Formal Validity of International Contracts in Turkey: MÖHUK Article 7
1. MÖHUK Article 7: the general rule on form
Article 7 of Law No. 5718 is concise but commercially important. It provides that legal transactions may be made in accordance with the form prescribed by the law of the country where the transaction is made or by the substantive-law provisions of the law governing the substance of that legal transaction.
The official wording appears in the Ministry of Justice compilation of Law No. 5718. See the Ministry of Justice international judicial cooperation legislation compilation.
The rule serves a validating function in cross-border private-law transactions. A contract or other legal act should not fail merely because the formal requirements of two potentially relevant legal systems differ, provided the transaction satisfies one of the formal systems Article 7 makes available.
Article 7 concerns form. It does not by itself determine whether the parties had capacity, whether the contract’s content is lawful, whether consent was defective, whether mandatory rules apply, or which court has jurisdiction. Those questions are governed by separate conflict-of-laws or procedural rules.
2. Two alternative laws can satisfy formal validity
The first alternative is the law of the country where the legal transaction is made. This is often described in private international law as the law of the place of the act. If an international commercial agreement is executed in another country and complies with that country’s legally required form, Article 7 can recognize that formal route.
The second alternative is the substantive law governing the transaction itself. If the contract is governed by a particular country’s substantive law and the agreement satisfies that law’s form requirements, Article 7 can validate the form even where the place-of-transaction law uses a different formal model.
The alternatives are not cumulative. The statutory wording uses an “or” structure. The transaction need not ordinarily satisfy both formal systems simultaneously under Article 7. Compliance with one available formal route can be sufficient, unless a special provision displaces the general rule.
This makes the first legal task a classification exercise. Counsel should identify exactly where the transaction was made, which law governs its substance, and whether a special subject-specific provision applies. Guessing that “Turkish form is always required because the document will be used in Turkey” is not an accurate statement of Article 7.
3. Formal validity is different from the law governing the substance
A cross-border contract can be formally valid under Article 7 while its substantive rights and obligations are governed by another law. This distinction is fundamental in international contracting.
For ordinary contractual obligations, MÖHUK Article 24 contains the governing-law framework. The parties can select the law applicable to their contractual relationship within the limits of that provision. If no law is chosen, Article 24 supplies the applicable-law rules based on the contract’s closest connection and characteristic performance. Article 7 then uses the substantive law identified by the relevant conflicts rule as one of the possible formal-validity routes.
The forum question is separate again. A contract may be governed by one country’s law, satisfy form under another country’s law and designate the courts of a third country where Article 47 permits that jurisdiction agreement. See our guide on choice of court agreements in Turkey under MÖHUK Article 47.
Contract drafting should therefore contain separate analysis for governing law, forum or arbitration, form, mandatory rules, capacity and evidence. Combining all of those questions into the phrase “this contract is subject to Turkish law” can leave important issues unresolved.
4. Special statutory form rules can displace the general Article 7 rule
Article 7 is a general rule. Law No. 5718 also contains subject-specific provisions that must be applied where they govern the transaction. The lawyer must therefore search the statute beyond Article 7 before concluding that the two alternative form laws are available.
For marriage, Article 13(2) provides that the form of marriage is governed by the law of the country where the marriage is celebrated. For testamentary dispositions, Article 20(4) expressly refers back to Article 7 and additionally recognizes a testamentary disposition made in accordance with the deceased’s national law. For transactions concerning rights in rem over immovable property, Article 21(4) applies the law of the place where the immovable property is situated to form.
These examples show why a general article should not be applied mechanically. An international services contract, a Turkish title transfer, a marriage and a will are not subject to an identical formal-validity analysis.
International treaties can also matter. MÖHUK Article 1 preserves the provisions of international conventions to which Turkey is a party. Where a treaty directly governs the form of the relevant legal act, the treaty must be considered before relying only on the domestic conflict rule.
5. Turkish immovable property: Article 21(4) is the critical special rule
Article 21(4) provides that legal transactions concerning rights in rem over immovable property are governed, as to form, by the law of the country where the property is situated. For immovable property in Turkey, Turkish law therefore controls the required form for the rights-in-rem transaction.
This distinction is crucial for foreign buyers, sellers and heirs. A privately signed foreign agreement cannot be assumed to transfer Turkish title merely because the document is formally valid where it was signed. The Turkish land-registry and substantive property-law requirements must be satisfied for the transaction that creates or transfers the real right.
Contractual obligations relating to property and the real-right transfer should also be distinguished. A preliminary contractual promise, sale obligation, power of attorney and the final title registration are not automatically the same legal act. Each must be classified before its formal requirements are determined.
Foreign documents used for Turkish title transactions may additionally require authentication, translation and the authority-specific documentation required by the land registry. Those administrative and evidentiary requirements do not replace the Article 21(4) property-form analysis.
6. Wills and testamentary dispositions: Article 20(4)
Article 20(4) specifically addresses the form of testamentary dispositions. It states that Article 7 applies and also recognizes testamentary dispositions made in accordance with the deceased’s national law. The succession statute therefore supplies an additional formal-validity route for wills.
A foreign will affecting Turkish assets should consequently not be rejected merely because its form differs from a standard Turkish domestic will. The court must identify the applicable conflicts rules, any relevant international convention and the law under which the will was made.
At the same time, formal validity is only one part of the will analysis. Testamentary capacity, succession law, Turkish immovable-property rules, reserved shares and the Turkish procedure for opening and notifying the will can remain relevant. See our guide on opening and reading a will in Turkey.
For the broader succession conflict rule, see Turkish inheritance law for foreigners under MÖHUK Article 20.
