Security for Costs in Turkey: Foreign Claimants, Exemptions and Evidence

At a glance

1. Identify the security obligation before calculating a budget

Article 48 concerns foreign persons bringing a case, participating in it or initiating enforcement and security addressing procedural expenses and the other party’s potential loss. It should not be treated as an advance payment of the defendant’s disputed debt or a penalty for choosing a Turkish forum. Identify the legal provision relied upon and the authority dealing with the request rather than accepting an unexplained demand labelled foreigner tax.

A litigation budget should separate court charges, expense advances, professional fees, translation and any security. Their purpose, recipient and treatment after proceedings can differ. A bank transfer to the lawyer for agreed fees is not proof that court-ordered security was deposited. Likewise, a deposit held in the relevant official file does not automatically settle an invoice for professional work. Clear accounting protects the client from confusing several legitimate but distinct obligations.

Before funding proceedings, request a written explanation of which items are already determined and which depend on a later decision. A percentage quoted for one enforcement matter should not be presented as a universal cost of every foreign claimant’s lawsuit. The initial assessment should identify possible exemption evidence and the procedural stage at which the security question will be decided.

2. Distinguish a foreign person from a Turkish citizen living abroad

The claimant’s legal identity matters. A foreign individual, a foreign company and a Turkish citizen resident overseas are not interchangeable categories. Article 48 is the foreign-person provision, while Article 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure addresses separate grounds, including a Turkish citizen without habitual residence in Turkey. A person speaking English or sending documents from London should not be classified as foreign solely for those reasons.

For a company, examine its legal constitution and relevant records instead of identifying nationality from the shareholders’ passports or the language of its trading name. A Turkish company owned by overseas investors and the investors’ foreign parent are different legal persons. Establish which entity owns the claim. The choice cannot be changed casually to obtain a preferred procedural result without examining the actual transaction and any valid transfer of rights.

A dual-nationality or status question needs its own evidence. Keep current identity and nationality documents and explain any change relevant to the proceedings. Do not assume that an old passport, a residence permit or a particular surname settles every status issue. The assessment should state the claimant’s actual position and the provision applied, with any uncertainty identified before a deadline or deposit instruction is issued.

Exemptions under the domestic procedural rules

For the separate security obligation governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 85 identifies cases in which security cannot be requested: legal aid, sufficient immovable property or a claim secured by a right in rem in Turkey, a case brought solely to protect a minor’s interests, and judgment-based enforcement of a claim established by a judgment. The factual conditions must be proved. Owning any asset somewhere in the world is not the same as satisfying the statutory asset condition.

Do not transfer this list automatically to every foreign-person claim under Article 48 of Law No. 5718. First determine which security provision and any controlling treaty govern the claimant. The distinction is especially important for Turkish citizens living overseas, foreign individuals, dual nationals and companies whose investors live in a different country.

3. Identify the actual basis of reciprocity

The Ministry of Justice’s official guidance distinguishes treaty-based, statutory and factual reciprocity. A treaty is therefore not the only possible source, but the existence of diplomatic relations or routine commercial trade is not itself proof of a security exemption. The relevant question concerns reciprocal legal treatment in the matter being assessed.

Identify the instrument or evidence relied upon, its scope and any necessary connection with the claimant. An agreement on judicial assistance can contain several forms of cooperation without containing the particular security exemption needed. Do not rely solely on a document’s title. Read the relevant clause and determine whether it covers individuals, companies, the contemplated proceeding and any residence or domicile condition.

Where factual or statutory reciprocity is uncertain, the official guidance describes the Ministry’s role in obtaining information for the competent authority. A private assurance that courts abroad never ask for security is not equivalent to a supported conclusion. Record the enquiry and the response. Meanwhile, preserve any live procedural deadline rather than assume that a request for diplomatic or legal clarification automatically stops time running.

