Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments in Türkiye: The Impact of Service Method

The recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in Türkiye are governed by Act No. 5718 on International Private and Procedural Law. To enforce a foreign court judgment, the claimant must file an enforcement lawsuit before the Turkish courts.

In principle, Turkish courts do not review the merits of the foreign judgment; they assess whether the statutory conditions for enforcement are met. These conditions, which are regulated in Article 54 of the International Private and Procedural Law, include:

1. Finality – The foreign judgment must be a final and binding civil court decision.
2. Reciprocity – There must be conventional, legal (de jure) or de facto reciprocity between Türkiye and the country of the foreign court.
3. Jurisdiction – The subject matter of the judgment must not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts. Alternatively, if the defendant raises a jurisdiction challenge, the foreign court must have had a genuine connection to the dispute or the parties.
4. Public Policy Compliance – The judgment must not contradict Turkish public policy.
5. Proper Service & Representation – If the defendant challenges enforcement on this ground, they must have been duly summoned or represented in the foreign court proceedings. Additionally, the judgment must not have been issued in their absence in violation of due process.

Proper Service & Representation, specified in Article 54, underscores the importance of proper service of process in enforcement proceedings. Failure to duly serve case documents requiring the defendant’s action – such as a defence submission, counterclaim, objection or appeal – may lead to the Turkish court rejecting the enforcement request.

While the absence of service is a clear and undisputed ground for refusal of enforcement, the method of service can also be a decisive factor. In certain cases, Turkish courts assess whether the service method ensured the defendant’s right to defence and a fair trial before granting enforcement.

Enforcement Risk: Service via Post

Different jurisdictions employ various methods for serving legal documents, including personal service, service by mail, post, registered mail, or delivery by hand – sometimes even by one of the parties. However, in the Turkish judicial system, case documents are primarily served by court clerks through the Turkish Official Postal Authority (PTT) or via the National Electronic Notification System (UETS).

For judicial documents served from abroad, diplomatic channels – such as embassies, consulates or official postal authorities – are generally required. Under Turkish law, valid service of an international judicial document must adhere to diplomatic procedures to be legally recognized.

Türkiye is a signatory to the 1965 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters (“Hague Convention”), which streamlines diplomatic service methods between contracting states. Article 10 of the Hague Convention allows for direct service through post, service by judicial officers, or service by interested parties through judicial officers, officials, or other competent authorities of the recipient state – provided that the country where the recipient resides recognizes these methods.

This divergence in service methods can create enforcement risks, particularly when the service method used in a foreign jurisdiction does not align with Turkish legal requirements.

Türkiye has declared a reservation to Article 10 of the Hague Convention, explicitly requiring that all case documents be served through diplomatic channels via the Turkish Ministry of Justice. As a result, service methods used by foreign courts may face scrutiny in Turkish enforcement lawsuits, particularly in jurisdictions that permit service via private (ordinary) post or courier.

The Turkish Court of Appeal (Yargıtay) has consistently rejected enforcement requests for judgments issued by foreign courts such as German[1] and U.S.[2] courts, where service was conducted out via ordinary post. The Court has ruled that if a foreign judgment becomes final following service by post, subsequent service through diplomatic channels cannot retroactively correct the defect – especially if the defendant’s right to appeal has already lapsed[3].

In light of the above, to ensure enforceability in Türkiye, foreign courts must serve judicial documents through diplomatic channels in compliance with the Hague Convention.

Service upon the Process Agent

Another key consideration in enforcement proceedings is the validity of service upon process agents. A process agent, commonly used in international financial transactions, is a person or entity designated to accept service of notices, proceedings, or documents on behalf of a third party. Process agents are often appointed to facilitate notification procedures and streamline communication in cross-border transactions and potential disputes.

Turkish law does not explicitly address whether service upon a process agent satisfies proper service requirements in enforcement lawsuits, and case law on this issue remains limited. However, in a 2014 decision[4], the Turkish Court of Appeal suggested that service upon a process agent could be deemed valid, provided that the agent is duly authorised to receive court documents. The Court also noted that Turkish law includes similar mechanisms, such as liaison offices for entities that do not have a subsidiary or branch in Türkiye.

In late 2021, the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi) addressed this issue in the context of an English court decision[5], where service had been effected upon a process agent in London. The Court ruled that service on the process agent was valid and did not violate the defendant’s right to defence. The decision was subsequently upheld by the Turkish Court of Appeal in 2023[6].

Although case law remains scarce, the Turkish Court of Appeal has, in its existing decisions, affirmed that service upon a duly authorised process agent does not constitute a barrier to enforcement in Türkiye.

Mitigating Enforcement Risks in Türkiye

Anticipating potential enforcement risks before initiating foreign proceedings is crucial for any claimant seeking to enforce a judgment in Türkiye.

Due to Türkiye’s reservation to Article 10 of the Hague Convention, enforcement of a foreign court judgment may be challenged based on the service method, even if the foreign court’s domestic law allows such service. Any method of service that bypasses the officially authorised channels of the states – such as service via private courier or ordinary post – may lead to the dismissal of the enforcement request.

If enforcement is dismissed due to improper service, the consequences may be irreversible. Given res judicata effect, the claimant may be barred from reinitiating the enforcement process to correct the service deficiency, potentially creating a deadlock that prevents enforcement altogether.

To mitigate this risk, claimants should ensure that service is carried out in strict compliance with Türkiye’s legal requirements, particularly through diplomatic channels, to avoid enforcement hurdles.

[1] 11^th Civil Chamber, 2020/1533 E. 2020/5095 K., 17.11.2020; 2015/13931 E. 2016/1211 K., 10.02.2016

[2] 11^th Civil Chamber, 2019/2768 E. 2020/876 K., 03.02.2020; 2016/13566 E. 2018/4748 K., 25.06.2018

[3] 11^th Civil Chamber, 2014/6112 E. 2015/4077 K., 24.03.2015

[4] 11^th Civil Chamber, 2013/12537 E. 2014/14482 K., 25.09.2014

[5] Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal 12^th Civil Chamber, 2019/820 E. 2021/1739 K., 25.11.2021

[6] 11^th Civil Chamber, 2022/1024 E. 2023/4355 K., 11.07.2023