Costs and Duration of Tenfiz Proceedings in Turkiye

A tenfiz action for enforcement of a foreign judgment in Turkiye follows ordinary civil procedure and does not have a fixed statutory duration; realistic timelines depend on whether the debtor contests the action, the completeness of the claimant's documentation, and the caseload of the competent court. Costs are governed by the general Turkish civil procedure fee and expense framework, which is updated periodically and should be confirmed at the time of filing.

Foreign creditors evaluating whether tenfiz is worthwhile need a realistic understanding of what the process involves procedurally, rather than an assumption that a foreign judgment can be converted into an enforceable Turkish title within a fixed number of weeks. Duration and cost planning should be built into the overall recovery strategy from the outset.

Articles 50 to 57 of Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (MOHUK) set out the substantive conditions and procedural route for enforcement, while the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 governs the general civil litigation process that a tenfiz action follows, including filing, service on the defendant, exchange of submissions, hearings and issuance of a reasoned decision. Court fees and related expenses in Turkish civil litigation are set under separate fee schedules that are updated annually, so no fixed figure should be treated as current without verification at the time of filing.

Where the debtor is cooperative or does not appear to contest the action, and the claimant's file is complete from the outset, a tenfiz case tends to progress more quickly through the standard hearing schedule. Where the debtor raises objections, particularly around reciprocity, jurisdiction, public policy or service, the case naturally requires more hearings, submissions and, at times, expert input, extending the overall timeline. Court workload and regional variation also affect scheduling.

There is ongoing discussion about whether tenfiz proceedings should be subject to an expedited procedural track given their limited scope of review, since the court does not re-examine the merits of the foreign judgment. Proponents of reform argue that a summary procedure would better reflect the narrow nature of the inquiry, while others note that the range of possible objections under Article 54 justifies retaining the standard civil procedure safeguards.

Claimants can meaningfully influence duration by ensuring that the foreign judgment, proof of finality, certified translations, and reciprocity evidence are complete and properly prepared before filing, rather than assembling this material piecemeal once the case is underway. A well-prepared file reduces the number of procedural exchanges needed.

General statute of limitations rules applicable to the underlying claim govern how long after the foreign judgment becomes final an enforcement action can be brought, and once filed, the case proceeds according to the standard civil procedure deadlines for responses, objections and appeals.

The tenfiz action is filed before the competent Turkish civil court of first instance, generally determined by the debtor's domicile or registered seat, or another venue connected to the dispute or the assets involved.

A complete file includes the final foreign judgment, proof of its finality under the law of the rendering state, a certified translation, evidence of reciprocity, and any documentation needed to address anticipated objections relating to service, jurisdiction or public policy.

Claimants sometimes underestimate how much an incomplete file slows the process, filing before certified translations or finality certificates are ready. Others assume that because the Turkish court does not review the merits, the case will necessarily be short, overlooking that procedural objections can still generate substantial litigation. Budgeting only for the filing stage, without contingency for a contested case going through appeal, is another common planning error.

Foreign creditors should treat the tenfiz process as a structured litigation matter rather than an administrative formality, budgeting realistically for both time and cost, and preparing the strongest possible file at the outset to minimise avoidable delay.