Why Can Turkey Refuse Enforcement of a Foreign Judgment? MÖHUK Article 54, Reciprocity, Public Order and Defence Rights

1. Article 54 creates a limited enforcement review, not a second trial

A party resisting enforcement often wants the Turkish court to re-examine evidence, witness credibility or the foreign judge’s interpretation of substantive law. That is generally outside the Article 54 function.

The Turkish court asks whether the foreign judgment satisfies the statutory enforcement conditions. It does not decide whether it would have reached the same result on the merits.

This prohibition on merits review is central to predictability in international litigation. Without it, every foreign case would have to be tried again before enforcement.

2. Reciprocity is required for enforcement but not for recognition

Article 54(a) requires a reciprocal basis between Türkiye and the state of origin. That basis can arise from an international agreement, a foreign statutory rule permitting enforcement of Turkish judgments or actual foreign practice that does so.

Reciprocity is assessed at the state level and should be researched before litigation costs are incurred. Diplomatic friendliness or trade volume is irrelevant unless it translates into a legal or practical enforcement possibility.

Article 58 removes this reciprocity condition for recognition, which is why a foreign status judgment can sometimes be recognised even where a money judgment from the same state faces reciprocity difficulty.

3. An international treaty is the clearest reciprocity basis

Türkiye has bilateral and multilateral judicial-cooperation arrangements with various states. If an applicable treaty provides mutual enforcement of civil judgments, the Article 54 reciprocity element can be satisfied through that treaty.

The treaty’s subject-matter scope should be checked. Some instruments exclude family, insolvency, public-law or other categories.

The judgment date and treaty entry-into-force date can also matter.

4. Foreign legislation can establish reciprocity even without a treaty

If the issuing state’s law permits Turkish court judgments to be enforced under conditions comparable to other foreign judgments, Article 54(a) can be satisfied through statutory reciprocity.

The Turkish court may need reliable evidence of the foreign law. Official legislation, ministry information, expert opinion or court practice can assist under MÖHUK Article 2.

The applicant should avoid unsupported assertions that “this country recognises Turkish judgments.”

5. Actual foreign practice can establish de facto reciprocity

The statute also recognises factual practice. Even where no treaty or explicit statutory reciprocity provision exists, evidence that courts in the foreign state actually enforce Turkish judgments can support Article 54(a).

Prior foreign enforcement decisions involving Turkish judgments are especially useful. The practice should be sufficiently real and current.

A single old academic statement may be inadequate where foreign practice has changed.

6. A foreign judgment cannot override a matter reserved exclusively to Turkish courts

Article 54(b) bars enforcement where the foreign judgment concerns a matter within exclusive Turkish jurisdiction. The purpose is to protect subject matters that Turkish procedural law reserves to Turkish courts because of a strong territorial or public organisation connection.

Exclusive jurisdiction should not be confused with ordinary venue. The mere fact that a Turkish court could have heard the dispute does not make its jurisdiction exclusive.

The party relying on exclusivity should identify the actual Turkish statutory rule that makes the forum exclusive.

7. Turkish land-register disputes are a key exclusive-jurisdiction risk

A foreign court can award contractual damages connected with a Turkish property transaction, but a judgment purporting directly to cancel and re-register ownership in the Turkish land registry can face exclusive-jurisdiction objections.

The remedy matters. A money judgment for breach of a sale promise is different from an order directly commanding the Turkish registry to transfer title.

Foreign property litigation should be structured with Turkish exclusivity in mind before the foreign case is filed.

8. Article 54 also protects against an excessively disconnected foreign forum

The second part of Article 54(b) addresses a foreign court that asserted jurisdiction despite the dispute or parties having no genuine relationship with that state. This is sometimes described as exorbitant or excessive foreign jurisdiction.

The Turkish court does not demand that the foreign court use Turkish venue rules. The issue is more fundamental: did the foreign forum have a real connection to the dispute or parties?

Examples can involve a claimant choosing a remote forum solely because local procedure is favourable despite no substantive connection.

