Enforcing Foreign Interim Measures and Injunctions in Turkiye

A foreign court's interim or protective order, such as a freezing injunction or a provisional attachment, generally cannot be enforced in Turkiye through the ordinary tenfiz mechanism, because that mechanism is designed for final and binding judgments. A party seeking equivalent protection in Turkiye usually needs to apply directly to a Turkish court for an interim measure under Turkish procedural law, based on the same underlying dispute.

Interim measures are, by nature, provisional and subject to change or reversal as a case progresses; they are not the final determination of rights that the tenfiz framework contemplates. This distinction matters for foreign parties who assume that an injunction obtained abroad can simply be carried over into Türkiye for direct execution against Turkish assets.

Article 50 of Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (MOHUK) defines the category of foreign decisions subject to enforcement by reference to final and binding civil judgments. Interim or protective orders typically fall outside this definition because they lack the finality required. Separately, Articles 389 to 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 allow a party with a pending or prospective claim connected to Türkiye to apply for an interim measure, such as provisional attachment or an injunction, directly before a Turkish court, independent of any foreign order.

In practice, Turkish courts asked to enforce a foreign interim order through tenfiz proceedings have generally declined to do so on the basis that the order is not final. Parties who need urgent protection of assets located in Türkiye instead apply for a domestic interim measure, presenting the underlying dispute and the foreign proceedings as context and supporting evidence for the necessity and urgency of the Turkish measure.

There is discussion in legal literature about whether certain foreign orders that are final in substance, even if procedurally labelled "interim" in the foreign jurisdiction, might still qualify for enforcement if their content genuinely resolves a discrete issue conclusively. This remains a fact-specific and debated area, and creditors should not assume a favourable characterisation without careful analysis of both the foreign order's substance and Turkish practice.

A party seeking protection in Türkiye alongside foreign interim relief should evaluate whether to pursue a stand-alone Turkish interim measure application, supported by evidence of urgency, risk of loss of assets, and a credible underlying claim, rather than relying on the foreign order to be given automatic effect.

Applications for interim measures under Turkish procedural law require urgency to be demonstrated and are typically decided quickly, but the applicant must also pursue or have already commenced the underlying substantive proceedings within the applicable timeframes to preserve the effect of the measure obtained.

The Turkish court with jurisdiction over the location of the assets, or over the substantive dispute connected to Türkiye, hears applications for domestic interim measures. Where a separate tenfiz action is later brought for the final foreign judgment, that action proceeds before the competent civil court of first instance.

Applicants should prepare evidence of the underlying claim, documentation of the foreign proceedings and any order already obtained, information identifying the assets located in Türkiye, and material demonstrating the urgency and risk that justify an interim measure under Turkish law.

A common mistake is assuming that a foreign freezing order automatically binds Turkish banks or registries; it does not, without a corresponding Turkish measure. Another mistake is delaying the Turkish application while pursuing the foreign proceedings, which can allow assets to be dissipated in the meantime. Parties also sometimes confuse enforcement of a final judgment with protection of assets pending that judgment, which are governed by different legal mechanisms in Türkiye.

Foreign parties who anticipate needing protection over assets in Türkiye should not wait for a foreign injunction to be issued before considering a parallel Turkish application. Acting early, with a clear account of the underlying dispute and the risk to assets, gives a much stronger basis for securing timely protection under Turkish law.