Conflicting Judgments as a Defence to Enforcement in Turkiye

If a Turkish court has already issued a final judgment on the same dispute between the same parties, or if another judgment on the same matter has already been recognised or enforced in Türkiye, this can defeat an application to enforce a later or conflicting foreign judgment. The objection is examined as part of the public policy and general procedural conditions applied to tenfiz cases.

Cross-border litigation sometimes results in parallel proceedings in more than one country over the same or closely related dispute. When this happens, a Turkish court asked to enforce a foreign judgment must consider whether doing so would conflict with a decision already reached by a Turkish court, or with another foreign judgment already given effect in Türkiye, since allowing two irreconcilable outcomes to stand side by side would undermine legal certainty.

Article 54 of Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (MOHUK) requires, among other conditions, that enforcement not be contrary to Turkish public policy, a standard that has been applied to situations involving conflicting judgments on the same dispute. Turkish courts also apply general procedural principles concerning res judicata and lis pendens drawn from Turkish civil procedure when addressing parallel or overlapping proceedings.

Where a Turkish court has already rendered a final judgment on the identical dispute, Turkish courts have treated a later application to enforce a conflicting foreign judgment on the same matter as incompatible with the existing domestic decision. Similarly, where an earlier foreign judgment on the same dispute has already been recognised or enforced in Türkiye, a later, inconsistent foreign judgment on that same matter faces a serious obstacle to enforcement.

There is discussion in legal writing about how identical the parties and the cause of action must be before a conflicting judgment objection can succeed, and about how a Turkish court should treat a foreign judgment that conflicts with a pending, rather than a final, domestic case. The interaction between this objection and ordinary lis pendens principles, which usually apply to prevent parallel proceedings on the same matter, is not always straightforward when the competing proceedings are in different countries.

A party relying on this objection should identify precisely which prior judgment or proceeding it relies on, establish that the parties and the subject matter are genuinely the same, and demonstrate that the prior judgment is final or, at minimum, that recognition of the later, conflicting judgment would produce an irreconcilable outcome in Türkiye.

The objection is raised within the tenfiz proceedings themselves, subject to the general procedural deadlines for filing a defence, and parties should act promptly once aware of a competing judgment or proceeding to avoid weakening their position through delay.

The competent Turkish civil court of first instance hearing the tenfiz action examines whether a conflicting judgment exists and whether it defeats the enforcement application, as part of its overall review of the statutory conditions.

Supporting material should include the earlier Turkish or foreign judgment relied upon, evidence that it is final and, where applicable, already recognised or enforced in Türkiye, and a clear comparison showing the overlap in parties and subject matter between the two proceedings.

Parties sometimes assume that any related litigation abroad automatically blocks enforcement of a later foreign judgment, without carefully establishing that the parties and claims genuinely coincide. Others overlook the risk entirely, failing to check for parallel proceedings before pursuing enforcement, only to encounter the objection unexpectedly at a later stage. It is also a mistake to assume that a merely pending, non-final domestic case has the same effect as an existing final judgment.

Before initiating or defending a tenfiz action, it is worth conducting a careful review of any related proceedings, in Türkiye or elsewhere, that touch on the same dispute. Identifying a potential conflict early allows the matter to be addressed proactively, rather than as an unexpected obstacle late in the case.