{"id":148186,"date":"2026-09-03T12:50:26","date_gmt":"2026-09-03T12:50:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=148186"},"modified":"2026-09-03T13:07:48","modified_gmt":"2026-09-03T13:07:48","slug":"turkiye-enforcement-of-judgments-in-civil-and-commercial-matters","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/turkiye-enforcement-of-judgments-in-civil-and-commercial-matters\/","title":{"rendered":"Turkey: Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-148186","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-enforcement-of-judgments-in-civil-and-commercial-matters","jurisdictions-turkiye"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Fidanc\u0131 &amp; Esin Partners<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/04\/fande-logo.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Fidanc\u0131 &amp; Esin Partners<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/04\/fande-logo.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters laws and regulations applicable in Turkey<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What international conventions, treaties or other arrangements apply to the enforcement of foreign judgments in your jurisdiction and in what circumstances do they apply?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>T\u00fcrkiye is not a party to a general multilateral convention governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters. In particular, T\u00fcrkiye is not bound by the Brussels I bis Regulation or the Lugano Convention and has not ratified the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements or the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.<\/p>\n<p>T\u00fcrkiye has, however, entered into a number of bilateral treaties specifically addressing the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, including with Austria, Italy and Tunisia, as well as broader judicial assistance agreements with several countries that also include a provision on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Where such a treaty applies, its provisions take precedence over the general statutory regime. Article 1(2) of the International Private and Procedural Law No. 5718 (the \u201c<strong>IPPL<\/strong>\u201d) expressly preserves the application of international treaties to which T\u00fcrkiye is a party, and depending on the relevant instrument this may affect matters such as reciprocity, the documents to be submitted, legalisation requirements and the permissible grounds for refusing enforcement.<\/p>\n<p>In the absence of an applicable treaty, enforcement is governed by Articles 50 to 57 of the IPPL. Under that regime, the existence of contractual, statutory or de facto reciprocity between T\u00fcrkiye and the state of origin is one of the conditions for enforcement (see Question 11 below). Accordingly, the absence of a treaty does not, by itself, prevent the enforcement of a foreign judgment in T\u00fcrkiye. In practice, Turkish courts have recognised de facto reciprocity in relation to judgments from major trading partners without a bilateral treaty, including Germany, the United States (reciprocity is assessed on a state-by-state basis) and the United Kingdom.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What, if any, reservations has your jurisdiction made to such treaties?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>T\u00fcrkiye has made no reservations to the bilateral treaties referred to in Question 1. Any limitations on their operation, including exclusions from substantive scope, form part of the negotiated terms of the relevant treaty rather than a reservation made unilaterally by T\u00fcrkiye.<\/p>\n<p>As T\u00fcrkiye is not a party to the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005 or the Hague Judgments Convention 2019, it has made no reservations or declarations under those conventions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can foreign judgments be enforced in your jurisdiction where there is not a convention or treaty or other arrangement, e.g. under the general law?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. In the absence of an applicable convention, treaty or other arrangement, foreign judgments may be enforced in T\u00fcrkiye under Articles 50 to 57 of the IPPL. The judgment creditor must bring an action for enforcement before the competent Turkish court and obtain a declaration of enforceability (<em>tenfiz karar\u0131<\/em>). Once granted, the foreign judgment is enforced in the same manner as a judgment rendered by a Turkish court. The absence of a treaty does not preclude enforcement; it principally means that the general statutory conditions of the IPPL, including reciprocity, must be established (see Question 4 below).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What basic criteria does a foreign judgment have to satisfy before it can be enforced in your jurisdiction? Is it limited to money judgments or does it extend to other forms of relief?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Articles 50 and 54 of the IPPL, a foreign judgment must first satisfy the following threshold requirements:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>it must have been rendered by a foreign court in respect of a civil matter;<\/li>\n<li>it must be final under the law of the state of origin; and<\/li>\n<li>it must contain an operative order capable of compulsory execution (mere procedural or interim rulings are not sufficient).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The civil nature of the judgment is determined by reference to the subject matter rather than the designation of the foreign court. Accordingly, civil-law relief awarded in criminal proceedings may also be enforced in T\u00fcrkiye.