4. Apply the Hague Convention’s conditions precisely

Article 17 of the 1954 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure addresses security imposed because of foreign nationality or lack of local domicile upon qualifying nationals of contracting states who are domiciled in a contracting state and appear as plaintiffs or interveners before another contracting state’s courts. Nationality, domicile and the relevant state relationships must therefore be identified rather than reduced to a statement that every European resident is exempt.

Check the HCCH status table, declarations and territorial information for the relevant states. A country name in a historic list does not answer every question about a territory, accession or treaty relationship. Preserve the source used and its date. Avoid treating membership of an unrelated regional organisation as proof that this particular Convention applies.

The Ministry’s guidance also discusses the Convention’s application to legal persons. That does not remove the need to establish the company’s own status and the conditions of the instrument. An authorised representative’s residence is not automatically the company’s domicile for the exemption. The legal submission should connect the claimant’s documents with the treaty requirement instead of relying on where its lawyer happens to maintain an office.

5. Prepare evidence that proves the exemption, not just the underlying debt

A strong merits file and a strong exemption file are different. An invoice can support a payment claim without establishing nationality or domicile. A passport can establish identity without proving the amount owed. Create separate document groups so the court or enforcement authority can identify the security question without searching through hundreds of pages of commercial correspondence.

For a legal person, current registration information, constitutional records and documents concerning its relevant address and representation can be necessary. The foreign-company authority guide explains the separate chain of authority to instruct a Turkish lawyer. Authority to act does not itself prove that every treaty exemption applies, but both issues need to be resolved coherently.

Identify the required translation and authentication for the particular document. An apostille or certification does not transform an irrelevant record into proof of a missing condition. Keep the original, certified version and translation linked in the index. If a document is outdated, obtain the appropriate current evidence rather than silently editing the date or presenting an old company extract as a fresh confirmation.

6. Read the actual decision on amount and form

Article 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure addresses the determination of security’s amount and form and changes when the relevant circumstances change. The decision in the particular file matters. Ask which obligation it secures, the amount, acceptable form, recipient and deadline. Do not assume that any foreign bank guarantee or a general statement of solvency automatically fulfils the ordered requirement.

The Ministry’s enforcement guidance dated 19 June 2023 discusses an approach of no less than twenty percent in enforcement cases where security is required. It also addresses reciprocity and the controlling judicial decision if the matter reaches a court. This guidance must not be rewritten as a statutory fixed twenty-percent charge on every foreign person’s lawsuit, irrespective of exemption or circumstances.

If the client proposes a guarantee rather than cash, settle acceptability and wording before incurring issuing costs. Verify the official submission arrangements and identify any expiry or release condition. A promise from a bank to consider issuing a guarantee is not the guarantee itself, and a document sent to the wrong recipient does not establish compliance with the file’s instruction.

7. Respond to an order without assuming an objection suspends it

Obtain the complete decision and its notification record. A short message saying security is needed can omit the basis, amount or consequences of non-compliance. Translate the operative requirements accurately for the client. Identify who must take the next step and how completion will be evidenced. A payment requested without a file reference or clear official destination should be clarified before money is sent.

Where an exemption or reduction is sought, present the relevant documents and legal basis promptly. Do not assume that filing a request automatically extends the original deadline or removes the requirement. The available procedural response and any necessary protective action should be assessed in the actual case. Under Article 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure, failure to provide required security within the court’s peremptory period results in procedural dismissal; an intervener who fails to comply is treated as having withdrawn the intervention request. Identify the rule governing the particular lawsuit or enforcement file rather than assuming that every consequence is identical. A merits argument that the debt is obviously owed does not substitute for addressing the security decision.

Keep payment or guarantee evidence and the authority’s record of receipt. Reconcile the amount, currency and file reference. An overseas transfer instruction that has not yet reached the relevant account is not necessarily proof of timely compliance. Plan the practical banking steps around the actual deadline instead of assuming that international transfer processing and a procedural time limit are the same thing.

