Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Turkey: New York Convention, Procedure and Refusal Grounds

Introduction

Obtaining a favourable arbitral award does not automatically result in payment.

Where the losing party voluntarily complies, the successful party may receive payment without applying to a national court. Where the debtor refuses to comply and owns assets in Turkey, the award creditor normally needs a Turkish court decision authorising recognition or enforcement.

A Turkish enforcement decision may be necessary before the creditor can use Turkish enforcement offices to attach:

• Bank accounts,
• Real estate,
• Vehicles,
• Customer receivables,
• Company shares,
• Movable assets,
• Other financial rights.

Foreign arbitral awards are principally enforced in Turkey under:

1. The 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards,
2. Law No. 5718 on International Private and Procedural Law, commonly called MÖHUK,
3. Other bilateral or multilateral international agreements where applicable.

The Turkish court does not ordinarily rehear the contractual dispute or decide whether the arbitrators reached the commercially correct result.

The court instead examines whether one of the limited statutory or treaty-based grounds for refusing enforcement exists.

Those grounds principally concern:

• Validity of the arbitration agreement,
• Proper notice,
• Right to present a defence,
• Composition of the tribunal,
• Scope of the award,
• Binding status of the award,
• Arbitrability,
• Turkish public policy.

The party seeking enforcement should therefore prepare the Turkish case while the arbitration is still pending. The arbitration agreement, service records, tribunal appointment documents, final award and evidence of binding status may later become essential.

What Is a Foreign Arbitral Award?

A foreign arbitral award is an award that must be recognised or enforced in Turkey through the legal framework applicable to foreign arbitration decisions.

The classification may depend on matters such as:

• Seat of arbitration,
• Procedural law governing the arbitration,
• Legal system under which the award was made,
• Place where the award was rendered.

An award issued in an arbitration seated outside Turkey will normally be treated as a foreign award for Turkish enforcement purposes.

The nationality of the arbitrators, language of the proceedings and location of an occasional hearing do not independently determine whether the award is foreign.

For example, an arbitration may:

• Be administered by an international institution,
• Use English as the language,
• Involve Turkish and foreign companies,
• Hold hearings online,

but still be legally seated in Istanbul. Such an award should not automatically be treated as foreign merely because the dispute is international.

The seat stated in the arbitration clause, institutional records and award should therefore be identified before selecting the Turkish procedure.

Recognition and Enforcement Are Different

Recognition

Recognition gives the foreign arbitral award legal effect in Turkey as a binding determination.

Recognition may be relevant where a party wants to:

• Rely on the award as conclusive evidence,
• Prevent the same dispute from being relitigated,
• Establish that a contract was validly terminated,
• Use the award in related Turkish proceedings,
• Rely on a declaratory award.

Enforcement

Enforcement permits compulsory execution against the losing party’s assets.

It is required where the award orders the debtor to:

• Pay money,
• Deliver property,
• Perform a contractual obligation,
• Refrain from specified conduct.

MÖHUK provides that recognition of foreign arbitral awards is subject to the same general rules governing their enforcement.

The New York Convention

The New York Convention creates an international framework for the recognition of arbitration agreements and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Turkey applies the Convention subject to two reservations.

Turkey declared that it would apply the Convention:

• On the basis of reciprocity, only to awards made in the territory of another contracting state,
• Only to disputes arising from legal relationships considered commercial under Turkish law.

The first issue in a Turkish enforcement case is therefore whether:

1. The award was made in the territory of another New York Convention contracting state, and
2. The dispute is considered commercial under Turkish law.

Commercial disputes commonly include matters such as:

• International sale of goods,
• Distribution,
• Construction,
• Share purchases,
• Technology agreements,
• Licensing,
• Agency,
• Transport,
• Insurance,
• Commercial loans,
• Joint ventures.

A dispute does not become commercial merely because one party is a company. The nature of the legal relationship must be examined.

What If the New York Convention Does Not Apply?

MÖHUK Articles 60–63 provide Turkey’s domestic statutory framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

MÖHUK may become relevant where:

• The award was made in a non-contracting state,
• The dispute falls outside Turkey’s commercial reservation,
• Another international agreement does not govern the application,
• The applicant relies on the domestic statutory route.

MÖHUK permits enforcement of foreign awards that have become final and enforceable or are binding on the parties. It also regulates the competent court, required documents, procedure and refusal grounds.

The award creditor should determine the applicable legal basis before filing. Referring only to the New York Convention without checking Turkey’s reservations may create an avoidable procedural dispute.

