How foreign judgments and arbitral awards are enforced in Türkiye
A judgment rendered by a foreign state court or an international arbitral tribunal cannot be directly executed in Türkiye without an order of recognition and enforcement (tenfiz) issued by a Turkish civil or commercial court. The statutory framework is governed by Law No. 5718 on International Private and Civil Procedure Law (MÖHUK) and, for arbitration, the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
The Foreign Plaintiff Security Deposit (Teminat) under MÖHUK Article 48
Under Article 48, paragraph 1 of Law No. 5718 (MÖHUK), foreign natural or legal persons who file a lawsuit, intervene in proceedings, or initiate execution proceedings in Turkish courts must provide the security determined by the court to cover trial and enforcement costs as well as the potential damages of the adverse party (cautio judicatum solvi). The statute does not set a fixed percentage; in practice, courts generally request approximately 10% to 15% of the disputed amount where security is required.
Crucial Rule — Exemption Depends on the Claimant, Not the Judgment's Origin: A fundamental distinction in Turkish private international law is that the security deposit requirement is tied strictly to the nationality and habitual residence of the plaintiff or executing creditor, not to the country where the foreign judgment was rendered. If a Turkish citizen or Turkish entity seeks tenfiz of a foreign judgment, they are entirely exempt from MÖHUK Article 48 regardless of where the judgment originated.
Statutory Exemption Grounds under MÖHUK Article 48, Paragraph 2: Under Article 48/2, the court exempts the foreign claimant from security on the basis of reciprocity (contractual, statutory, or de facto):
- 1954 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure (Article 17): Nationals of contracting states who have their domicile in one of these states are exempt from security for costs solely on the ground of their alien status or lack of Turkish domicile. Contracting states include Germany, Austria, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, Poland, and the Russian Federation.
- 1980 Hague Convention on International Access to Justice (Article 14): Natural and legal persons habitually resident in a contracting state are exempt from any security, bond, or deposit. Türkiye ratified this convention in 2004.
- Bilateral Judicial Assistance Treaties: Türkiye has entered into bilateral conventions containing specific security deposit waivers or national treatment clauses, including the 1931 Türkiye–United Kingdom Convention (Article 12: equal treatment regarding security for costs), the 1992 Türkiye–China Judicial Assistance Agreement (Article 14: exemption from security for legal costs), as well as bilateral judicial treaties with Austria, Germany, Italy, the USSR/Russian Federation, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine.
- De Facto and Statutory Reciprocity: For claimants from jurisdictions without a treaty waiver (such as the United States, Canada, Australia, or the UAE), the Turkish court evaluates whether Turkish citizens are exempt from security when suing in that jurisdiction. Courts regularly verify reciprocal practice through official correspondence with the Ministry of Justice Directorate General for Foreign Relations and European Union. If reciprocity is demonstrated, the court grants exemption under Article 48/2; otherwise, a security deposit is ordered under Article 48/1.
Essential Conditions for Tenfiz in Turkish Courts (MÖHUK Article 54)
While security deposits relate to the claimant's personal status under Article 48, the recognition and enforcement of the foreign decision itself is governed by MÖHUK Article 54. Turkish courts will grant enforcement provided the following statutory conditions are satisfied:
- Reciprocity (MÖHUK art. 54/1-a): Contractual, statutory, or de facto reciprocity exists between Türkiye and the state where the judgment was rendered (in international arbitration, reciprocity is governed by the 1958 New York Convention).
- Exclusive Jurisdiction (MÖHUK art. 54/1-b): The dispute does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts (e.g. rights in rem over Turkish immovable property).
- Public Policy (Kamu Düzeni, MÖHUK art. 54/1-c): The foreign judgment does not clearly violate Turkish public order (the Turkish court is strictly prohibited from reviewing the substantive merits; no révision au fond).
- Right of Defense (MÖHUK art. 54/1-ç): The person against whom enforcement is sought was duly summoned or represented in accordance with the laws of the place of judgment, or default was legally declared without violation of defense rights.
Freezing Turkish Assets Before the Debtor Disposes of Them
MÖHUK contains no separate attachment rule for the period while the tenfiz case is pending; the general rules of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) apply. The creditor of an unsecured money debt that has fallen due may ask the court for a precautionary attachment (ihtiyati haciz) of the debtor's movable and immovable property, receivables and other rights, whether held by the debtor or by a third party (İİK art. 257/1). For a debt not yet due, it may be requested only where the debtor has no fixed domicile, or is preparing to hide or remove assets or to abscond, or enters into fraudulent transactions infringing the creditor's rights in order to escape the obligation (art. 257/2). The creditor must put before the court evidence of the claim and, where required, of the grounds for attachment (art. 258/1). Whether the order is made depends on the evidence in the particular file.
Scope. This page is general information about Turkish law and procedure. It is not legal advice, it is not an assessment of your situation, and reading it does not create a lawyer-client relationship. Statutory figures, thresholds and rates are revised periodically — check the current position before relying on any of them. Any particular case turns on its own documents and facts.