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment must also satisfy the conditions set out in Article 54 of the IPPL. In the absence of a more favourable treaty regime:<\/p>\n<p>i. there must be treaty-based, statutory or de facto reciprocity between T\u00fcrkiye and the state of origin;<\/p>\n<p>ii. the judgment must not concern a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts or, provided that the defendant raises an objection, have been rendered by a foreign court that assumed jurisdiction despite the absence of a genuine connection with the dispute or the parties;<\/p>\n<p>iii. enforcement must not be manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy; and<\/p>\n<p>iv. the defendant must have been duly summoned or represented before the foreign court, and the judgment must not have been rendered in default or absence contrary to the procedural law of the state of origin, provided that the defendant relies on this ground before the Turkish court.<\/p>\n<p>Enforcement is not limited to money judgments. Foreign judgments ordering the delivery of property, the performance of an obligation or the cessation of particular conduct may also be enforced, provided that the operative part is sufficiently clear and capable of compulsory execution under Turkish law. However, judgments concerning rights in rem over immovable property situated in T\u00fcrkiye will generally not be enforceable, as such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts and may also engage Turkish public policy and land registry rules. By contrast, judgments that are purely declaratory or constitutive ordinarily require recognition rather than enforcement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the procedure for enforcement of foreign judgments pursuant to such conventions, treaties or arrangements in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Where an applicable bilateral treaty governs the recognition and enforcement of the judgment, the procedure and the documents required are determined primarily by that treaty. The applicant must generally apply to the competent Turkish court for a declaration of enforceability, submitting the foreign judgment and the documents specified in the relevant treaty, which may include evidence that the judgment is final and enforceable in the state of origin, proof of proper service in default proceedings, and a certified Turkish translation. The precise requirements vary between treaties.<\/p>\n<p>Unless the relevant treaty provides otherwise, the application is made directly by the judgment creditor rather than through diplomatic or central authorities. The Turkish court examines whether the treaty conditions for enforcement are satisfied and applies Turkish procedural law to matters not regulated by the treaty. As international treaties prevail over the general statutory regime pursuant to Article 1(2) of the IPPL, a treaty may dispense with or modify requirements that would otherwise apply under Article 54.<\/p>\n<p>If the court grants enforcement, the foreign judgment is executed in T\u00fcrkiye in the same manner as a judgment rendered by a Turkish court. The subsequent execution stage is governed by Turkish enforcement law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If applicable, what is the procedure for enforcement of foreign judgments under the general law in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under the general regime set out in the IPPL, the judgment creditor must bring an action for enforcement before the competent Turkish court. The action may be brought by any person having a legal interest in the enforcement of the foreign judgment. The competent court is the relevant civil court of first instance at the defendant\u2019s domicile in T\u00fcrkiye or, if the defendant has no domicile, at their place of habitual residence. If neither is located in T\u00fcrkiye, the action may be brought before the courts of Ankara, Istanbul or Izmir. The allocation of subject-matter jurisdiction to a specialised court, such as a commercial or family court, depends on the nature of the underlying dispute.<\/p>\n<p>The statement of claim must identify the parties, the foreign court, the date and number of the judgment, and a summary of its operative provisions. Where enforcement is sought only in part, the relevant part must be specified. The applicant must submit a duly authenticated original or certified copy of the foreign judgment, together with evidence that it has become final under the law of the state of origin, and certified Turkish translations of these documents. The applicable authentication requirements are addressed in Question 7 below.<\/p>\n<p>The statement of claim and the hearing date are served on the defendant, and the action is heard under the simplified procedure. The defendant may object on the basis that the statutory conditions for enforcement are not satisfied, that the judgment has been wholly or partly satisfied, or that a subsequent circumstance prevents its enforcement. The Turkish court does not reconsider the merits of the underlying dispute. It may grant enforcement in whole or in part, or dismiss the application.<\/p>\n<p>Once the declaration of enforceability becomes effective, the foreign judgment may be executed through the ordinary enforcement mechanisms applicable to Turkish judgments. Appeals against the decision are governed by the ordinary appellate rules and suspend execution of the declaration of enforceability.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What, if any, formal requirements do the courts of your jurisdiction impose upon foreign judgments before they can be enforced? For example, must the judgment be apostilled?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Article 53 of the IPPL, the applicant must submit:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the original foreign judgment, duly authenticated by the authorities of the state of origin, or a certified copy issued by the foreign court, together with a certified Turkish translation; and<\/li>\n<li>a duly authenticated document or endorsement confirming that the judgment has become final under the law of the state of origin, together with a certified Turkish translation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>An apostille is generally required where both T\u00fcrkiye and the state of origin are parties to the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents. The apostille authenticates the origin of the judgment and any separate certificate of finality; it does not certify the substance of the judgment or establish that the statutory conditions for enforcement are satisfied. T\u00fcrkiye has been bound by the Apostille Convention since 1985.