Is Reciprocity Required?

Under Turkey’s New York Convention reservation, the Convention applies on a reciprocal territorial basis to awards made in another contracting state.

This should not be confused with the reciprocity inquiry used for enforcement of foreign court judgments.

For an award made in a New York Convention contracting state and arising from a commercial relationship, the treaty itself provides the relevant international enforcement framework.

Where the award was made in a non-contracting state and enforcement is requested under MÖHUK, the applicable domestic and treaty rules should be examined separately.

Which Awards Can Be Enforced?

MÖHUK provides that a foreign arbitral award may be enforced where it has:

• Become final and enforceable, or
• Become binding on the parties.

The award may be:

• Final award,
• Partial final award,
• Award on jurisdiction,
• Award on liability,
• Award on damages,
• Award on costs,
• Consent award.

The decisive question is whether the relevant decision finally resolves an issue and is binding or enforceable under the applicable arbitration law.

Procedural orders concerning matters such as:

• Hearing timetable,
• Document production,
• Procedural directions,
• Temporary case management

will not ordinarily be treated as final foreign arbitral awards capable of ordinary enforcement.

Interim measures require separate examination because their classification and enforceability depend on the legal framework, wording and effect of the decision.

Must the Award Be Final?

The New York Convention uses the concept of the award being binding rather than requiring a separate double confirmation of finality.

MÖHUK likewise allows enforcement where the award has become final and enforceable or binding on the parties.

The creditor should nevertheless obtain reliable evidence showing:

• The award was notified to the parties,
• No institutional correction or interpretation process prevents reliance on it,
• The award is binding under the law of the seat,
• Any applicable internal institutional review has been completed.

The applicant should not assume that a certificate called a “finality certificate” exists in every arbitration system.

A statement from the arbitral institution, applicable arbitration rules and law of the seat may collectively establish the award’s binding character.

Which Court Has Jurisdiction?

Under MÖHUK Article 60, the application is filed before the first-instance court at the place agreed by the parties in writing.

If the parties did not agree on a Turkish enforcement venue, jurisdiction belongs to the court at:

1. The award debtor’s residence in Turkey,
2. If there is no residence, the debtor’s place of stay in Turkey,
3. If neither exists, the place where assets capable of enforcement are located.

The subject matter of the underlying dispute also affects whether the application is handled by:

• Civil Court of First Instance,
• Commercial Court of First Instance.

For an award arising from a commercial dispute, the Commercial Court of First Instance will commonly be relevant. Where no separate commercial court exists, the civil court may act with the corresponding commercial jurisdiction.

The creditor should identify the asset location before filing where the debtor has no residence or place of stay in Turkey.

Can the Parties Choose the Enforcement Court in Advance?

MÖHUK permits the parties to agree in writing on the place where the enforcement application will be filed.

A clause may state, for example:

“The courts of Istanbul shall have jurisdiction over proceedings for recognition and enforcement of any arbitral award.”

The clause should not be confused with:

• Seat of arbitration,
• Place of hearings,
• Governing law,
• Arbitration institution.

An arbitration seated in Paris may still include Istanbul as the agreed location for Turkish enforcement proceedings, provided the clause is legally effective.

Who May Apply?

The person or company entitled to benefit from the award may apply for enforcement.

The applicant may be:

• Original claimant,
• Successful respondent with a costs award,
• Legal successor,
• Heir,
• Assignee of the award debt,
• Company surviving a merger.

Where the applicant is not the party named in the award, the Turkish court may require evidence of:

• Assignment,
• Merger,
• Succession,
• Change of company name,
• Inheritance.

A transfer of the underlying contract does not always prove that the arbitral award itself was also transferred.

Required Documents

MÖHUK Article 61 requires the applicant to submit:

1. Original arbitration agreement or arbitration clause, or a duly certified copy,
2. Original award that has become final, enforceable or binding, or a duly certified copy,
3. Properly certified translations of those documents.

Under Article IV of the New York Convention, the applicant must similarly produce the authenticated award and arbitration agreement, together with a certified translation where the documents are not in the official language of the enforcing country.

A complete Turkish enforcement file will commonly contain:

• Enforcement petition,
• Arbitration agreement,
• Final award,
• Institutional confirmation where available,
• Evidence of notification,
• Tribunal appointment records where disputed,
• Certified Turkish translations,
• Applicant’s corporate documents,
• Power of attorney,
• Assignment or succession documents,
• Debtor’s Turkish address,
• Information identifying Turkish assets.

