Exclusive Turkish Jurisdiction and Excessive Foreign Jurisdiction in Judgment Enforcement: MÖHUK Article 54(b)

1. Article 54(b) contains two separate jurisdiction controls

The first is based on exclusive Turkish jurisdiction. If Turkish law reserves a category of dispute exclusively to Turkish courts, a foreign judgment on that matter cannot receive enforcement in Türkiye.

The second is different: even where Turkish jurisdiction is not exclusive, the defendant can argue that the foreign court had no genuine connection with the dispute or parties and asserted jurisdiction on an exorbitant basis.

These two objections should never be merged in one vague sentence. The petition must identify which one applies.

2. Exclusive jurisdiction is stronger than ordinary territorial competence

Many Turkish venue rules merely identify one or more competent courts. They are not necessarily exclusive. Article 54(b) concerns subject matters where Turkish law reserves jurisdiction so strongly that a foreign court cannot displace it for Turkish enforcement purposes.

Exclusive jurisdiction should be established from the relevant Turkish procedural or substantive statute. A creditor should not assume exclusivity merely because Turkish law provides a convenient local forum.

The defendant resisting enforcement should cite the specific exclusive rule and explain why the foreign judgment falls within its subject.

3. Turkish immovable-property disputes are a classic area requiring special care

Rights in rem and registration concerning immovable property located in Türkiye are closely tied to the Turkish land registry and territorial sovereign control. A foreign judgment purporting directly to transfer or cancel Turkish title can therefore raise exclusive-jurisdiction problems.

This does not mean every foreign contractual dispute mentioning a Turkish apartment is unenforceable. A money judgment ordering repayment of a deposit can be different from a judgment purporting directly to alter the Turkish land register.

The operative part of the foreign judgment must be classified precisely.

4. Registry and status matters can involve other special jurisdiction frameworks

Civil status, corporate registration, intellectual-property registers and public registries can be subject to special territorial rules. The existence of an exclusive rule depends on the exact relief.

A judgment merely recognising a contractual obligation related to a registered right may differ from a judgment ordering the registry itself to change.

The Turkish court should examine the legal effect sought in Türkiye, not only the foreign judgment’s title.

5. Corporate disputes require distinction between internal company status and contractual obligations

Share-transfer payment, warranties and shareholder agreements can create ordinary obligation disputes. By contrast, validity of a Turkish company’s registry entry or organ status can involve Turkish corporate law and registry competence.

A foreign judgment ordering damages for breach of a shareholders’ agreement is not automatically equivalent to an order changing the Turkish trade registry.

This classification often determines whether Article 54(b) is a real obstacle.

6. Ordinary Turkish jurisdiction does not by itself block foreign judgments

If Turkish courts merely had concurrent jurisdiction, the foreign judgment is not refused solely because the claimant could also have sued in Türkiye.

International enforcement depends on exclusivity, not preference. The creditor can choose a foreign forum where lawful and later seek Turkish enforcement if Article 54 conditions are met.

A defendant should therefore avoid treating every Turkish venue provision as an exclusive bar.

7. Excessive foreign jurisdiction targets genuinely disconnected foreign forums

Article 54 also allows the defendant to object when the foreign judgment comes from a court that assumed jurisdiction despite lacking a real relationship with the subject matter or parties.

This protects against extreme forum assertions based on weak or artificial contacts. The test is not whether Turkish law would have used the same jurisdiction rule.

The defendant should identify the foreign court’s jurisdiction basis and explain why the dispute and parties lacked meaningful connection to that state.

8. Genuine connection can arise from domicile, establishment, performance, damage or agreement

A foreign defendant’s domicile, a contract performed there, a tort occurring there, an establishment involved in the transaction or a valid jurisdiction agreement can all create a meaningful connection.

The connection must be assessed from the actual case rather than the nationality of the judge or claimant.

Commercial parties operating internationally should expect that several countries can have legitimate jurisdictional links.

9. The excessive-jurisdiction defence must be invoked by the defendant

The statutory wording makes this objection dependent on the defendant’s reliance upon it. The Turkish court’s role differs from the objective exclusive-jurisdiction control.

A defendant should raise the objection clearly in the enforcement response and submit the foreign jurisdiction documents needed to prove the alleged disconnection.

Failure to plead the point can jeopardise the defence.

10. Participation in the foreign case can affect the practical strength of the objection

If the defendant appeared abroad and litigated the merits without challenging jurisdiction where foreign law required a timely objection, the later Turkish position should be analysed carefully.

Article 54 does not create a universal retrial of foreign jurisdiction objections. The procedural history matters.

The foreign record should show what the defendant argued and what the foreign court decided.

11. A valid foreign forum clause can create a strong jurisdiction connection

Commercial contracts can choose a foreign court under MÖHUK Article 47 where statutory conditions are satisfied. A foreign judgment from that chosen court is difficult to characterise as wholly disconnected merely because one party later dislikes the forum.

However, forum clauses cannot eliminate protected Turkish employment, consumer or insurance forums and cannot override exclusive Turkish jurisdiction.

Our foreign court clause guide explains those limits.

12. Consumer, employee and insured-person protection requires separate analysis

MÖHUK protects certain weaker parties through special jurisdiction rules. A foreign court clause or judgment should therefore be checked against those statutory protections.

The issue can arise both when the foreign proceedings began and later at recognition or enforcement stage.

Each protected category has its own connection and should not be reduced to a general fairness argument.

13. Jurisdiction review is not merits review

The Turkish court can examine whether the foreign tribunal had the required connection for Article 54(b), but it cannot reopen liability simply because it is reviewing jurisdiction.

Documents relevant only to the substantive merits should not be used to turn the tenfiz case into a second trial.

Focus the record on jurisdictional facts.

14. The same jurisdiction controls can matter in recognition

Article 58 incorporates the relevant Article 54 conditions for recognition. A foreign judgment seeking res judicata effect can therefore face exclusive-jurisdiction or excessive-jurisdiction objections even when no coercive execution is requested.

Reciprocity differs, but jurisdictional safeguards remain relevant.

The requested Turkish legal effect should be stated clearly.

15. The foreign pleadings and judgment are usually central evidence

The Turkish court should be able to see why the foreign court considered itself competent. The foreign complaint, service documents, jurisdiction ruling and final judgment can be essential.

Certified Turkish translations should include the sections relevant to jurisdiction.

Where the foreign system’s jurisdiction law is disputed, reliable foreign-law material can be submitted under MÖHUK Article 2 principles.

16. Audit jurisdiction before spending on full tenfiz documentation

A creditor should check whether the foreign judgment touches exclusive Turkish jurisdiction before incurring translation, apostille and filing costs.

A debtor should distinguish a true Article 54(b) objection from ordinary disagreement with the chosen foreign forum.

Bakırcı & Keskin Hukuk Bürosu has one physical office in Mersin. Recognition and enforcement matters throughout Türkiye can be coordinated from Mersin subject to the competent court and procedural rules.

Conclusion

Article 54(b) is a jurisdiction filter, not a general preference for Turkish courts. Enforcement fails where the subject is within exclusive Turkish jurisdiction; a disconnected foreign forum can also be challenged by the defendant. The strongest analysis identifies the exact Turkish exclusive rule, the foreign court’s jurisdiction basis and the real connections of the dispute.