<\/p>\n<p>Where the state of origin is not a party to the Apostille Convention, the documents must ordinarily undergo consular legalisation, unless an applicable bilateral treaty or another arrangement dispenses with authentication. Certain bilateral treaties referred to in Question 1 may waive apostille or legalisation requirements or prescribe their own documentary formalities.<\/p>\n<p>In practice, Turkish courts generally expect the Turkish translations to be prepared by a sworn translator and notarised or certified by a Turkish consulate. The applicant should also ensure that the certificate of finality is sufficiently clear and relates expressly to the judgment submitted. A statement that the judgment is merely enforceable or provisionally enforceable may not be sufficient where Article 50 of the IPPL requires the judgment to be final under the law of the state of origin.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How long does it usually take to enforce or register a foreign judgment in your jurisdiction? Is there a summary procedure available?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Enforcement actions are heard under the simplified procedure pursuant to Article 55 of the IPPL. This is an expedited form of ordinary civil proceedings, but it is not a registration or ex parte procedure: the statement of claim and the hearing date must be served on the defendant, who is entitled to contest enforcement.<\/p>\n<p>There is no statutory timetable. In practice, a first-instance decision can generally be obtained within approximately six to 18 months, depending on the workload of the competent court, the time required for service \u2014particularly where service must be effected abroad\u2014 and whether the defendant contests the application.<\/p>\n<p>A contested case may take considerably longer if appellate remedies are pursued. The first-instance decision may be appealed to the regional appellate court and, where the applicable monetary threshold and other conditions are met, subsequently to the Court of Cassation. The appellate stages typically take a further one to two years in total. As an appeal suspends execution of the declaration of enforceability, the foreign judgment cannot ordinarily be put into compulsory execution until the Turkish enforcement decision becomes final.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it possible to obtain interim relief (e.g. an injunction to restrain disposal of assets) while the enforcement or registration procedure takes place?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. A judgment creditor may seek interim relief from the Turkish courts before or during the enforcement proceedings. The available measure depends primarily on the nature of the relief awarded. For a monetary claim, the appropriate remedy is generally a provisional attachment (<em>ihtiyati haciz<\/em>) under Articles 257 et seq. of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004. For non-monetary claims, the creditor may seek an interim injunction (<em>ihtiyati tedbir<\/em>) under the Code of Civil Procedure where failure to grant relief would make enforcement significantly more difficult or impossible, or would cause serious harm.<\/p>\n<p>A provisional attachment is, as a general rule, available for an unsecured monetary claim that has fallen due. Whether a monetary claim awarded by a foreign judgment should be treated as due for this purpose before the foreign judgment has been declared enforceable, or before the Turkish enforcement decision has become final, has not been approached uniformly. A line of Court of Cassation and regional appellate court decisions accepts that the absence of a final declaration of enforceability does not, in itself, prevent provisional attachment, since the measure merely preserves the debtor\u2019s assets and does not amount to compulsory execution of the foreign judgment. Other decisions have taken the stricter view that a foreign judgment which has not yet been declared enforceable cannot establish a due and enforceable claim for the purposes of Article 257(1). The outcome therefore remains sensitive to the circumstances of the case and the approach of the competent court.<\/p>\n<p>Even where the court does not treat the claim as having fallen due, provisional attachment may still be available under Article 257(2) in the limited circumstances applicable to unmatured claims: principally where the debtor has no fixed domicile or is preparing to evade its obligations by concealing or disposing of assets, absconding or engaging in fraudulent conduct. The applicant must provide prima facie evidence of the claim and the relevant grounds for interim relief and will ordinarily be required to provide security against losses that the measure may cause.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the limitation period for enforcing a foreign judgment in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The IPPL does not prescribe a specific limitation period for bringing an action to recognise or enforce a foreign judgment. Before a declaration of enforceability is granted, however, the foreign judgment must remain valid and capable of enforcement under the law of the state of origin. If the judgment has become time-barred or otherwise ceased to be enforceable under that law, the debtor may rely on this as a circumstance preventing enforcement under Article 55(2) of the IPPL.<\/p>\n<p>Once the Turkish declaration of enforceability becomes final, the foreign judgment is enforced in the same manner as a Turkish judgment. As a general rule, enforcement based on a judgment is subject to the ten-year limitation period under Article 39 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004. The period generally runs from the date on which the declaration of enforceability becomes final and may be interrupted and recommence through enforcement measures.