Must the Award Be Apostilled?

An arbitral award is not necessarily a public document capable of receiving an apostille in every jurisdiction.

The correct authentication method depends on:

• Country where the award was made,
• Institutional practice,
• Whether the award was deposited with a court or notary,
• Applicable treaty,
• Turkish court requirements.

The applicant may need:

• Institution-certified copy,
• Notarial certification,
• Court certification,
• Apostille on the notarial or court certification,
• Consular legalisation.

Supporting public documents such as:

• Company registry certificates,
• Notarial certifications,
• Court orders setting out finality or enforceability

may require apostille or legalisation.

The authentication sequence should be planned before documents are translated.

Translation Requirements

The arbitration agreement, award and relevant certification documents should be translated completely into Turkish.

The translation should cover:

• Operative section,
• Reasons,
• Interest provisions,
• Costs,
• Signatures,
• Dissenting opinion where relevant,
• Institutional certification,
• Authentication,
• Apostille.

A translation limited only to the operative section may be insufficient where the debtor raises objections concerning:

• Jurisdiction,
• Service,
• Scope,
• Public policy,
• Calculation of damages.

The translation should use consistent legal and financial terminology.

Must the Original Arbitration Agreement Be Produced?

The applicant must ordinarily produce the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy.

The agreement may appear in:

• Signed contract,
• Separate arbitration agreement,
• Exchange of letters,
• Exchange of e-mails,
• Purchase orders and confirmations,
• Incorporation by reference to general terms.

Where the arbitration clause was accepted electronically, the applicant should preserve:

• Original electronic files,
• Metadata,
• Signatory authority records,
• Terms incorporated into the contract,
• Evidence showing access to the arbitration terms.

A screenshot of a website may not be sufficient where the opposing party denies accepting the clause.

Court Procedure

MÖHUK applies the procedural rules governing service, hearing, decision and appellate review of foreign judgments to foreign arbitral award enforcement by analogy.

The general procedure includes:

• Filing a petition,
• Serving the petition and hearing date on the opposing party,
• Receiving the debtor’s objections,
• Examining the limited enforcement conditions,
• Granting full enforcement, partial enforcement or rejection.

The court does not act merely as a registration office. It must examine the grounds that Turkish law requires it to consider automatically and evaluate properly raised objections.

Can the Turkish Court Rehear the Case?

No full review of the merits should ordinarily take place.

The Turkish court should not decide again:

• Whether the goods were defective,
• Whether the contract was breached,
• Whether witnesses were credible,
• Whether damages should have been lower,
• Whether the tribunal interpreted foreign law correctly.

The enforcement court examines the limited refusal grounds listed in the New York Convention and MÖHUK.

An argument that the arbitrators made an ordinary factual or legal mistake is not, by itself, a recognised refusal ground.

Allowing such a defence would convert enforcement proceedings into an appeal against the award.

Burden of Proof

Under MÖHUK, the award debtor bears the burden of proving several refusal grounds, including:

• Lack of proper representation,
• Lack of notice,
• Invalid arbitration agreement,
• Irregular tribunal composition or procedure,
• Excess of authority,
• Award not being binding or having been set aside.

The court may examine arbitrability and public policy independently because these matters concern the Turkish legal order.

The award creditor should nevertheless submit a complete file rather than relying only on the formal burden of proof.

Refusal Ground 1: No Arbitration Agreement

Enforcement may be refused where:

• No arbitration agreement was made,
• No arbitration clause exists in the main contract,
• The alleged clause was never accepted,
• The person who signed lacked authority,
• The clause does not cover the relevant party or dispute.

MÖHUK expressly lists the absence of an arbitration agreement or clause as a refusal ground.

The court should distinguish between:

• Existence of the arbitration agreement,
• Validity of the agreement,
• Scope of the agreement.

A poorly drafted clause may create uncertainty over whether the parties intended:

• Mandatory arbitration,
• Optional arbitration,
• Mediation followed by arbitration,
• Arbitration or court litigation as alternatives.

Refusal Ground 2: Incapacity or Invalid Agreement

The New York Convention permits refusal where the parties were under an applicable incapacity or the arbitration agreement was invalid under:

• The law chosen by the parties for the arbitration agreement,
• In the absence of a choice, the law of the country where the award was made.

MÖHUK similarly permits refusal where the arbitration agreement or clause is invalid under the law selected by the parties or, in the absence of such selection, the law of the country where the award was rendered.

