This representative matter concerns the recognition and enforcement in Turkey of a final Belgian court judgment arising from a cross-border monetary claim. It illustrates how Turkish courts apply the documentary and substantive requirements of Law No. 5718 without reconsidering the merits of the underlying dispute.
Introduction
In a recent decision, the 33rd Civil Court of First Instance of Ankara [Ankara 33. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi in Turkish] granted full recognition and enforcement of a final foreign court judgment concerning a cross-border monetary claim. Pi Legal Consultancy attorneys drafted the petition and successfully represented the applicant during judicial proceedings.
This article provides a concise account of the factual background to the dispute and examines the legal reasoning set out in the court’s final reasoned judgment. Methodologically, the analysis works backwards from the operative part of the judgment to the court’s legal assessment and the underlying factual circumstances. This outcome-focused approach is intended to identify the decisive considerations supporting recognition and enforcement and to evaluate their broader practical significance under Turkish private international law.
Factual Background of the Case
The applicant as an international public organization and defendant as a Türkiye-based Non-Governmental Organisation [NGO] entered into a grant agreement for the implementation of a public-interest project in 2012. Despite that project grants were paid by the applicant for the execution of the Project, the applicant, after having reports, reached out a conclusion that the funds had not been used in accordance with the grant agreement.
In 2023, the foreign court ordered the NGO concerned to repay the grant funds, together with default interest and legal costs. In short, the dispute concerned arose from the alleged misuse of grant funds and the Recipient’s failure to repay the amounts disbursed under the grant agreement. Pi Legal Consultancy attorneys made an application for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign court judgment by Turkish courts in accordance with the Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law.
Admissibility Stage of the Case
At the preliminary examination of the present case, the Turkish Court evaluated the conditions, as set forth in Article 53 of the Turkish International Private and Procedural Law Act No. 5718, entitled “Documents to Be Attached to the Application”, provides as follows:
“(1) The following documents shall be attached to an application for enforcement:
(a) The original of the foreign court judgment, duly authenticated by the competent authorities of the country in which it was rendered, or a copy certified by the court that rendered the judgment, together with a certified translation thereof.
(b) A written instrument or document, duly authenticated by the competent authorities of that country, confirming that the judgment has become final, together with a certified translation thereof.”
At the documentary admissibility stage, the Turkish Court examined whether the foreign judgment, the certificate confirming its finality, the relevant authentication and apostille formalities, and their certified Turkish translations had been duly submitted. Having found that the requirements of Article 53 had been satisfied, the Court proceeded to examine the merits of the recognition and enforcement application, particularly whether the substantive enforcement conditions laid down in Article 54 of Law No. 5718 were met.
Examination of the Merits by the Turkish Court
For the examination of the merits, the Court proceeded to consider whether the substantive statutory conditions for recognition and enforcement were satisfied. This examination was conducted under Articles 54, 58 and 59 of the Turkish International Private and Procedural Law Act No. 5718.
Checking Compliance and Necessary Conditions for Enforcement
Article 54 provides as follows:
“(1) The competent court shall grant enforcement subject to the following conditions:
(a) There must be an agreement based on reciprocity between the Republic of Türkiye and the state in which the judgment was rendered, a provision of law in that state permitting the enforcement of judgments rendered by Turkish courts, or an established de facto practice allowing such enforcement.
(b) The judgment must have been rendered on a matter that does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts. Where the defendant raises an objection, the judgment must not have been rendered by a foreign court that assumed jurisdiction despite the absence of any genuine connection between the dispute or the parties and that state.
(c) The judgment must not be manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy.
(ç) The person against whom enforcement is sought must have been duly summoned before, or represented in, the foreign court in accordance with the law of that state. The judgment must not have been rendered in that person’s absence in breach of the applicable foreign procedural rules, provided that the person concerned raises an objection before the Turkish court on one of these grounds.”
In the present case, the Court concluded that the principle of reciprocity existed between Türkiye and the state of origin; that the dispute did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts; that enforcement of the judgment would not be manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy; and that the respondent had been duly represented and afforded the opportunity to present its case in the foreign proceedings.
The Application of Revision au Fond
By refraining from reopening the underlying dispute, the Court implicitly accepted and applied the prohibition of révision au fond (esastan inceleme yasağı under Turkish law). It is important to note in this context that, under the settled case law of the Turkish Court of Cassation, objections concerning the factual findings, assessment of evidence or substantive legal conclusions underlying a foreign judgment or arbitral award cannot be reconsidered in recognition and enforcement proceedings. The Turkish judicial authorities examination should be limited to determining whether the statutory conditions for recognition and enforcement have been satisfied and may not review whether the foreign court correctly decided the underlying dispute. See, for example, the decisions of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 2 June 2003 (Case No. 2002/13265, Decision No. 2003/5759) and 16 January 2019 (Case No. 2018/4751, Decision No. 2019/390).
Res Judicata and Conclusive Evidential Effect
By expressly relying on Article 59, the Turkish Court, in the present case, acknowledged that, once recognised, the foreign judgment must be accorded res judicata and conclusive evidential effect [kesin hüküm ve kesin delil etkisi in Turkish ] in Türkiye from the date on which it became final in the country of origin. This conclusion also confirms that the Turkish Court was not authorized to reopen the underlying dispute or reconsider matters already conclusively determined by the foreign court in terms of merits of the case and after the evaluation of Turkish Court on whether the decision concerned meets main criteria, it will be recognized as being res judicata and conclusive evidential effect. The Court’s reliance on Article 59 therefore further reflects its implicit acceptance and application of the prohibition of révision au fond.
The Court further addressed Article 58 providing as follows:
(1) A foreign court judgment may be accepted as conclusive evidence or as having the force of res judicata only if the court determines that the judgment satisfies the conditions required for enforcement. In recognition proceedings, the reciprocity condition set out in Article 54(1)(a) shall not apply.
(2) The recognition of foreign decisions rendered in non-contentious proceedings shall be subject to the same provision.
(3) The same procedure shall apply where an administrative act is to be carried out in Türkiye on the basis of a foreign court judgment.”
Having established that the relevant statutory conditions were satisfied, the Court recognised the foreign judgment and granted it the legal effects of conclusive evidence and res judicata in Türkiye. Since enforcement was also requested and all the conditions under Article 54 were fulfilled, the Court further declared the operative provisions of the judgment enforceable in Türkiye.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, the available article has focused on offering detailed guidance for exequatur proceedings in Türkiye concerning a Belgian Court Judgment in the light of a reasoned judgment by one of Turkish First Instance Courts.
The successful applicant was represented by Pi Legal Consultancy attorneys in the Turkish proceedings. The Court concluded that the requirements under Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law had been satisfied, including the finality of the foreign judgment, reciprocity, the absence of exclusive Turkish jurisdiction, compatibility with Turkish public policy and respect for the respondent’s right to be heard.
As a result, the foreign judgment was recognised and declared fully enforceable in Türkiye without any reconsideration of the merits of the underlying dispute.It should be underlined here that the examination of preliminary conditions, the application of exequator proceedings benchmarks including the révision au fond and res judicata and conclusive evidential effect Turkish Court analysis are significant parts of Turkish judicial proceedings.