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, the limitation analysis may involve two distinct stages: first, whether the foreign judgment remains enforceable under the law of the state of origin when enforcement is sought in T\u00fcrkiye; and second, following a final Turkish enforcement decision, the ten-year limitation period applicable to the compulsory execution of judgments under Turkish law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">On what grounds can the enforcement of foreign judgments be challenged in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Article 54 of the IPPL, enforcement may be challenged on the following grounds:<\/p>\n<p>i. Lack of reciprocity: there is no applicable treaty based on reciprocity, statutory provision or de facto practice in the state of origin permitting the enforcement of Turkish judgments.<\/p>\n<p>ii. Exclusive jurisdiction or exorbitant jurisdiction: the foreign judgment concerns a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts. In addition, if raised by the defendant, enforcement may be refused where the foreign court assumed jurisdiction despite the absence of a genuine connection between the dispute or the parties and the state of origin.<\/p>\n<p>iii. Public policy: enforcement of the judgment would be manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy. The relevant question is not whether the foreign court applied rules differing from Turkish law, but whether the effects of recognising and enforcing the judgment in T\u00fcrkiye would be manifestly incompatible with the fundamental principles of the Turkish legal order. This exception is construed narrowly and does not permit a review of the merits.<\/p>\n<p>iv. Procedural due process: if raised by the defendant, the judgment may be refused enforcement where, contrary to the procedural law of the state of origin, the defendant was not duly summoned, was not properly represented, or the judgment was rendered in their absence or default without the required procedural safeguards.<\/p>\n<p>Under Article 55(2) of the IPPL, the defendant may also object on the ground that the foreign judgment has already been wholly or partly satisfied, or that a subsequent circumstance has arisen which prevents its enforcement. Depending on the facts, this may include discharge, settlement, limitation or the judgment having ceased to be enforceable in the state of origin.<\/p>\n<p>Where an applicable bilateral treaty governs enforcement, the grounds for refusal are determined primarily by that treaty and may differ from the general statutory grounds under the IPPL.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Will the courts in your jurisdiction reconsider the merits of the judgment to be enforced?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No. Turkish courts may not reconsider the merits of the foreign judgment. The enforcement court\u2019s review is limited to determining whether the threshold requirements and grounds for enforcement under Articles 50 and 54 of the IPPL are satisfied. It may not reassess the evidence, revisit findings of fact or law, or examine whether the foreign court correctly applied the substantive law.<\/p>\n<p>This prohibition on a review of the merits (r\u00e9vision au fond) also applies when the court considers Turkish public policy. The relevant question is whether the effects of enforcing the judgment in T\u00fcrkiye would be manifestly incompatible with the fundamental principles of the Turkish legal order, not whether the reasoning or outcome differs from that which a Turkish court might have reached. A mere error of fact or law, or the application of a rule different from Turkish law, is therefore insufficient to refuse enforcement.<\/p>\n<p>The court may, however, examine matters falling within the statutory enforcement conditions, including jurisdiction in the limited circumstances specified in Article 54, procedural due process, reciprocity and manifest incompatibility with public policy. Such examination does not amount to reconsideration of the underlying dispute.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Will the courts in your jurisdiction examine whether the foreign court had jurisdiction over the defendant? If so, what criteria will they apply to this?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Turkish courts do not conduct a general review of whether the foreign court had jurisdiction under Turkish jurisdictional rules. Their examination is confined to the two jurisdiction-related grounds set out in Article 54(1)(b) of the IPPL.<\/p>\n<p>First, enforcement must be refused where the judgment concerns a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts. The court examines this issue of its own motion. Exclusive jurisdiction is construed narrowly and generally covers matters for which Turkish law reserves jurisdiction exclusively to Turkish courts, such as rights in rem over immovable property situated in T\u00fcrkiye.<\/p>\n<p>Second, if the defendant raises an objection, enforcement may be refused where the foreign court assumed jurisdiction despite the absence of a genuine connection between the dispute or the parties and the state of origin. This is intended to prevent the enforcement of judgments based on exorbitant jurisdiction. The Turkish court will consider connecting factors such as the parties\u2019 domicile or place of business, the place of performance, the location of the relevant transaction or assets, and other links between the dispute and the foreign forum.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, it is not sufficient to show that a Turkish court would have lacked jurisdiction under T\u00fcrkiye\u2019s own rules of direct jurisdiction. Nor will the Turkish court examine whether the foreign court correctly applied its domestic jurisdictional rules. The relevant questions are whether the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts and, where properly raised by the defendant, whether the foreign forum lacked any genuine connection with the dispute or the parties. Where an applicable treaty contains its own jurisdictional requirements or grounds for refusal, those provisions prevail.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Do the courts in your jurisdiction impose any requirements on the way in which the defendant was served with the proceedings? Can foreign judgments in default be enforced?