Validity disputes may concern:

• Signatory authority,
• Company capacity,
• Formal writing requirement,
• Incorporation by reference,
• Assignment,
• Termination of the main contract,
• Non-signatory parties.

A party that actively participated in the arbitration without timely jurisdictional objection may face difficulty raising the issue only at the enforcement stage.

Refusal Ground 3: Lack of Proper Notice

Enforcement may be refused where the award debtor was not properly informed of:

• Appointment of an arbitrator,
• Commencement of arbitration,
• Essential procedural steps.

MÖHUK specifically refers to the party not being properly informed of the arbitrator selection.

The creditor should preserve evidence showing:

• Address used,
• E-mail address used,
• Courier records,
• Institutional notifications,
• Date of receipt,
• Contractual notice clause,
• Participation in the arbitration.

A debtor cannot necessarily avoid enforcement by ignoring properly delivered communications.

However, sending all communications to an obsolete or unrelated address may create a genuine due process problem.

Refusal Ground 4: Inability to Present the Case

The award may be refused where the losing party was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to present its claims or defence.

This may involve:

• No reasonable time to respond,
• Material evidence rejected without fair opportunity,
• Hearing conducted without proper notice,
• Serious language problem,
• Unequal treatment,
• Refusal to permit representation,
• Surprise determination on an issue never raised.

MÖHUK protects the party against being deprived of the ability to submit claims and defences.

The right to present a case does not require the tribunal to accept every requested witness, expert or document.

Procedural discretion becomes a refusal issue only where the irregularity materially affected fundamental fairness.

Refusal Ground 5: Improper Representation

MÖHUK allows refusal where a party was not properly represented before the arbitrators and did not later expressly approve the procedural acts.

This issue may arise where:

• Company representative lacked authority,
• Guardian or legal representative was required,
• Lawyer acted beyond authority,
• Company was dissolved or merged,
• Proceedings continued against the wrong entity.

The court should distinguish between an internal company-authority dispute and a genuine denial of legal representation.

Refusal Ground 6: Irregular Tribunal Composition

Enforcement may be refused where the selection or composition of the tribunal did not comply with:

• Parties’ arbitration agreement,
• Agreed institutional rules,
• In the absence of agreement, law of the seat.

Examples include:

• Wrong number of arbitrators,
• Appointment by an unauthorised institution,
• Failure to follow the agreed appointment procedure,
• Decision by an arbitrator whose mandate had ended,
• Tribunal constituted contrary to mandatory law.

MÖHUK expressly recognises non-compliance with the agreed appointment and procedural framework as a refusal ground.

A minor procedural deviation that caused no material prejudice will not necessarily justify refusal.

Refusal Ground 7: Procedure Contrary to the Parties’ Agreement

The parties may agree on:

• Institutional arbitration rules,
• Language,
• Seat,
• Number of arbitrators,
• Hearing procedure,
• Time limits,
• Method of appointment.

Enforcement may be challenged where the tribunal materially departed from the agreed procedure or, in the absence of agreement, from the law of the seat.

The debtor should identify:

• Exact agreed rule,
• Tribunal’s departure,
• Procedural objection made during arbitration,
• Material effect of the departure.

A party that remained silent during arbitration may be treated as having waived some procedural objections under the applicable law and rules.

Refusal Ground 8: Award Exceeds the Arbitration Agreement

The tribunal may decide only matters submitted to arbitration.

Enforcement may be refused where the award:

• Decides a dispute outside the arbitration clause,
• Grants relief not submitted to the tribunal,
• Binds a person not covered by the arbitration agreement,
• Exceeds the contractual limits of the submission.

MÖHUK permits refusal for the part of the award dealing with a matter not included in the arbitration agreement or exceeding its limits.

The court should separate:

• Jurisdictional excess,
• Ordinary interpretation of the contract,
• Error in calculating relief.

An alleged legal error within the scope of the dispute is not the same as deciding a matter outside the arbitration mandate.

Partial Enforcement

Where the portion exceeding the arbitration agreement can be separated from the valid part, the Turkish court may enforce the separable portion.

For example, the court may enforce:

• Principal debt,
• Contractual interest,
• Costs

while refusing a distinct remedy that fell outside the tribunal’s authority.

The applicant should therefore consider requesting enforcement in the alternative:

1. Full enforcement,
2. Partial enforcement of the separable valid provisions.

Refusal Ground 9: Award Is Not Binding

Enforcement may be refused where the award has not yet become binding on the parties.