8. Do not confuse exemption with freedom from every litigation safeguard

An exemption based on foreign nationality concerns the security obligation within its scope. It does not automatically exempt the applicant from security connected with an attachment, injunction or another protective measure. Identify each request and the risk it addresses. A successful treaty argument in the main case should not be copied into a separate application without examining the relevant rule.

Foreign-award enforcement can also involve distinct questions, including a security request connected with a pending challenge under the applicable treaty framework. The foreign arbitral award guide explains that procedure. The person providing security, the person protected and the conditions of release can differ from ordinary security sought from a foreign plaintiff.

Legal aid and costs recovery also have their own conditions. A treaty exemption does not mean the litigation is free, and winning the case does not automatically recover every commercial expense incurred in pursuing it. Keep the engagement fee, potentially recoverable procedural costs and deposited security separate in the client’s budget and reporting. This avoids overstating the financial effect of an otherwise valid exemption.

9. Plan for release and accurate accounting after the relevant stage

A deposit should remain traceable throughout the file. Keep the order requiring it, evidence of compliance and any later decision affecting it. When the secured reason ends or the circumstances change, assess the appropriate application for reduction, replacement or return under the applicable procedure. Do not assume that the first favourable hearing automatically instructs the bank or authority to release the money.

The client’s final account should identify what remains held, what has been released and any separate costs or liabilities determined. If another person supplied the funds, preserve the authority and repayment arrangements. A transfer into an official file does not establish an unrestricted mandate for a representative to receive and distribute released money to any account without the necessary instructions.

Where a settlement resolves the main dispute, address security expressly. Identify who will make any necessary application and what the agreement says about costs and remaining claims. A private statement that the parties are finished does not itself change every official record or release condition. Completion should be evidenced by the appropriate procedural steps and actual return, not merely by signing the settlement.

10. An illustrative exemption assessment with two different requests

Assume a foreign company proposes a Turkish payment action and relies on a treaty clause against security based on nationality. It also seeks an urgent interim measure. The example is hypothetical and does not determine that any particular company qualifies. Its registration, relevant domicile, treaty scope and the proposed proceedings must be examined separately.

The company submits a documented exemption request for the nationality-related security. The legal team then checks the independent requirements of the interim measure instead of assuming the same exemption eliminates them. The client receives a budget distinguishing ordinary fees, any contested security and any separate protective-measure requirement. This is more useful than a single unexplained percentage applied to the entire matter.

If the authority accepts the exemption, that conclusion is recorded with the documents and provision supporting it. If the claim later changes or a different entity becomes involved, the security position is reviewed rather than assumed to transfer automatically. The example shows why status, evidence and procedural purpose should be resolved together before the client commits funds or treats an exemption as universal.

11. Coordinate the assessment from abroad

Send the claimant’s identity or company documents, the proposed claim, any existing order and the relevant notification dates. Identify the exemption believed to apply, but do not conceal facts that complicate it. A clear first package allows the review to distinguish a straightforward documentary issue from a question needing additional information about reciprocity or treaty conditions.

Bakırcı & Keskin Law Office has physical offices in Istanbul and Mersin. Proceedings elsewhere in Turkey are assessed and coordinated from our Istanbul and Mersin offices within the applicable jurisdiction, procedure and agreed mandate. English reporting explains the requirement and available steps; it does not guarantee exemption, a particular percentage or a recovery result. Sending documents alone does not establish representation or preserve a procedural deadline.

Related English guides

Foreign company authority documents · Foreign arbitral awards · Debt collection from abroad

Frequently asked questions

Official sources

Ministry of Justice: security exemptions; Law No. 5718, Article 48; Code of Civil Procedure: security provisions; 1954 Hague Civil Procedure Convention; Ministry enforcement guidance of 19 June 2023. The applicable legislation and treaty control. This is general English-language information, not a ruling on an individual exemption.