What is the basic legal framework for enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Turkey?

Turkey enforces foreign arbitral awards mainly under two instruments: the 1958 New York Convention (NYC) and the Turkish Private International and Procedural Law Act No. 5718 (PILA). The NYC and PILA sit at the same level as statutes in Turkey because duly ratified international treaties have statutory force under the Turkish Constitution.​

When does the New York Convention apply to a foreign arbitral award in Turkey?

The NYC applies when the award is made in the territory of a state other than Turkey and enforcement is sought in Turkey, provided that the other state is a contracting state (reciprocity reservation) and the dispute is “commercial” under Turkish law (commercial reservation). If the award falls outside this field of application, Turkish courts fall back on PILA for recognition and enforcement.​

What is meant by the New York Convention’s “field of application”?

The “field of application” determines which awards qualify as “foreign arbitral awards” for purposes of the NYC. Under Article I(1), it covers (i) awards made in another state and (ii) awards that are not considered domestic in the enforcing state, even if made there.​

How does Turkey’s reciprocity reservation affect enforcement?

Turkey has declared that it will apply the NYC only to awards made in the territory of another contracting state (reciprocity reservation). If the award is from a non‑contracting state, the NYC does not apply and PILA governs enforcement instead.​

How does Turkey’s commercial reservation affect enforcement?

Turkey has also declared that the NYC applies only to disputes arising out of legal relationships considered “commercial” under Turkish law. Turkish courts interpret “commercial business” broadly, in line with Article 19 of the Turkish Commercial Code, so many cross‑border business disputes qualify.​

What are the grounds to refuse recognition or enforcement under the New York Convention?

Under Article V NYC, Turkish courts may refuse enforcement only on specific grounds, typically raised by the party resisting enforcement:​

• Incapacity or invalid arbitration agreement.
• Lack of proper notice or inability to present the case (fair‑trial concerns).
• Award dealing with matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement.
• Tribunal composition or procedure not in line with the parties’ agreement or the law of the seat.
• Award not yet binding or set aside/suspended by a competent authority at the seat.

In addition, courts must check ex officio whether the subject matter is arbitrable and whether enforcement would violate Turkish public policy.​

Can Turkish courts review the merits of a foreign award (révision au fond)?

No. Turkish courts do not review the merits of the dispute when enforcing foreign awards and instead apply the prohibition of “révision au fond.” The court is limited to examining the listed refusal grounds, arbitrability and public policy, without re‑deciding the case.​

Is there any exception where Turkish courts may look more closely at the case?

Yes. If the content of the award itself clearly breaches Turkish public policy, courts may carry out a limited review and refuse enforcement on that basis. Recent decisions show Turkish courts trying to keep this exception narrow while still protecting fundamental principles such as due process and core public‑order rules.​

What documents must a party submit to request enforcement under the New York Convention?

Under Article IV NYC, the applicant must file:​

• The duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy.
• The original arbitration agreement (or clause) or a duly certified copy.
• If these are not in Turkish, a certified translation by a sworn translator, or a diplomatic/consular certification.

When is PILA used instead of the New York Convention?

PILA applies if the award does not fall within the NYC’s scope—for example:​

• The dispute is not “commercial” under Turkish law (commercial reservation).
• The seat is in a state that is not a NYC contracting state (reciprocity reservation).

In those cases, Articles 60–62 PILA govern recognition and enforcement.​

What are the refusal grounds for enforcement under PILA?

Article 62 PILA lists grounds that substantially mirror the NYC, including:​

• No arbitration agreement or clause.
• Breach of Turkish public policy or public morality.
• Non‑arbitrability of the subject matter.
• Lack of due representation of a party in the arbitration.
• Lack of proper notice or inability to present the case.
• Invalid arbitration agreement under the applicable law or law of the seat.
• Tribunal composition or procedure contrary to the parties’ agreement or the law of the seat.
• Award outside or exceeding the scope of the arbitration agreement.
• Award which has not become binding or set aside/suspended by a competent authority at the seat.

How arbitration‑friendly are Turkish courts in practice?

Turkish courts are increasingly described as arbitration‑friendly and generally supportive of recognition and enforcement of foreign awards. They typically apply refusal grounds restrictively and respect the prohibition of révision au fond, intervening only when there are serious issues of public policy or due process.​

Does an enforcement decision turn the arbitral award into a Turkish judgment?

Yes. Once a Turkish court grants recognition and enforcement, the foreign arbitral award can be executed in Turkey as if it were a Turkish court judgment. The enforcement decision itself is subject to appeal like other first‑instance court judgments.​

Is enforcement automatic once there is a foreign arbitral award?

No. Foreign arbitral awards are not automatically enforceable in Turkey. The award creditor must file an enforcement action before a competent Turkish court and obtain a recognition and/or enforcement decision.​

What practical issues most often cause problems in enforcement?

Common pitfalls include:​

• Incomplete or improperly certified award and arbitration agreement, or missing translations.
• Procedural defects affecting validity of the arbitration agreement or due process (e.g. lack of proper notice).
• Broad or inconsistent interpretations of “public policy” by some courts, which can occasionally lead to refusals.

Careful preparation of documents and strategy significantly reduces these risks.

Disclaimer

This Q&A provides only a general guide to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Turkey and cannot replace tailored legal advice. Parties should always consult qualified counsel about their specific facts, documents, timelines and potential risks before taking action.\ \ @Ömer KESİKLİ