This may occur where:

• Mandatory institutional review remains pending,
• The award is only a draft,
• A contractual appeal tribunal has not completed review,
• The decision is an interim procedural order rather than an award.

MÖHUK requires the award to have become final and enforceable or binding.

The fact that a set-aside application is theoretically available does not necessarily mean that the award is not binding.

The legal effect of the award should be determined under the law of the seat and applicable arbitration rules.

Refusal Ground 10: Award Set Aside or Suspended

Enforcement may be refused where the award has been:

• Set aside,
• Annulled,
• Suspended

by the competent authority at the seat or under the law governing the award.

MÖHUK expressly lists cancellation by the competent authority of the country of origin as a refusal ground.

The debtor should submit:

• Certified set-aside judgment,
• Evidence of finality or current effect,
• Certified Turkish translation.

A mere application to set the award aside is different from an actual annulment or suspension order.

Pending Set-Aside Proceedings

Where a set-aside or suspension application is pending at the seat, the Turkish court may need to decide whether to continue or postpone the enforcement proceedings.

Article VI of the New York Convention permits the enforcement court to adjourn its decision where appropriate and, upon the creditor’s request, require the debtor to provide suitable security.

Relevant factors may include:

• Seriousness of the set-aside grounds,
• Stage of foreign proceedings,
• Risk of asset dissipation,
• Expected duration,
• Whether the award has been formally suspended.

The debtor should not be allowed to delay enforcement indefinitely merely by filing an unsubstantiated set-aside application.

Refusal Ground 11: Non-Arbitrability

The Turkish court must refuse enforcement where the dispute cannot legally be resolved by arbitration under Turkish law.

MÖHUK expressly lists non-arbitrability as a refusal ground.

Non-arbitrability may arise where the dispute concerns rights over which the parties cannot freely dispose.

Important examples requiring careful examination include:

• Certain rights in rem over Turkish real estate,
• Some family and personal-status matters,
• Insolvency status,
• Matters reserved to public authorities,
• Other mandatory statutory subjects.

A commercial connection does not make every related dispute arbitrable.

For example, a contractual claim for damages connected with property may be arbitrable even where a direct request to alter a Turkish land registry right is not.

Refusal Ground 12: Public Policy

A Turkish court must refuse enforcement where the result would be contrary to Turkish public policy.

MÖHUK refers to awards contrary to general morality or public policy.

Public policy should be applied narrowly.

Enforcement should not be refused merely because:

• Tribunal applied foreign law,
• Damages calculation differs from Turkish law,
• Turkish court would have interpreted the contract differently,
• Award contains a factual or legal error,
• Arbitration procedure differs from Turkish civil procedure.

The issue is whether giving effect to the award in Turkey would clearly violate fundamental principles of the Turkish legal order.

Possible Public Policy Issues

Depending on the specific case, public policy arguments may concern:

• Serious denial of due process,
• Fraud affecting the award,
• Corruption,
• Enforcement of an illegal contract,
• Violation of fundamental competition rules,
• Clearly prohibited interest or damages,
• Breach of fundamental constitutional principles,
• Enforcement against a person never bound by arbitration.

Public policy should not be used as an unlimited appeal mechanism.

The debtor must identify a concrete and fundamental conflict rather than make a general allegation that the award is unfair.

Punitive Damages

Foreign awards may include damages characterised as:

• Punitive,
• Exemplary,
• Multiple damages.

Such relief does not necessarily produce automatic refusal.

The Turkish court may examine:

• Purpose of the award,
• Proportionality,
• Connection with actual damage,
• Whether the amount is penal or confiscatory,
• Whether partial enforcement is possible.

A court may distinguish between an ordinary contractual penalty, compensatory damages and a genuinely punitive award.

Interest

A foreign award may grant:

• Pre-award interest,
• Post-award interest,
• Compound interest,
• Interest in foreign currency,
• Interest under institutional rules.

The enforcement petition should reproduce the award accurately.

The creditor should identify:

• Principal,
• Interest rate,
• Start date,
• End date,
• Whether interest continues until payment,
• Currency,
• Calculation method.

The enforcement court should not ordinarily rewrite the merits of an interest award. However, a particular interest provision may be examined under arbitrability, public policy and enforceability principles.

Costs and Legal Fees

An award may order payment of:

• Arbitration institution fees,
• Arbitrators’ fees,
• Legal fees,
• Expert costs,
• Travel costs,
• Interest on costs.

These amounts may be enforced where they form part of the binding operative award and do not fall within a refusal ground.

