Essential Enforcement Insight
Under Turkish Private International and Civil Procedure Law (Law No. 5718 / MÖHUK Art. 60), the 1958 New York Convention takes constitutional precedence over domestic statutory rules (Turkish Constitution Art. 90). Turkish commercial judges cannot alter or evaluate the substantive merits of a valid foreign arbitral award.
1. Statutory Framework: The New York Convention 1958 and MÖHUK Art. 60
Türkiye is a signatory to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention). When an international arbitral award is rendered in a contracting state (such as the UK, Switzerland, France, Germany, Singapore, or the UAE), its recognition and enforcement (Tenfiz) before Turkish courts is governed primarily by the Convention and supplementary provisions of Turkish PIL Law No. 5718 (MÖHUK Arts. 60 through 62).
Mandatory documentation required for filing a Tenfiz lawsuit in Türkiye (MÖHUK Art. 61):
- Original Arbitral Award: The duly authenticated original award or a certified true copy.
- The arbitration agreement or clause: the original or a duly certified copy, expressly required by MÖHUK art. 61/a. An application filed without it is liable to fail on that ground alone.
- Finality and Enforceability Certificate: Official confirmation that the arbitral award has become binding upon the parties and is not suspended under the seat's curial law.
- Sworn Turkish Translations: Apostilled and notarized translations of all arbitral proceedings.
2. The Absolute Prohibition of Reviewing the Merits (Révision au Fond)
The cornerstone of Turkish arbitration enforcement is the strict doctrine of Prohibition of Révision au Fond (Esasa Girme Yasağı). Under established jurisprudence and statutory law, Turkish commercial courts are strictly barred from re-evaluating:
- Whether the arbitral tribunal interpreted the contract correctly.
- Whether evidence was weighed appropriately by the arbitrators.
- Whether the tribunal applied the governing substantive law accurately.
The sole authority of the Turkish enforcement judge is to confirm that the formal conditions for enforcement are met.
Which instrument supplies those conditions matters. Under MÖHUK art. 1/2 the provisions of international conventions to which Türkiye is a party are reserved, so where the award falls within the New York Convention the grounds for refusal are those of Article V of the Convention, and MÖHUK arts. 60-62 apply to awards outside it and to matters the Convention does not regulate. The two sets are closely parallel, which is why they are often treated as interchangeable, but the applicable text should be identified in the pleadings rather than assumed.
Türkiye acceded to the Convention with both permitted reservations under Article I(3): it applies the Convention only to awards made in the territory of another contracting state (reciprocity), and only to disputes considered commercial under Turkish law. Both should be checked at the outset — the seat of the arbitration and the commercial character of the underlying relationship are threshold questions, not afterthoughts.
3. Exhaustive Grounds for Refusal under MÖHUK Article 62
MÖHUK art. 62 lists the grounds exhaustively, and closely parallels Article V of the Convention. Note that not every ground is for the respondent to prove — art. 62/2 allocates only some of them, as set out in section 6 below:
| Refusal Ground | Statutory Basis | Evidentiary Burden |
|---|---|---|
| No arbitration agreement or clause | MÖHUK art. 62/1-a | Considered by the court on the file; not allocated to the respondent by art. 62/2 |
| Conflict with public morality or public policy | MÖHUK art. 62/1-b | Considered by the court on the file |
| Subject matter not arbitrable under Turkish law | MÖHUK art. 62/1-c | Considered by the court on the file — real rights over Turkish immovables are the classic case |
| Respondent not properly represented before the arbitrators | MÖHUK art. 62/1-ç | Respondent, unless it later expressly accepted the proceedings |
| No proper notice of the appointment of arbitrators, or no opportunity to present its case | MÖHUK art. 62/1-d | Respondent |
| Arbitration agreement invalid | MÖHUK art. 62/1-e | Respondent — under the law the parties made it subject to, or failing agreement the law of the country where the award was made |
| Constitution of the tribunal or the procedure conflicted with the parties' agreement | MÖHUK art. 62/1-f | Respondent — or, failing agreement, conflict with the law of the seat |
| Award exceeds the arbitration agreement | MÖHUK art. 62/1-g | Respondent — as to the excess part |
| Award not final, enforceable or binding, or set aside at the seat | MÖHUK art. 62/1-h | Respondent — in practice the most frequently litigated ground |
4. The Narrow Interpretation of Turkish Public Policy (Kamu Düzeni)
Turkish respondents routinely raise the 'Public Policy' (Kamu Düzeni) objection to delay enforcement. However, Turkish legal doctrine applies a restrictive, modern interpretation of International Public Policy (Milletlerarası Kamu Düzeni).
