Partial Enforcement of a Foreign Judgment in Turkey: MÖHUK Article 56, Separable Claims and Mixed Orders

1. Article 56 gives the Turkish court three possible enforcement outcomes

After examining Articles 50–55, the Turkish court is not limited to an all-or-nothing decision. It can enforce the foreign judgment fully, enforce it only in part, or refuse enforcement.

This flexibility is important in complex judgments. International litigation frequently produces several operative orders rather than one single debt.

The court should identify the exact foreign provisions that satisfy the statutory conditions.

2. Partial enforcement requires a legally and practically separable portion

The Turkish court cannot invent a new foreign judgment. The portion selected for enforcement must already exist as a distinct obligation capable of execution without changing the foreign court’s substantive decision.

A separately stated damages amount, restitution order or cost award can often be isolated. A single indivisible order whose meaning would change if one part were removed is more difficult.

The operative section and reasoning should be read together to determine separability.

3. Multiple claims can have different enforcement outcomes

A foreign commercial case can award unpaid price, contractual penalty, interest, litigation costs and damages. One component can face a public-policy or exclusive-jurisdiction problem while the others remain enforceable.

Article 56 allows the Turkish court to preserve the enforceable parts rather than reject the entire case automatically.

The applicant should plead partial enforcement in the alternative where a specific component could be disputed.

4. Only the part that has become final can be considered

If a foreign appeal concerns only one claim, other claims can already be final under the law of the origin state. The finality certificate should identify the final portion clearly.

Partial enforcement can then be sought for the final component without waiting for an unrelated appeal, if the foreign legal system treats it as independently final.

The Turkish court still requires Article 53 documentation proving that status.

5. A public-policy defect in one component does not always contaminate the whole judgment

A foreign judgment can contain a compensatory award and a separate component raising a serious Article 54(c) concern. If the problematic component can be separated, Article 56 can preserve enforcement of the compliant portion.

The court should not use partial enforcement to redesign an indivisible remedy, but it can refuse only the clearly distinct part that cannot receive Turkish effect.

This proportional approach supports international legal certainty.

6. Civil compensation inside a criminal judgment is a classic partial-enforcement case

Article 50(2) allows the civil-rights provisions of a foreign criminal judgment to be enforced. The prison sentence or criminal fine is not enforced under MÖHUK civil tenfiz.

The Turkish court therefore isolates the victim compensation or restitution portion and examines that private-law obligation.

Our Article 50(2) guide explains that route.

7. Principal and interest can sometimes be separated

A foreign judgment can state principal and interest independently. If an objection concerns only a distinct interest component, partial enforcement can become relevant.

The court should identify whether interest is truly separable from the principal debt under the foreign judgment.

Difference from Turkish interest law alone does not automatically justify refusal.

8. Foreign litigation costs can be a separable monetary order

Foreign judgments often award attorney fees or court costs to the successful party. Where that award is final and forms a private monetary obligation, it can be considered with the main judgment.

If the costs order was issued later by a separate decision, that decision may require its own finality and document proof.

The exact beneficiary and amount should be clear.

9. Different currency components should be preserved accurately

A judgment can award different sums in different currencies. Partial enforcement should not convert or combine those sums in a way that changes the foreign decision.

Currency conversion at Turkish execution stage is governed by the relevant Turkish enforcement and obligation rules.

The tenfiz judgment should accurately reflect the enforceable foreign obligation.

10. A foreign judgment can combine a Turkish property order with a money order

Suppose a foreign court orders transfer of a Turkish apartment and, alternatively or additionally, repayment of money. The direct property-registration part can face exclusive-jurisdiction problems while the separable money award can still be analysed independently.

Article 56 becomes important if the money obligation stands without rewriting the foreign judgment.

The petition should distinguish rights in rem from contractual compensation.

11. Family judgments often contain both status and executable monetary provisions

A foreign divorce decision can dissolve the marriage, regulate custody and order maintenance or a lump-sum payment. Recognition may be sufficient for the marital-status part, while enforcement is needed for money.

Each operative provision should be classified under the correct Turkish procedure.

One procedural problem affecting a monetary order should not automatically invalidate recognition of an independent status provision.

12. Claim and counterclaim awards can be independently examined

A foreign judgment can grant the main claim and dismiss or grant a counterclaim. If the awards are mathematically or legally independent, partial enforcement can be requested for the component satisfying MÖHUK.

If the foreign judgment performs a netting calculation and issues only one final balance, the Turkish court should respect that final operative structure.

It cannot reconstruct the foreign accounting from scratch.

13. Partial enforcement is not judicial rewriting

The Turkish court must remain faithful to the foreign judgment. It cannot change liability, substitute another debtor, reduce damages on the merits or create a new payment schedule merely to make enforcement acceptable.

Article 56 permits selection of separable enforceable components, not modification of substantive rights.

This boundary protects the prohibition on merits review.

14. The creditor should identify primary and alternative enforcement requests

A well-drafted petition can request full enforcement and, if the court finds a problem in a particular component, partial enforcement of specifically identified operative paragraphs.

This is more precise than asking the court generally to “enforce whatever it can.”

Translations should number the foreign operative provisions consistently with the petition.

15. The debtor should target the exact component affected by the objection

If a public-policy or jurisdiction problem affects only one distinct component, arguing that the entire judgment must fail can be excessive.

The defence should explain whether the objection is indivisible or limited. Where the rest of the foreign judgment depends logically on the challenged component, that relationship should be demonstrated.

Article 56 makes separability a practical litigation issue.

16. The partially enforced obligation is executed like a Turkish judgment

Once the Turkish tenfiz decision becomes capable of execution under Article 57, the enforced portion can enter Turkish enforcement proceedings.

The enforcement office follows the Turkish tenfiz judgment’s scope, not unenforced foreign components.

Asset seizure should be limited to the amount and obligations given Turkish executory force.

17. The Turkish partial-enforcement decision can be appealed

Article 57 subjects the tenfiz judgment to the ordinary appellate routes applicable to Turkish civil judgments. The appellate court can review whether the lower court correctly applied the statutory enforcement conditions and separability.

Appeal of the Turkish decision does not reopen the foreign merits.

Bakırcı & Keskin Hukuk Bürosu has physical offices in Istanbul and Mersin. Tenfiz matters throughout Türkiye can be coordinated from these offices subject to the competent court and procedural rules.

Conclusion

Article 56 prevents a single defective component from automatically destroying every enforceable part of a foreign judgment. Where the foreign judgment contains legally separable claims, the Turkish court can grant partial enforcement while remaining faithful to the foreign operative terms. Finality, Article 54 conditions and practical separability should be audited paragraph by paragraph.