9. The excessive-jurisdiction ground depends on defendant objection

Article 54 expressly conditions this part of the jurisdiction review on the defendant raising the objection. A defendant who remains silent can lose the ability to rely on the disconnected foreign forum at the tenfiz stage.

The Turkish response should therefore state this ground specifically and provide facts showing the lack of connection.

Do not confuse this defendant-dependent ground with exclusive Turkish jurisdiction, which has a different legal character.

10. Public order is an exceptional safeguard, not a general disagreement clause

Article 54(c) requires that the foreign judgment not be manifestly contrary to Turkish public order. The word “manifestly” signals a high threshold.

Fundamental procedural fairness, constitutional values, basic civil rights and intolerable substantive effects can become relevant. But the Turkish court should not refuse enforcement merely because Turkish substantive law contains a different rule.

Public order preserves fundamental legal integrity while respecting international finality.

11. A different result under Turkish law does not automatically violate public order

Foreign courts routinely apply laws that differ from Turkish law in limitation periods, damage calculation, contract interpretation or family consequences. Difference is inherent in private international law.

If every difference triggered public order, MÖHUK’s conflict and enforcement system would have little function.

The objecting party should identify a fundamental Turkish principle that is manifestly violated rather than simply cite the Turkish rule that would have produced another result.

12. The defendant must have been summoned according to the foreign law

Article 54(ç) protects the person against whom enforcement is sought where that person was not properly called to the foreign court under the law of the foreign state.

Notice should be sufficient to permit participation in the proceedings. International service treaties can be relevant where the defendant was in Türkiye during the foreign litigation.

The Turkish court should review the actual service record and the foreign procedural rule.

13. Lack of representation can support an enforcement objection

The statute also covers a person who was not represented in the foreign proceedings where that defect falls within the Article 54 framework. Representation issues can arise from invalid service, incapacity or denial of counsel.

The objection does not mean every party must have hired a lawyer. The question is whether the foreign process deprived the person of the procedural participation required by its law.

Foreign docket records and hearing notices can be essential.

14. A default judgment is not automatically unenforceable

Foreign judgments entered in the absence of a defendant can still be enforceable if the defendant was properly summoned and had a fair opportunity to participate under the foreign law.

Article 54 focuses on prohibited absence/default circumstances and requires the person to raise the objection in the Turkish enforcement case.

A defendant who deliberately ignored valid foreign service cannot automatically convert that choice into a Turkish enforcement defence.

15. The enforcement file should be prepared for both positive and negative proof

The applicant should submit the final foreign judgment, finality record, authentication/translation and material supporting reciprocity. Where service is likely to be contested, the foreign service record should be obtained in advance.

The defendant should collect foreign procedural law, service defects, evidence of exclusive Turkish jurisdiction or public-order concerns rather than making generic objections.

Tenfiz litigation is often won or lost through document preparation rather than extensive witness testimony.

16. Recognition uses most Article 54 conditions but not reciprocity

Article 58 applies the enforcement conditions to recognition but expressly excludes Article 54(a). This creates a key strategic difference where the issuing state lacks reciprocity.

A foreign judgment can therefore be accepted as res judicata or conclusive evidence without being executable for money in Türkiye.

Our recognition versus enforcement guide explains the distinction.

17. Audit Article 54 before filing the Turkish case

Before translating hundreds of pages or serving a foreign defendant, check each Article 54 condition. Confirm reciprocity, classify exclusive jurisdiction, review how the foreign court asserted jurisdiction, test any fundamental public-order issue and obtain the service record.

If a defect is curable in the origin state—for example obtaining a formal finality certificate—solve it before filing in Türkiye.

A professional pre-filing audit can prevent a lengthy Turkish case built around a judgment that can never satisfy one mandatory condition.

Conclusion

MÖHUK Article 54 is the central filter for enforcing foreign court judgments in Türkiye. It protects Turkish exclusive jurisdiction and fundamental public order while respecting foreign final judgments that satisfy reciprocity and defence-right standards. The Turkish court does not conduct a merits retrial. Applicants should build documentary proof of every condition; defendants should raise only the statutory objections supported by the foreign record and Turkish law.