Limitation Periods in Cross-Border Claims in Turkey: MÖHUK Article 8
1. MÖHUK Article 8: the limitation rule
Article 8 of Law No. 5718 states that limitation is subject to the law applicable to the substance of the legal transaction or relationship. The rule is direct and deliberately links limitation to the substantive governing law rather than automatically to the law of the forum.
The current consolidated statutory text states: “Zamanaşımı, hukukî işlem ve ilişkinin esasına uygulanan hukuka tâbidir.” The rule appears in the general provisions of MÖHUK immediately after Article 7 on the form of legal transactions. See the Ministry of Justice publication of Law No. 5718.
The commercial consequence is significant. A foreign company may sue in Turkey, a Turkish company may sue a foreign counterparty in Turkey, or Turkish assets may be targeted through proceedings in Turkey. None of those facts alone establishes the substantive limitation period. The underlying legal relationship must first be classified and its governing law determined.
Article 8 therefore operates as a second-step rule: first identify the law governing the substance; then take the limitation regime from that law.
2. Determine the substantive governing law before calculating the deadline
For an international contract, the substantive law can be determined by a valid choice-of-law clause or, if no valid choice exists, by the objective conflict-of-laws rule applicable to the contract. For employment, consumer, insurance, tort, unjust enrichment and other relationships, MÖHUK contains separate conflict rules.
A deadline memo that begins by searching the Turkish Code of Obligations without first completing this governing-law analysis can therefore be wrong. If German, English, Dutch or another foreign law governs the substance of the claim, Article 8 directs the limitation question to that foreign law.
The governing-law analysis must also be claim-specific. A single commercial dispute can contain a contractual payment claim, a tort allegation, an unjust-enrichment alternative and perhaps a separate guarantee. Different legal relationships can require different conflict rules. Counsel should not assume that one limitation period governs every cause of action pleaded in the same lawsuit.
Likewise, a choice-of-court clause does not itself choose the limitation law. Forum and governing law are different. See our guide on choice of court agreements in Turkey under MÖHUK Article 47.
3. How does a Turkish court apply a foreign limitation law?
MÖHUK Article 2 requires the Turkish judge to apply Turkish conflict-of-laws rules and the foreign law designated by those rules ex officio. The judge may request the parties’ assistance in determining the content of the foreign law. If the applicable provisions of foreign law cannot be determined despite all research, Turkish law is applied under Article 2(2).
This means a party should not plead only that “the claim is time-barred under foreign law.” The party should identify the governing-law route, provide the current foreign limitation provisions and explain how those provisions apply to the accrual, maturity and procedural history of the specific claim.
Authoritative sources matter. Current statutory texts, official databases, reliable case law where needed, expert opinions and translations can assist the court. Unverified internet summaries are weak evidence of the content of foreign law, particularly where the foreign limitation regime has transitional rules or different periods for different claim types.
Foreign-language legal sources must also be usable in Turkish proceedings. The court may require a Turkish translation. Authentication requirements depend on the document itself; legislation obtained from an official public database is a different evidentiary object from a foreign notarized statement or corporate record.
4. What aspects of limitation should be checked under the applicable law?
Article 8 refers the limitation issue to the law governing the substance. A complete analysis should therefore not stop after finding a number such as “three years” or “ten years.” Counsel must determine how the applicable legal system defines the entire limitation regime relevant to the claim.
At minimum, the analysis should address the event that starts the period, the length of the period, any knowledge-based start rule, maturity requirements, suspension rules, interruption or renewal rules, the effect of acknowledgment or partial payment, any absolute long-stop period and the legal effect of expiry.
Foreign systems do not necessarily use Turkish concepts in exactly the same way. One jurisdiction may distinguish prescription from limitation, another may use a discovery rule, and another may impose a separate long-stop period. The foreign-law concept must be understood on its own terms before it is applied in the Turkish case.
The calculation should also reflect amendments and transitional provisions. The law in force when the underlying event occurred may not be identical to the law in force when the Turkish action is filed.
5. Limitation periods are not the same as Turkish procedural deadlines
Article 8 does not convert every deadline in a cross-border case into a foreign-law issue. Limitation concerning the substantive legal transaction or relationship must be separated from procedural time limits governing proceedings before Turkish courts.
For example, the period for filing an appeal against a Turkish judgment, responding to a procedural notification, objecting through a Turkish procedural mechanism or complying with a court order is governed by the relevant Turkish procedural legislation. Those periods exist because the proceeding is before a Turkish authority, not because they define the substantive lifespan of the underlying claim.
Forfeiture periods (hak düşürücü süre) also should not automatically be labeled “limitation” merely because both involve time. Article 8 expressly uses the concept of limitation. The nature and governing law of a specific forfeiture period require analysis of the substantive rule creating that period and the relevant conflict-of-laws framework.
This distinction is particularly important in inheritance and family cases, where Turkish legislation may create short forfeiture periods for specific actions. A lawyer must classify the time bar correctly instead of applying Article 8 by analogy without statutory basis.
6. Limitation in international contract claims
Cross-border sales, services, distribution, agency, transport, financing and technology agreements often contain a governing-law clause. If that clause is valid and effective for the disputed obligation, Article 8 generally directs the limitation issue to that substantive law.
Suppose a contract selects the law of State A but disputes are litigated in Turkey. The Turkish forum does not by itself replace State A’s limitation regime with Turkish limitation periods. The court first applies the Turkish conflict rule to identify State A law as the governing substantive law and then applies Article 8 to the limitation question.
The contract should be reviewed for clauses on acknowledgment, payment schedules, acceleration, termination and settlement. These facts can affect when the claim became due or whether a later act changed the limitation calculation under the applicable law.