The applicant should submit a clear Turkish calculation showing:

• Amount awarded,
• Currency,
• Partial payments,
• Interest,
• Current balance.

Foreign-Currency Awards

A foreign arbitral award may be denominated in:

• Euro,
• US dollar,
• British pound,
• Another currency.

The Turkish enforcement and execution request should identify the currency exactly as stated in the award.

The creditor should consider whether enforcement is requested:

• In the foreign currency,
• Through a Turkish lira equivalent under the applicable procedural rule,
• With continuing foreign-currency interest.

A conversion made at the wrong date can create a substantial financial difference.

Foreign-Party Security

A foreign individual or foreign legal entity filing a case or enforcement proceeding in Turkey may be required to provide security for litigation costs and possible loss suffered by the opposing party.

MÖHUK allows exemption where reciprocity exists. The security issue should be reviewed separately from the merits of the award enforcement application.

Potential exemptions may arise from:

• International treaty,
• Domestic law of the foreign state,
• Reciprocal court practice.

The creditor should budget for possible:

• Procedural security,
• Translation costs,
• Court fees,
• Interim attachment security.

Interim Attachment Before Enforcement Is Completed

An award creditor may be concerned that the debtor will transfer assets during the enforcement proceedings.

Depending on the circumstances, the creditor may consider requesting:

• Precautionary attachment,
• Interim injunction,
• Preservation of evidence.

The creditor must satisfy the separate Turkish conditions for the requested measure.

The existence of an arbitral award may provide strong preliminary evidence of the claim, but interim protection is not automatic.

The application should explain:

• Amount awarded,
• Binding status,
• Turkish assets,
• Risk of non-recovery,
• Requested measure,
• Security offered.

Can the Arbitration Clause Prevent a Court Attachment?

An arbitration clause does not generally prevent a party from seeking court assistance for urgent interim protection.

The purpose of precautionary attachment is to preserve assets rather than ask the Turkish court to decide the underlying arbitral merits.

The creditor should ensure that the interim application is consistent with:

• Arbitration agreement,
• Law of the seat,
• Institutional rules,
• Turkish procedural law.

Asset Investigation

Before filing an enforcement case, the creditor should investigate whether the award debtor has assets in Turkey.

Potential assets include:

• Bank accounts,
• Real estate,
• Vehicles,
• Receivables from Turkish customers,
• Turkish company shares,
• Rental income,
• Intellectual property rights,
• Movable business assets.

The creditor should also check whether the debtor is subject to:

• Existing attachments,
• Mortgages,
• Concordat,
• Bankruptcy,
• Restructuring,
• Dissolution,
• Liquidation.

An enforceable award may have limited commercial value where secured creditors have priority over all available assets.

Concordat and Bankruptcy

An arbitral award does not place the creditor outside Turkish insolvency rules.

If the debtor is under concordat protection, the creditor may need to:

• File the claim with the concordat commissioner,
• Observe enforcement restrictions,
• Participate in voting,
• Challenge the treatment of the claim.

If the debtor is bankrupt, the award creditor generally submits the claim to the bankruptcy estate and participates according to the applicable ranking.

The enforcement strategy should therefore include an insolvency search before and during the Turkish proceedings.

Effect of the Turkish Enforcement Judgment

Once enforcement is granted and becomes executable, the award may be enforced against Turkish assets through the enforcement offices.

The creditor may request:

• Bank account attachments,
• Real estate attachment,
• Vehicle attachment,
• Attachment of third-party receivables,
• Attachment of shares,
• Sale of attached property.

The Turkish enforcement decision does not itself locate the assets or transfer payment.

Collection remains a separate execution stage.

Appeal

MÖHUK applies the provisions governing appellate review and execution of foreign judgment enforcement decisions to foreign arbitral award enforcement by analogy.

The decision accepting or rejecting enforcement is subject to the ordinary appellate framework, and an appeal suspends execution under the relevant provisions.

The creditor should therefore distinguish between:

• First-instance enforcement judgment,
• Appellate review,
• Executable enforcement title,
• Actual asset collection.

Urgent interim protection may remain important while the appellate process continues.

Recognition Without Immediate Execution

A party may seek recognition where no immediate attachment is required.

Recognition may be useful to establish that:

• Debt was determined,
• Contract was terminated,
• Claim was rejected,
• Particular issue became final,
• Same dispute cannot be brought again.

MÖHUK Article 63 applies the enforcement rules to recognition of foreign arbitral awards.

Common Problems in Turkish Enforcement Cases

Defective arbitration clause

The contract refers to an institution incorrectly or gives inconsistent authority to courts and arbitrators.