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Turkish courts require that the defendant have been afforded a proper opportunity to participate in the foreign proceedings. Under Article 54(1)(\u00e7) of the IPPL, enforcement may be refused if, contrary to the procedural law of the state of origin, the defendant was not duly summoned to the foreign court, was not properly represented, or the judgment was rendered in the defendant\u2019s absence or default in breach of that law. This ground must, in principle, be raised by the defendant.<\/p>\n<p>The adequacy of service is primarily assessed by reference to the procedural law of the state in which the judgment was rendered, rather than by applying Turkish domestic service rules to the foreign proceedings. Accordingly, service need not have been effected in the same manner as it would have been in T\u00fcrkiye. The decisive question is whether the method of service complied with the applicable foreign law and gave the defendant a genuine and timely opportunity to present its case. Where an applicable international convention or bilateral treaty regulates cross-border service, compliance with that instrument will also be relevant.<\/p>\n<p>Foreign default judgments can therefore be enforced in T\u00fcrkiye. A judgment will not be refused enforcement merely because the defendant failed to appear. Enforcement may, however, be denied where the defendant establishes that it was not duly notified of the proceedings, did not have sufficient time or information to arrange its defence, or that the default judgment was otherwise rendered in violation of the procedural law of the state of origin. Turkish courts have refused enforcement where defective or illegible service documents prevented the defendant from exercising its defence rights.<\/p>\n<p>Even where the specific objection under Article 54(1)(\u00e7) is not raised, a particularly serious infringement of the right to be heard may be considered by the Turkish court of its own motion under the public policy exception in Article 54(1)(c). The public policy threshold is higher: not every technical irregularity in service will suffice; the defect must amount to a fundamental denial of procedural fairness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Do the courts in your jurisdiction have a discretion over whether or not to recognise foreign judgments?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No. Turkish courts do not have a general discretion to refuse recognition or enforcement once the applicable statutory or treaty requirements are satisfied.<\/p>\n<p>Under Article 58 of the IPPL, a foreign judgment is recognised where the court determines that the relevant conditions under Article 54 are met. The court\u2019s role is therefore confined to examining the prescribed conditions for recognition or enforcement, including reciprocity where applicable, exclusive or exorbitant jurisdiction, procedural due process and manifest incompatibility with Turkish public policy.<\/p>\n<p>Certain conditions require judicial assessment, most notably whether enforcement would be manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy or whether the foreign court exercised jurisdiction despite the absence of a genuine connection with the dispute or the parties. This evaluative exercise does not confer an open-ended equitable discretion. If no statutory or treaty ground for refusal is established, the court must recognise or enforce the judgment. Conversely, if a mandatory ground for refusal exists, the court must reject the application.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any types of foreign judgment which cannot be enforced in your jurisdiction? For example can foreign judgments for punitive or multiple damages be enforced?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Foreign judgments cannot be enforced where they fall outside the scope of Articles 50 to 57 of the IPPL or fail to satisfy the conditions addressed in Questions 4 and 11. In particular, the general enforcement regime applies only to final judgments rendered by foreign courts in civil matters. Criminal convictions, administrative decisions and judgments concerning taxes, customs duties, fines or other public-law liabilities are therefore not enforceable under this regime. However, an award of compensation in respect of a private-law claim determined in criminal proceedings may be enforceable to that extent.<\/p>\n<p>Foreign interim or provisional orders will also generally fall outside the statutory enforcement regime because they do not constitute final judgments. Equivalent interim relief may nevertheless be sought directly from the Turkish courts, subject to the applicable conditions under Turkish procedural law.<\/p>\n<p>Judgments concerning matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts cannot be enforced. This includes, most notably, judgments determining rights in rem over immovable property situated in T\u00fcrkiye. A judgment that does not contain a sufficiently clear and executable operative order may likewise be unsuitable for enforcement, although it may still be capable of recognition if it produces a relevant res judicata or evidentiary effect.<\/p>\n<p>The enforceability of judgments awarding punitive or multiple damages remains unsettled under Turkish law. One view is that such awards are incompatible with Turkish public policy because the primary function of damages under Turkish private law is compensatory, whereas punitive damages serve a penal and deterrent purpose and may result in an award exceeding the loss actually suffered. On this approach, a foreign judgment awarding punitive damages should not be enforced, at least to the extent of its punitive component.<\/p>\n<p>A competing view is that punitive or multiple damages should not be regarded as manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy merely because Turkish law would not award damages on the same basis. Proponents of this view note that Turkish law itself recognises enhanced or deterrent monetary remedies in certain contexts and argue that the assessment should focus on the concrete effects of enforcement. Under this approach, a proportionate award may be enforceable, while an award that is grossly excessive, confiscatory or otherwise manifestly incompatible with the fundamental principles of the Turkish legal order may be refused.