Formal validity is a separate question. An international agreement can satisfy the form rule under MÖHUK Article 7 while its limitation is governed by Article 8. See our guide on formal validity of international contracts in Turkey.
7. Tort, unjust enrichment, employment and other cross-border claims
Article 8 is not limited to contracts. It refers to the law applicable to the substance of the legal transaction or legal relationship. Accordingly, the relevant conflict rule for the underlying non-contractual relationship must first be applied.
For a cross-border tort, determine the law governing the tort claim and then take the limitation analysis from that law. For unjust enrichment, identify the law governing the enrichment relationship. For an international employment dispute, first identify the law governing the employment claim under the current MÖHUK employment provisions, then apply Article 8 to limitation.
Recent Turkish judicial practice in international employment disputes illustrates the importance of this sequencing: different periods of work can be subject to different substantive laws, and the limitation calculation follows the law governing the relevant period and claim. A file involving years of work in several countries cannot safely be reduced to one Turkish limitation figure without the governing-law analysis.
Where a Turkish directly applicable rule under MÖHUK Article 6 is engaged, or where application of a specific foreign rule would trigger the narrowly applied public-policy exception in Article 5, those issues must be analyzed separately. Article 8 is not a license to bypass Articles 5 and 6.
8. Interruption, suspension, acknowledgment and partial payment
A claimant should build a chronological limitation table from the first potentially relevant date to the filing date. Include invoice maturity, delivery, termination, demand letters, settlement negotiations, acknowledgments, partial payments, enforcement steps and lawsuits in every relevant jurisdiction.
Then test each event under the applicable limitation law. A demand letter that interrupts limitation under one legal system may have no such effect under another. Settlement negotiations may suspend a period under a specific statute, while another system may require a formal filing or acknowledgment.
Do not assume that filing abroad automatically interrupted the period for the Turkish proceeding. The effect of the foreign proceeding must be examined under the law governing the limitation issue and any relevant procedural or treaty rule.
Likewise, a debtor’s email admitting the outstanding amount can be highly important, but its limitation effect depends on the applicable law and the wording and timing of the communication. Preserve the original electronic record, metadata where relevant and a reliable Turkish translation for litigation.
9. Deadline audit for a foreign client filing in Turkey
Start with the legal relationship, not the calendar. Identify every cause of action and defense, then determine the substantive governing law for each one. Only then calculate limitation under Article 8.
Prepare a date table showing contract date, performance dates, breach, maturity, termination, notices, acknowledgments, payments, prior proceedings and proposed Turkish filing date. Attach the source document for each date. This prevents a limitation argument from resting on memory or an imprecise chronology.
If foreign law governs, obtain the current legal provisions early. Under Article 2, the court applies foreign law ex officio, but the parties can be asked to assist and should do so effectively. Waiting until the expert stage to identify a foreign limitation rule can create avoidable delay and cost.
Foreign public and corporate documents used to prove dates may require apostille, legalization or certified Turkish translation. See our guide on apostille and certified translation for documents used in Turkey.
A foreign claimant should also check procedural security under MÖHUK Article 48 before filing. See security for foreign plaintiffs in Turkey.
- Identify each separate cause of action.
- Determine the substantive governing law for each claim.
- Apply MÖHUK Article 8 only after that governing-law step.
- Find the applicable period and its precise starting event.
- Check knowledge rules and absolute long-stop periods.
- Test interruption, suspension, acknowledgment and partial payment under the governing law.
- Separate substantive limitation from Turkish procedural deadlines.
- Do not automatically classify forfeiture periods as Article 8 limitation.
- Prepare authoritative evidence of foreign law under Article 2.
- Build a document-backed chronology before the Turkish filing.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Does Turkish limitation automatically apply because the lawsuit is filed in Turkey?
No. Article 8 subjects limitation to the law governing the substance of the legal transaction or relationship.
2. What must be determined first?
The substantive governing law for the underlying claim must be identified under the applicable MÖHUK conflict rule.
3. What if foreign law governs the contract?
The Turkish court applies that foreign law to the limitation issue under Article 8, subject to the other applicable MÖHUK provisions.
4. Does the Turkish judge apply foreign law automatically?
Yes. Article 2 requires the judge to apply the designated foreign law ex officio and allows the court to seek the parties’ assistance.
5. What if the content of foreign law cannot be determined?
Article 2(2) provides for Turkish law if the applicable foreign provisions cannot be determined despite all research.
6. Does Article 8 govern appeal deadlines in a Turkish case?
No. Turkish procedural deadlines are a separate issue from the substantive limitation rule in Article 8.
7. Are forfeiture periods automatically governed by Article 8?
No. Article 8 expressly concerns limitation; a forfeiture period must be classified under the rule that creates it and the applicable conflicts framework.
8. Can an acknowledgment or partial payment change limitation?
It may, but the effect must be determined under the law governing the limitation issue.
9. Can different claims in the same case have different limitation regimes?
Yes. Different causes of action can be governed by different substantive laws and therefore different limitation rules.
10. What should a foreign claimant prepare before filing?
A governing-law analysis, authoritative limitation rules, a complete chronology and documentary evidence of maturity, notices, acknowledgments and prior proceedings.
Author and legal review
Attorney Halil Bakırcı — Mersin Bar Association, Registration No. 3472. Bakırcı & Keskin Law Office advises international clients on Turkish litigation, cross-border contracts, debt claims 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 2, 5, 6 and 8.
Mersin office
Bakırcı & Keskin Law Office can identify the governing law, calculate the applicable limitation regime and prepare the Turkish filing for foreign clients and companies.
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.
