance judgment (eda hükmü): A judgment establishing an obligation to pay money, to deliver a thing or to do or refrain from a specific act.

Declaratory judgment (tespit hükmü): A judgment determining the existence or non-existence of a legal relationship. It does not always contain a performance that can be enforced by compulsion.

Finality (kesinleşme): The end of the availability of the ordinary remedy in respect of the relevant judgment. It is determined together with the scope of the judgment and the procedural steps.

Enforcement order (icra emri): A document served on the debtor within enforcement based on a judgment, directed at the performance of the judgment.

Deferment of enforcement (icranın geri bırakılması): A protection that stops the carrying out of enforcement on the conditions stated in the law. Articles 33 and 36 of the İİK set out different grounds and procedures.

Restitution of enforcement (icranın iadesi): The partial or complete restoration to its former state of the situation brought about by enforcement, when the necessary conditions arise.

Recognition and enforcement (tenfiz): The judicial process by which a foreign judgment acquires the power of compulsory enforcement in Türkiye.

Sources and review notes

This text is intended for general legal information. The result is determined by examining the operative part of the concrete judgment, the date of enforcement, service, the remedy and the special legislation together. The current explanations are given alongside the historical account in the source tables. The research date does not mean the date of an independent legal review or of a live publication.

M1 — Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu); in particular Arts. 294, 301, 350, 367 and 439. Ministry of Justice legislation record.

M2 — Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu); in particular Arts. 16, 22, 24, 30–36, 38, 40, 67, 68, 72, 269/c, 363–364. Consolidated text of the law. The version in force from July 31, 2026 has been used.

M3 — Law No. 2942 on Expropriation (Kamulaştırma Kanunu), Art. 4 Supplementary; the amendment introduced by Law No. 7421 and the annulment decision K5 have been considered together. Version of the law in force from August 7, 2026. Subsequent versions not yet in force have not been used.

M4 — Law No. 4686 on International Arbitration (Milletlerarası Tahkim Kanunu), Art. 15/A; for domestic arbitration HMK Art. 439. Law on International Arbitration.

M5 — Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Arts. 17/B, 18 and 18/B; amendments made by Laws No. 7445 and No. 7531. Ministry of Justice current record.

M6 — Law No. 5395 on Child Protection (Çocuk Koruma Kanunu), Art. 41/A et seq.; Law No. 7343. Ministry of Justice implementation statement; Guide on the Process of Child Delivery and Establishment of Personal Contact with a Child, 2023, pp. 4 and 18–20.

M7 — Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK), Arts. 50, 57 and 60–62. Text of the law.

M8 — Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medeni Kanunu), Art. 239 and the provisions on liquidation of the matrimonial property regime. Text of the law.

M9 — Law No. 6085 on the Court of Audit (Sayıştay Kanunu), Art. 53. Law text published by the Court of Audit; for current practice, Court of Audit Appeals Board record.

M10 — Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), Arts. 28 and 52. Ministry of Justice record.

M11 — Law No. 5275 (Execution of Sentences), Art. 4; Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (CMK), Arts. 142(10), 231, 324 and related transitional provisions. Current CMK record, record of Law No. 5275.

M12 — Labour Courts Law No. 7036 (İş Mahkemeleri Kanunu), Art. 4; Labour Law No. 4857 (İş Kanunu), Arts. 20–21. Text of Law No. 7036 as passed by the Grand National Assembly; current Court of Cassation record setting out the reinstatement application rule.

K1 — Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay HGK), March 9, 2021, E.2017/8-1873, K.2021/230. Recovery arising from a negative declaratory action, direct recovery and the route of return. Open publication of the full decision text, Karamercan Hukuk.

K2 — Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay HGK), May 18, 2022, E.2019/8-239, K.2022/675. Costs of a negative declaratory judgment and the complaint without time limit. Open publication of the full decision text, Karamercan Hukuk.

K3 — Court of Cassation 12th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 12. HD), March 13, 2019, E.2018/6085, K.2019/4240. Suitability of an interlocutory decision on interim maintenance for enforcement based on a judgment. Open publication of the decision text.

K4 — Constitutional Court (AYM), February 4, 2021, E.2019/89, K.2021/10; Official Gazette May 7, 2021, No. 31477. Official decision record and database entry. The scope of the annulment has been checked against the source study and the relevant part of the official record.

K5 — Constitutional Court (AYM), May 13, 2026, E.2026/24, K.2026/106; Official Gazette August 7, 2026, No. 33333. Open publication of the full text of the decision; announcement of the decision by the Ankara 2 Bar Association.

K6 — Joint Chambers Decision on Unification of Case Law (YİBK), February 23, 1938, E.11, K.7; November 12, 1979, E.1979/1, K.1979/3; November 24, 1995, E.1994/2, K.1995/2. Eviction, maturity of the rent difference and interest. Relevant sections of the decisions published by Prof. Dr. İlhan Helvacı. The texts used here are the relevant outcome sections of the decisions.

K7 — Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay HGK), April 17, 2015, E.2013/8-2200, K.2015/1223. Finality requirement, public order and supervision by the court. Open publication of the full decision text, Karamercan Hukuk. For the present-day procedure for child delivery, M6 must also be treated as the basis.

K8 — Court of Cassation 8th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 8. HD), June 15, 2017, E.2015/7812, K.2017/9171. Complaint of lack of finality in a judgment including infringement of trademark rights, annulment and deletion from the register. Open publication of the decision text.

K9 — Court of Cassation 8th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 8. HD), January 24, 2013, E.2012/12775, K.2013/715. Compensation and lawyers' fee in a trademark dispute in which the principal part had become final. Open publication of the decision text.

K10 — Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay HGK), June 24, 2026, E.2025/704, K.2026/407. Enforcement before finality of a money compensation judgment after the land registry claim became moot. Open PDF compiled from the text of the Court of Cassation Decision Search. The case number, decision, date and majority outcome have also been compared with a second open decision record; no direct login to the official system was made.

A1 — Mustafa Serdar Özbek, "Kesinleşmeden İcra Edilemeyecek İlâmların Kesinleşmeden Önce İcraya Konulması" (Submission to Enforcement before Finality of Judgments That Cannot Be Enforced before Finality), Başkent Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2016. Open-access full text of the university. Used for the discussions on enforceability, complaint and supervision; it has not been treated as a current source on its own, given subsequent legislative changes.

Source table — Av. Şafak Uğurlu, "Kesinleşmeden İcraya Konulabilen İlamlar" (Judgments Enforceable before Finality), September 2026, four-page study. The four tables have been kept as they are. All legislation and decision records in the source, the original PDF and the separate scope record have been preserved.