<\/p>\n<p>There is limited reported Turkish case law directly addressing the enforcement of foreign court judgments awarding punitive damages. The position therefore remains uncertain and is likely to depend on the amount and purpose of the award, its relationship to the actual loss, and whether its compensatory and punitive components can be separated. Where the objection concerns only a severable part of the relief, Article 56 of the IPPL permits partial enforcement. A compensatory component may therefore be enforced even if a distinct punitive component is refused, provided that the operative parts can be separated without reconsidering the merits.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can enforcement procedures be started in your jurisdiction if there is a pending appeal in the foreign jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As a rule, no. Under Article 50 of the IPPL, a foreign judgment may be enforced in T\u00fcrkiye only if it has become final under the law of the state of origin. Accordingly, where an ordinary appeal is pending and that appeal prevents the judgment from attaining finality under the applicable foreign law, the Turkish court must dismiss the enforcement action as premature.<\/p>\n<p>The decisive issue is the effect of the foreign appeal under the law of the state of origin. A pending appeal does not necessarily preclude enforcement if, under that law, the judgment is already final notwithstanding the appeal, for example, where the pending remedy is extraordinary and does not affect finality. By contrast, the fact that a judgment is provisionally enforceable abroad will not ordinarily suffice if it has not also become final, since the IPPL requires finality rather than mere enforceability.<\/p>\n<p>The applicant must therefore submit evidence, usually in the form of a certificate or endorsement issued by the foreign court, establishing that the judgment has become final. If an appeal is filed after the Turkish enforcement proceedings have commenced but before judgment is given, the Turkish court will determine whether that appeal has removed or suspended finality under the law of the state of origin.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can you appeal a decision recognising or enforcing a foreign judgment in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. A decision granting or refusing recognition or enforcement may be appealed in accordance with the ordinary appellate rules applicable to Turkish civil proceedings. The first-instance decision may be challenged before the competent regional appellate court and, where the applicable statutory requirements and monetary threshold are met, subsequently before the Court of Cassation.<\/p>\n<p>Under Article 57 of the IPPL, an appeal against a decision granting or refusing enforcement suspends execution. Accordingly, a judgment creditor cannot ordinarily proceed with compulsory execution on the basis of the foreign judgment while the Turkish enforcement decision remains subject to appeal. The same appellate framework applies to recognition decisions pursuant to Article 58 of the IPPL, although recognition does not itself involve compulsory execution.<\/p>\n<p>The appellate courts remain subject to the prohibition on reviewing the merits of the foreign judgment. Their examination is limited to whether the first-instance court correctly applied the relevant treaty provisions or the recognition and enforcement requirements under the IPPL.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can interest be claimed on the judgment sum in your jurisdiction? If so on what basis and at what rate?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Where the foreign judgment awards interest, the interest component may in principle be enforced together with the principal sum, subject to the ordinary requirements for enforcement and the Turkish public policy exception. The applicable rate, commencement date, duration and method of calculation are determined primarily by the operative part of the foreign judgment. The Turkish enforcement court may not reconsider the merits of the dispute, alter the interest awarded by the foreign court or substitute a Turkish statutory rate for the rate stated in the foreign judgment.<\/p>\n<p>The mere fact that the foreign judgment applies an interest rate that is higher than, or otherwise different from, the rate applicable under Turkish law does not in itself constitute a violation of Turkish public policy. Refusal of enforcement would generally require the interest provision to produce consequences that are manifestly and seriously incompatible with the fundamental principles of the Turkish legal order\u2014for example, where the rate is grossly excessive, clearly punitive or capable of producing an unjust or economically destructive result. If the interest provision is severable, the court may refuse enforcement of that part while enforcing the principal sum. It may not, however, reduce the foreign rate and replace it with the Turkish statutory rate.<\/p>\n<p>Where the foreign judgment does not award interest, the Turkish enforcement court may not add interest for the period preceding the Turkish enforcement decision on the basis that interest should have been awarded under the law applicable to the underlying dispute. Doing so would amount to an impermissible modification of the foreign judgment. However, Article 57 of the IPPL provides that a foreign judgment for which enforcement has been granted is executed in the same manner as a Turkish judgment. On this basis, the Court of Cassation has held that, even where neither the foreign judgment nor the Turkish enforcement decision contains an express award of interest, interest may be claimed from the date of the Turkish declaration of enforceability. The relevant date is therefore the date on which the enforcement decision is rendered, rather than the date of the foreign judgment or the date on which the enforcement decision becomes final.