7. Apostille, legalization and translation do not decide Article 7 validity
An apostille authenticates the origin of a qualifying public document for use between states participating in the relevant Hague Apostille Convention framework. Consular legalization can serve an authentication function where the applicable regime requires it. Neither procedure automatically decides whether a private-law transaction was formally valid when made.
Similarly, a Turkish translation enables a Turkish court, notary, registry or other authority to use a foreign-language document in the required language. Translation does not cure a transaction that failed a mandatory form requirement, and lack of a Turkish translation at the moment the foreign contract was originally signed does not by itself make the transaction invalid under Article 7.
The questions should be separated: Was the legal transaction validly formed? Is the foreign document authentic? Can the Turkish authority read and accept it as evidence? Does a special registration or official-form requirement remain?
For document-use requirements, see our guide on apostille and certified translation for foreign documents used in Turkey.
8. Electronic contracts and cross-border signing
International business contracts are frequently concluded by electronic signature, exchanged PDF signature pages, digital acceptance platforms or email. Article 7 still requires the form question to be answered by reference to the available governing formal systems and any special mandatory rule.
The fact that parties exchanged a PDF does not itself prove that every statutory form requirement was satisfied. Some legal transactions can be concluded without a special form; others require writing, qualified electronic signature, official execution, notarization or registration under the applicable law. The legal classification comes before the technology.
Where parties sign in different countries, the place where the legal transaction is made can itself become a disputed factual issue. The contract should therefore record execution mechanics clearly: signature date, counterpart structure, electronic platform, acceptance method and effective date.
For high-value cross-border agreements, parties should preserve the electronic audit trail, signature certificates, complete executed version and incorporated schedules. Screenshots or isolated email messages are weaker than a complete documentary chain showing how and when the agreement was concluded.
9. Evidence and litigation planning in a Turkish dispute
A party relying on Article 7 should preserve evidence of both available formal systems. If the transaction is said to be formally valid under the law of the country where it was made, establish the place of execution and the relevant foreign-law rule. If reliance is placed on the substantive law governing the transaction, establish why that law applies and what form it requires.
Under MÖHUK Article 2, the Turkish judge applies Turkish conflict-of-laws rules and the foreign law designated by those rules ex officio, and may ask the parties to assist in determining the content of foreign law. A party should therefore provide authoritative statutory, judicial or expert material rather than an unsupported internet summary of the foreign law.
Foreign claimants should also plan Turkish procedural issues independently of formal validity. A foreign plaintiff may need to address security under MÖHUK Article 48. See security for foreign plaintiffs in Turkey.
If Turkish proceedings are served on a party abroad, service requirements likewise remain separate. See Turkish court documents served abroad.
- Classify the legal transaction precisely.
- Identify the country where the transaction was made.
- Identify the law governing the substance of the transaction.
- Check whether Article 7’s two alternatives apply.
- Search for a subject-specific MÖHUK rule before relying on Article 7.
- For Turkish immovables, apply Article 21(4) to the real-right transaction.
- For wills, apply Article 20(4) together with Article 7 and relevant treaty rules.
- Separate formal validity from apostille, legalization and translation.
- Preserve complete signing and electronic execution evidence.
- Prepare authoritative proof of foreign law for Turkish proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What does MÖHUK Article 7 regulate?
It regulates the formal validity of legal transactions containing a foreign element.
2. Which country’s form can be used?
The transaction may comply with the law of the country where it is made or the substantive law governing the transaction, unless a special rule applies.
3. Must both sets of formal rules be satisfied?
No. Article 7 is drafted as alternative formal-validation routes.
4. Does Article 7 decide which law governs the contract’s substance?
No. The substantive governing law is determined under the applicable conflict-of-laws rule, such as Article 24 for ordinary contractual obligations.
5. Does a valid foreign contract automatically transfer Turkish real estate?
No. Article 21(4) subjects the form of real-right transactions concerning immovables to the law of the property’s location.
6. Does Article 7 apply to wills?
Yes through Article 20(4), which also recognizes a testamentary disposition made in accordance with the deceased’s national law.
7. Does an apostille make an invalid contract valid?
No. Apostille authenticates qualifying public documents; it does not cure a substantive or formal validity defect in the legal transaction.
8. Is Turkish translation part of Article 7 validity?
Not as a general rule. Translation concerns the document’s use before Turkish authorities; the underlying formal-validity question is separate.
9. Can an electronic contract satisfy Article 7?
It can where the applicable formal law recognizes that execution method for the particular transaction and no special mandatory form rule requires otherwise.
10. Who determines foreign law in a Turkish case?
Under MÖHUK Article 2, the judge applies the designated foreign law ex officio and may request the parties’ assistance in determining its content.
Author and legal review
Attorney Halil Bakırcı — Mersin Bar Association, Registration No. 3472. Bakırcı & Keskin Law Office advises international clients on cross-border contracts, foreign documents, Turkish litigation and private international law. Files throughout Turkey are managed from the Mersin office.
Last reviewed: 15 September 2026. This guide is based on Law No. 5718 Articles 1, 2, 7, 20 and 21.
Mersin office
Bakırcı & Keskin Law Office can review the governing law, Article 7 formal-validity route, special Turkish form requirements and the document-use steps before litigation or execution.
Hukuki konu hakkında iletişim
İlk iletişimde konuyu, bulunduğunuz ülke veya ili ve varsa tebliğ ya da son işlem tarihini kısaca belirtebilirsiniz. T.C. kimlik numarası, sağlık verisi veya kişisel belge göndermeyiniz. Mesajlaşma tek başına hukuki görüş veya avukatlık ilişkisi oluşturmaz.