Wrong legal entity

The award is issued against one group company, while the creditor seeks assets belonging to another.

Signatory authority dispute

The debtor argues that the employee or manager who signed the arbitration clause lacked authority.

Missing agreement

The creditor submits the award but cannot produce the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy.

Incomplete translation

The translation omits the tribunal’s jurisdiction analysis or operative interest provisions.

Incorrect service

Arbitration notices were sent to an old address despite knowledge of a new registered address.

Award outside the clause

The tribunal decided a dispute arising from a different agreement without an arbitration clause.

Pending annulment

The debtor files a set-aside action at the seat and requests postponement in Turkey.

Public policy argument used as an appeal

The debtor repeats the factual and legal arguments already rejected by the tribunal.

No asset planning

The creditor obtains enforcement but discovers that the debtor has no attachable Turkish assets.

Practical Step-by-Step Procedure

Step 1: Classify the award

Determine:

• Seat,
• Procedural law,
• Institution,
• Whether it is foreign for Turkish purposes,
• Whether it is final or binding.

Step 2: Select the legal basis

Check whether the application falls under:

• New York Convention,
• MÖHUK,
• Another international agreement.

Step 3: Verify the Convention reservations

Confirm:

• Award was made in another contracting state,
• Dispute is commercial under Turkish law.

Step 4: Review the arbitration agreement

Examine:

• Existence,
• Form,
• Signatory authority,
• Scope,
• Applicable law,
• Parties covered.

Step 5: Identify the competent court

Determine:

• Agreed enforcement venue,
• Debtor’s Turkish residence,
• Place of stay,
• Location of assets,
• Commercial or civil court classification.

Step 6: Collect the originals

Obtain:

• Arbitration agreement,
• Award,
• Institutional certification,
• Proof of notification,
• Evidence of binding status.

Step 7: Complete certification

Determine whether:

• Notarial certification,
• Institutional certification,
• Apostille,
• Consular legalisation

is required.

Step 8: Prepare Turkish translations

Translate the complete documents consistently.

Step 9: Investigate assets

Identify Turkish assets and insolvency risks before filing.

Step 10: Consider interim protection

Assess precautionary attachment or another protective measure.

Step 11: File the enforcement application

Request:

• Full enforcement,
• Alternatively partial enforcement,
• Costs and applicable interest.

Step 12: Respond to refusal objections

Prepare evidence concerning:

• Notice,
• Representation,
• Tribunal composition,
• Procedure,
• Scope,
• Binding status,
• Arbitrability,
• Public policy.

Step 13: Complete appellate proceedings

Monitor whether execution is suspended.

Step 14: Begin compulsory enforcement

Attach and sell Turkish assets through the appropriate enforcement proceeding.

Document Checklist

The creditor should prepare:

1. Original or certified arbitration agreement.
2. Original or certified arbitral award.
3. Evidence that the award is binding or enforceable.
4. Institutional correspondence.
5. Proof of service and notification.
6. Tribunal appointment documents where relevant.
7. Certified Turkish translations.
8. Authentication or legalisation documents.
9. Applicant’s corporate registry records.
10. Turkish lawyer’s power of attorney.
11. Assignment or merger documents where applicable.
12. Debtor’s Turkish address.
13. Turkish asset information.
14. Interest calculation.
15. Evidence of partial payments.
16. Documents concerning foreign set-aside proceedings.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a foreign arbitral award be enforced directly by a Turkish enforcement office?

No. A Turkish recognition or enforcement decision is ordinarily required before compulsory execution against Turkish assets.

Does the New York Convention apply in Turkey?

Yes. Turkey applies the Convention subject to reciprocity and commercial-dispute reservations.

What does the reciprocity reservation mean?

Turkey applies the Convention to awards made in the territory of another contracting state.

What does the commercial reservation mean?

The dispute must arise from a legal relationship considered commercial under Turkish law.

What happens if the award was made in a non-contracting state?

Enforcement may be examined under MÖHUK or another applicable international agreement.

Must the award be final?

It must have become final and enforceable or binding on the parties.

Can a partial final award be enforced?

Potentially yes, where it finally and bindingly resolves a separable issue.

Which Turkish court is competent?

The court at the agreed place, or absent agreement, the debtor’s Turkish residence, place of stay or location of assets.

Is the Commercial Court competent?

For awards arising from commercial disputes, the Commercial Court of First Instance will commonly be the appropriate specialised court.

What documents are required?