<\/p>\n<p>For Turkish-lira claims, the general statutory interest rate under Law No. 3095 on Legal Interest and Default Interest is currently 24% per annum, unless a different contractual or statutory rate applies. In commercial matters, the higher commercial default interest rate determined by reference to the Central Bank of the Republic of T\u00fcrkiye\u2019s short-term advance rate may apply where the statutory conditions are satisfied. As that rate is variable, it must be determined for the relevant accrual period.<\/p>\n<p>For foreign-currency claims, Article 4\/a of Law No. 3095 provides that, unless a higher contractual interest or default interest rate applies, interest is calculated at the highest rate paid by Turkish state-owned banks on one-year deposit accounts denominated in the relevant currency. That rate is likewise variable and must be established for the relevant periods.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, the recoverable interest depends principally on the terms of the foreign judgment. Where the judgment expressly awards interest but leaves only an arithmetical calculation outstanding, the Turkish court or enforcement office may carry out that calculation without reconsidering the merits. Where the judgment is silent on interest, Turkish statutory interest may be claimed from the date of the Turkish enforcement decision in accordance with the Court of Cassation\u2019s approach.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Do the courts of your jurisdiction require a foreign judgment to be converted into local currency for the purposes of enforcement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>A foreign judgment awarding a sum in a foreign currency need not be converted into Turkish lira at the recognition and enforcement stage. The Turkish court should grant enforcement in the currency stated in the operative part of the foreign judgment, since converting the award into a different currency at that stage would alter the substance of the judgment.<\/p>\n<p>At the subsequent compulsory enforcement stage, however, execution must be pursued in Turkish lira. Under Article 58 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, the enforcement request must state the Turkish-lira equivalent of the foreign-currency claim and identify the applicable exchange rate. A payment order cannot be issued solely for an amount expressed in foreign currency.<\/p>\n<p>Where the underlying obligation permits payment in Turkish lira, the creditor may generally request the Turkish-lira equivalent calculated either at the exchange rate applicable on the due date or at the exchange rate applicable on the date of actual payment (Article 99(3) of the Turkish Code of Obligations). In the context of a foreign judgment, the creditor may therefore preserve the benefit of exchange-rate movements by requesting recovery of the Turkish-lira equivalent at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of payment. The enforcement request should expressly state this election while also indicating a Turkish-lira amount for the purposes of initiating the proceedings and calculating fees.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, the foreign-currency award is not substantively converted into Turkish lira by the enforcement court. Nevertheless, compulsory execution is conducted in Turkish lira, and the creditor must state the Turkish-lira equivalent in the enforcement request. Where requested, the amount ultimately payable may be calculated by reference to the exchange rate prevailing on the date of actual payment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can the costs of enforcement (e.g. court costs, as well as the parties\u2019 costs of instructing lawyers and other professionals) be recovered from the judgment debtor in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. As a general rule, the unsuccessful party bears the recoverable costs of the Turkish enforcement action. Recoverable costs are limited to expenses recognised by the court as procedural litigation costs. These may include court fees, service expenses, court-appointed expert fees and other disbursements necessarily incurred within the proceedings. By contrast, costs incurred by a party before the proceedings or on its own initiative \u2014such as apostille, legalisation, privately arranged translation, foreign counsel or other professional expenses\u2014 are not ordinarily recoverable. Where each party succeeds only in part, the court generally allocates the costs in proportion to the parties\u2019 respective success.<\/p>\n<p>If the judgment creditor is represented by Turkish counsel, the court will also award an attorney\u2019s fee against the unsuccessful party in accordance with the Turkish Bar Association\u2019s minimum fee tariff in force when the decision is rendered. This court-awarded fee is distinct from the fees actually agreed between the creditor and its lawyers. Contractual legal fees exceeding the tariff amount, foreign counsel\u2019s fees and other professional advisory expenses are not ordinarily recoverable from the judgment debtor merely because they were incurred in obtaining enforcement.<\/p>\n<p>Once the declaration of enforceability becomes executable, the costs of the subsequent compulsory enforcement proceedings \u2014including enforcement-office fees and the expenses of service, attachment, valuation and sale\u2014 are generally borne by the debtor, although the creditor may initially be required to advance them. A separate enforcement attorney\u2019s fee is also calculated under the applicable tariff and added to the amount recoverable from the debtor.<\/p>\n<p>The foreign judgment\u2019s own award of costs may likewise be enforced as part of the judgment, subject to the ordinary enforcement requirements and the Turkish public policy exception.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are third parties allowed to fund enforcement action in your jurisdiction? If so, are there any restrictions on this and can third party funders be made liable for the costs incurred by the other side?