Enforcement is refused on public policy grounds only if the award directly breaches core constitutional principles, mandatory prohibitions against criminal transactions, or basic standards of natural justice. Mere differences between Turkish commercial law and the foreign substantive law applied by the arbitral tribunal do not constitute a public policy violation.
5. Precautionary Asset Freezing (İhtiyati Haciz) during Enforcement Proceedings
Because an enforcement lawsuit can take several months, defaulting respondents often attempt to transfer liquidity out of Turkish banks or encumber corporate assets. To prevent fraudulent asset dissipation, award creditors can petition the court for an immediate Precautionary Attachment Order (İhtiyati Haciz) under Article 257 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL).
Security for a precautionary attachment is fixed by the court in its discretion under İİK art. 259, which sets no percentage; no security is required where the claim rests on a judgment (art. 259/2). Where the court grants the order, it may cover the respondent's Turkish bank accounts, trade receivables and real estate, subject to what those assets are actually worth. The order must then be executed within ten days (art. 261) and followed within seven days by enforcement proceedings or an action on the merits (art. 264).
Estimate Your Turkish Enforcement Timelines and Costs
Use our interactive statutory calculator to calculate court application fees, statutory collateral requirements, and execution timelines for foreign arbitral awards in Türkiye.
Launch Enforcement Calculator →6. Who Must Prove What: The Split Burden under MÖHUK Art. 62/2
The refusal grounds in Article 62/1 are not all treated alike, and the distinction decides how an enforcement file is actually run. Article 62/2 places the burden of proving the matters in subparagraphs (ç), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) on the party against whom enforcement is sought.
Those six are the defences the respondent must establish: that it was not properly represented before the arbitrators and did not later expressly accept the proceedings; that it was not duly notified of the appointment of arbitrators or was deprived of the opportunity to present its case; that the arbitration agreement is invalid under the law the parties made it subject to, or failing agreement under the law of the country where the award was made; that the constitution of the tribunal or the procedure applied conflicted with the parties' agreement, or failing agreement with the law of the seat; that the award deals with a matter outside the arbitration agreement or exceeds its limits, as to that part; and that the award has not become final, enforceable or binding, or has been set aside by the competent authority at the seat.
The remaining three grounds — (a) no arbitration agreement or clause, (b) conflict with public morality or public policy, and (c) non-arbitrability of the subject matter under Turkish law — are not allocated to the respondent by Article 62/2 and are matters the court considers on the file before it.
For the applicant this has a practical consequence that is easy to miss. Most of the fight is on ground the respondent must occupy. The applicant's own task is narrower: establish the agreement, produce the award in proper form, and demonstrate that it is final and binding at the seat. Filing a bloated application arguing against defences that have not yet been raised tends to widen the dispute rather than shorten it.
7. Court, Documents and What the Hearing Covers
Enforcement is a court action, not an administrative filing. It is brought against the party resisting enforcement, and the outcome is a judgment declaring the award enforceable in Türkiye — the document that then permits execution proceedings against assets.
What the file needs to contain in practice:
- The original arbitral award or a duly certified copy, with sworn Turkish translation.
- The arbitration agreement or the clause in the underlying contract, likewise certified and translated.
- Evidence that the award is final, enforceable or binding under the law of the seat.
- Apostille or consular legalisation as applicable to the country of origin.