The arbitration agreement, award and properly certified Turkish translations are the principal documents.

Must the award be apostilled?

Not automatically in every case. The correct authentication route depends on the award, country of origin and method of certification.

Can the debtor argue that the arbitrators made a mistake?

An ordinary factual or legal mistake is not, by itself, a refusal ground.

Can the Turkish court reconsider the damages calculation?

Not as a general merits appeal. Review is limited to the recognised refusal grounds.

Can enforcement be refused because the debtor lost by default?

Not automatically. The issue is whether proper notice and a meaningful opportunity to defend were provided.

What if the arbitration clause is invalid?

Enforcement may be refused if the agreement is invalid under the applicable law.

What if the tribunal decided more than the parties submitted?

Enforcement may be refused for the part exceeding the arbitration agreement. A separable valid portion may still be enforced.

What if the award has been set aside at the seat?

Cancellation by the competent authority at the seat is a recognised refusal ground.

What if a set-aside case is still pending?

The Turkish court may consider postponing its decision and may require security under Article VI of the New York Convention.

What is non-arbitrability?

It means the dispute cannot legally be resolved through arbitration under Turkish law.

Can a foreign award transfer ownership of Turkish real estate?

Direct decisions affecting rights in rem over Turkish property may raise serious arbitrability and exclusive legal authority issues.

What is public policy?

It concerns fundamental principles of the Turkish legal order. It should not be used merely because the Turkish court disagrees with the arbitrators.

Can punitive damages be enforced?

They require a case-specific public policy and proportionality assessment. They are not automatically enforceable or automatically refused.

Can interest and legal costs be enforced?

Yes, where included in the binding operative award and not subject to a recognised refusal ground.

Can the award be enforced in foreign currency?

The petition should follow the currency and payment provisions of the award, subject to Turkish enforcement rules.

Can the creditor obtain precautionary attachment?

Potentially, if the separate Turkish conditions for interim protection are met.

Does an appeal suspend execution?

The appellate provisions applied through MÖHUK suspend execution of the enforcement decision during the appeal.

Can only part of the award be enforced?

Yes. Partial enforcement may be granted where the enforceable part is separable.

Can an award against a company be enforced against its shareholder?

Not automatically. The shareholder must be separately liable under the award or another legal basis.

What happens if the debtor is in concordat or bankruptcy?

The award creditor becomes subject to the applicable Turkish insolvency and collective enforcement procedures.

Does winning the enforcement case guarantee payment?

No. The debtor must have attachable assets of sufficient value.

Conclusion

Foreign arbitral awards are not ordinarily executed directly against assets in Turkey.

The successful party must first obtain a Turkish recognition or enforcement decision.

The New York Convention is the principal international framework where:

• The award was made in another contracting state,
• The dispute is considered commercial under Turkish law.

Where the Convention does not apply, MÖHUK or another international agreement may provide the legal basis.

MÖHUK allows enforcement of a foreign award that has become:

• Final and enforceable, or
• Binding on the parties.

The application is filed at the place agreed by the parties. In the absence of an agreement, jurisdiction is determined according to the debtor’s Turkish residence, place of stay or location of attachable assets.

The applicant must submit:

• Arbitration agreement,
• Arbitral award,
• Evidence of binding or enforceable status,
• Properly certified Turkish translations.

The Turkish court does not ordinarily rehear the merits.

Enforcement may be refused only on recognised grounds such as:

• No valid arbitration agreement,
• Lack of proper notice,
• Inability to present the defence,
• Improper tribunal composition,
• Procedural non-compliance,
• Award exceeding the arbitration agreement,
• Award not being binding,
• Award being set aside or suspended,
• Non-arbitrability,
• Conflict with Turkish public policy.

Several of these grounds must be proved by the party opposing enforcement. Arbitrability and public policy may be examined directly by the court.

If only one part of the award is defective and the remaining part is separable, partial enforcement may be possible.

A pending set-aside case at the seat does not automatically end the Turkish application. The Turkish court may postpone the proceedings and may require the debtor to provide security.

After enforcement is granted and becomes executable, the creditor must still begin Turkish execution proceedings and identify the debtor’s assets.

The practical value of the award therefore depends not only on legal enforceability but also on:

• Asset location,
• Existing attachments,
• Mortgages,
• Concordat,
• Bankruptcy,
• Debtor’s financial condition.

The safest strategy is to prepare enforcement evidence during the arbitration, preserve all service records, investigate Turkish assets early and consider interim protection before the debtor has time to transfer property.