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Turkish law does not specifically regulate or prohibit third-party funding of litigation or enforcement proceedings. Funding arrangements are therefore generally governed by ordinary contract-law principles and must comply with mandatory law, public policy and good faith. They must also respect legal professional privilege, lawyers\u2019 confidentiality obligations and applicable data-protection rules. Third-party funding remains relatively uncommon in Turkish court proceedings, and there is limited reported case law on the subject.<\/p>\n<p>There is no general requirement to disclose the existence or terms of a funding arrangement to the court or the opposing party, although disclosure may become relevant where the arrangement creates a conflict of interest or affects a procedural issue.<\/p>\n<p>A funder that is not a party to the proceedings will not ordinarily be liable for the opposing party\u2019s costs. Such liability may arise only where the funder has expressly assumed it, provided security or a guarantee, become a party to the proceedings, or incurred separate contractual or tortious liability through its own conduct. The funded party remains responsible for any adverse-costs order made against it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What do you think will be the most significant developments in the enforcement process in your jurisdiction in the next 5 years?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The most significant development is likely to be the broader reform of Turkish enforcement law. The Ministry of Justice has published a draft Compulsory Enforcement Code (<em>Cebri \u0130cra Kanunu<\/em>) intended to replace the existing Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, and the draft is currently under consultation. Although the draft is not directed specifically at foreign judgments, any reform of execution procedures, asset seizure, electronic sales and enforcement-office practice will directly affect the speed and effectiveness with which an enforced foreign judgment can ultimately be realised.<\/p>\n<p>Further digitalisation is also likely to become increasingly important. Recognition and enforcement actions are already conducted through T\u00fcrkiye\u2019s electronic judicial infrastructure, while compulsory execution and sales are progressively being transferred to digital systems. Over the next five years, greater integration of court, enforcement-office, land registry, banking and other asset information systems may reduce procedural delay and make asset identification and realisation more efficient. This would be particularly important in cross-border cases, where service abroad and the identification of assets are often the principal sources of delay. The 2025\u20132029 Judicial Reform Strategy expressly prioritises a more predictable and timely justice system.<\/p>\n<p>A further area to watch is the gradual clarification of unsettled issues through appellate case law. These include provisional attachment before a declaration of enforceability becomes final, the treatment of punitive damages and unusually high interest, limitation periods, de facto reciprocity, and the procedural consequences of foreign judgments that are enforceable but not formally final under the law of the state of origin. Greater consistency among regional appellate courts and the Court of Cassation would materially improve predictability for foreign judgment creditors.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, T\u00fcrkiye may face increasing pressure to reconsider participation in broader multilateral recognition and enforcement instruments, particularly the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005 and the Hague Judgments Convention 2019. There is presently no announced timetable for accession, and ratification within the next five years cannot be assumed. Nevertheless, the expansion of those conventions among T\u00fcrkiye\u2019s principal trading partners may strengthen the commercial case for accession or for the conclusion of additional bilateral arrangements.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your country ratified the Hague Choice of Courts Convention 2005, and if so when did it (or will it) come into force? If not, do you expect it to in the foreseeable future?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No. T\u00fcrkiye has neither signed nor ratified the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements and is therefore not bound by it.<\/p>\n<p>There is currently no publicly announced timetable for T\u00fcrkiye to accede to the Convention. Accession would improve the predictability of exclusive jurisdiction agreements and the cross-border circulation of resulting judgments, particularly in commercial transactions. However, in the absence of a formal legislative or governmental initiative, accession in the foreseeable future cannot be predicted with confidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your country ratified the Hague Judgments Convention 2019, and if so when did it (or will it) come into force? If not, do you expect it to in the foreseeable future?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No. T\u00fcrkiye has neither signed nor ratified the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters and is therefore not bound by it.<\/p>\n<p>There is currently no publicly announced timetable for accession. The Convention could significantly broaden and standardise the recognition and enforcement of judgments between T\u00fcrkiye and other contracting states, reducing reliance on bilateral treaties and the reciprocity requirement under the IPPL. Its expanding adoption among T\u00fcrkiye\u2019s trading partners may strengthen the case for accession over time. Nevertheless, without a formal policy announcement or legislative proposal, it would be premature to expect ratification within a specific timeframe.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">7013<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/148186","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}