The hearing is confined to the Article 62 grounds. It is not a rehearing, and the merits of the underlying commercial dispute are not reopened — the point covered in section 2. Where the respondent raises no Article 62 defence and the formal requirements are met, the scope of the proceedings is genuinely narrow.
The most common practical failure is documentary rather than substantive: an award produced without proper certification, a translation that is not sworn, or missing proof of finality at the seat. These are curable, but each cycle of correction adds months during which assets can move — which is why the precautionary measures discussed in section 5 are usually applied for at the outset rather than after the first hearing.
8. Court Fees and the Security Deposit Exemption (MÖHUK Art. 48)
Two cost questions decide whether an enforcement action is worth bringing, and both are frequently misunderstood by foreign claimants.
Security for costs. Article 48/1 of MÖHUK requires foreign natural and legal persons who bring an action, intervene in an action, or commence execution proceedings before a Turkish court to provide security, in an amount fixed by the court, to cover litigation and enforcement costs and the other party's potential loss. Read alone, that is a significant entry cost on a large award.
Article 48/2 is the provision that matters: the court exempts the claimant, intervener or execution creditor from security on the basis of reciprocity. Where reciprocity exists with the applicant's state — by treaty, by statutory provision, or in practice — the deposit is not required. This is why establishing the reciprocity position is an early step in the file rather than an afterthought: it can remove the deposit entirely.
Court fees. Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is a declaratory action seeking recognition of enforceability, not a claim for a sum of money. It is therefore not assessed on the value of the award in the way an ordinary debt claim would be. For a high-value award this distinction is the difference between a proportional fee on the full sum and a fixed filing fee — and it is a substantial part of why enforcement in Türkiye is often more economical than claimants expect.
Neither point removes the need to budget for translation, certification and legalisation, which on a document-heavy international award can itself be material.
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.
9. Frequently Asked Questions
Is Türkiye a signatory to the 1958 New York Convention on Arbitral Awards?
Yes. Türkiye ratified the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in 1991. Foreign awards rendered in signatory states are enforced directly under Convention standards and Turkish PIL Law (MÖHUK Arts. 60-62).
Can a Turkish court re-examine the substantive merits of an arbitral award?
No. Under the absolute prohibition of révision au fond, Turkish courts cannot review whether the arbitral tribunal made factual or legal errors. The court's jurisdiction is strictly limited to formal enforcement conditions under MÖHUK Art. 62 and New York Convention Art. V.
What constitutes a 'Public Policy' (Kamu Düzeni) defense in Turkish enforcement proceedings?
Turkish courts apply a narrow, restrictive interpretation of international public policy (Türk kamu düzeni). An award violates public policy only if it breaches fundamental constitutional rights, basic principles of procedural justice, or mandatory economic prohibitions (such as severe fraud or violation of mandatory exchange controls).
Can a foreign creditor freeze Turkish debtor assets during the enforcement lawsuit?
Yes. Creditors holding a final foreign arbitral award can apply for an urgent Precautionary Attachment (İhtiyati Haciz) under EBL Art. 257 upon depositing court-mandated collateral, freezing debtor bank accounts and real estate before the final tenfiz decision is rendered.
Is a foreign plaintiff required to deposit foreigner security (cautio judicatum solvi)?
Under MÖHUK Art. 48, foreign plaintiffs must generally deposit security for court costs. However, companies based in countries with bilateral judicial assistance treaties or signatories to the 1954 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure are completely exempt from this requirement on reciprocity grounds.
How long does a foreign arbitral award enforcement lawsuit take in Istanbul Commercial Courts?
An uncontested or standard arbitral award enforcement lawsuit before the competent asliye mahkemesi under MÖHUK art. 60/2 depends on the court's workload, on service on the respondent — which for a respondent abroad may run through the Hague Service Convention — and on whether the award is contested. Enforcement is not immediate once judgment is given: under MÖHUK art. 57/2 an appeal against the decision granting or refusing enforcement suspends its execution.
Our page on enforcing foreign judgments and arbitral awards in Türkiye covers the wider process; to discuss a specific award, you can send it with the arbitration agreement on WhatsApp or to hello@restitora.com.