Public Policy and Defence Rights in Turkish Enforcement Cases

A Turkish court may refuse recognition or enforcement if the foreign judgment clearly violates Turkish public order or if the defendant was not properly given the opportunity to defend the foreign proceedings. These objections are serious, but they are not an invitation to retry the case.

Public policy is the basic legal and procedural order that Turkish law will not compromise when giving effect to a foreign judgment. Defence rights concern proper notice, representation and the ability to participate in the foreign proceedings.

Law No. 5718 includes public order and defence-right safeguards among the conditions for enforcement. The Constitution, Civil Procedure Code and general fair-trial principles influence how these safeguards are understood in practice.

Courts distinguish between disagreement with the foreign court's reasoning and a genuine violation of Turkish public order. Appellate practice is generally cautious: not every error abroad is enough. Service, default judgments and lack of defence opportunity are more concrete areas of challenge. This section deliberately avoids invented case numbers. Where a case-specific filing relies on precedent, the relevant Court of Cassation, regional appellate court or Constitutional Court materials should be checked against the current file and date of publication.

The debate is how narrow public policy should be. A broad approach would undermine the usefulness of foreign judgments. A narrow approach protects international circulation of judgments while reserving refusal for serious violations.

A debtor raising public policy or defence-right objections must usually identify the specific violation. A creditor should be ready to show valid service, finality, participation or at least a lawful opportunity to participate.

These objections are raised within the Turkish enforcement proceedings according to procedural service and response periods. Creditors should not wait until hearing stage to gather service documents from the foreign jurisdiction.

The enforcement court evaluates these issues under Law No. 5718. Higher courts may review whether the statutory conditions were applied correctly.

Key evidence includes service certificates, proof of appearance, power of attorney in the foreign case, court minutes, default documentation, appeal records and finality documents.

Creditors with default judgments should be especially careful. The more the foreign file shows that the debtor was properly notified and had a real chance to defend itself, the less room there is for a serious Turkish objection.

Common mistakes include assuming public policy is irrelevant, ignoring service records, filing a judgment without explaining default proceedings and treating debtor participation as obvious without proof.

Can the debtor argue the foreign court was wrong?

Normally the merits are not retried. The objection must fit Turkish enforcement grounds.

Are default judgments enforceable?

They may be, but valid service and defence opportunity become crucial.

Is public policy often enough by itself?

It depends on the facts. It is a serious but exceptional ground, not a general appeal.

The creditor's best answer to public-policy and defence objections is preparation. The Turkish filing should make the foreign procedure look transparent, final and procedurally fair.

The correct legal route in these matters must be determined by reference to the date of the events, the legal position of the parties, the available evidence and the applicable statutory deadlines. Missing a deadline, applying to the wrong authority or presenting evidence in the wrong procedural form may cause loss of rights. You may contact Günser + Partners for an assessment of your matter under current Turkish legislation and court practice.