The Reciprocity Requirement in Enforcing Foreign Judgments in Türkiye

A foreign court judgment can be enforced in Türkiye only if one of three forms of reciprocity exists between Türkiye and the state that rendered the judgment: a treaty providing for mutual enforcement, a de facto practice of that state enforcing Turkish judgments, or a statutory provision in that state's law allowing enforcement of Turkish judgments. Without one of these, the Turkish court dismisses the tenfiz (enforcement) action regardless of the merits of the underlying judgment.

Reciprocity is a threshold condition, not a discretionary factor. It exists to protect the interests of parties who might otherwise be exposed to enforcement obligations that are not returned in kind by the other state. For a creditor holding a foreign judgment against a debtor with assets in Türkiye, establishing reciprocity is often the first and most decisive hurdle before the substance of the case is ever discussed.

Article 54 of Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (MOHUK) lists reciprocity as one of the mandatory conditions for enforcement of a foreign judgment, alongside proper jurisdiction of the foreign court, compliance with public policy, and respect for the defendant's procedural rights. Reciprocity may be established through a bilateral or multilateral treaty to which Türkiye is a party, through evidence that courts of the foreign state in fact enforce Turkish judgments in practice, or through a provision in the foreign state's domestic legislation permitting enforcement of Turkish judgments under conditions similar to those in MOHUK.

Turkish courts examine reciprocity as a matter the claimant must plead and, where treaty-based reciprocity is not available, prove. Where no treaty exists, courts have accepted evidence of foreign statutory reciprocity or of an established de facto practice, generally relying on submissions supported by legal opinions, foreign legislation and, where available, examples of enforcement decisions from the foreign jurisdiction. The absence of any such showing leads to dismissal without examination of the judgment's merits.

Commentators disagree on how strictly de facto reciprocity should be interpreted, since proving that a foreign state's courts "in fact" enforce Turkish judgments can be difficult where no reported precedent exists. There is also debate about whether reciprocity should be assessed at the date the foreign judgment was rendered, the date enforcement is sought in Türkiye, or the date of the Turkish court's decision. Practitioners generally recommend gathering reciprocity evidence as early as possible, since it shapes the entire strategy of the case.

Before filing, the claimant should identify which category of reciprocity applies to the relevant foreign state and gather supporting material accordingly: the text of any applicable treaty, evidence of the foreign state's legislation on enforcement of Turkish judgments, or documented instances of enforcement practice. Filing without this groundwork risks a dismissal that does not reach the substance of the claim.

There is no separate limitation period for raising reciprocity itself; it is assessed whenever a tenfiz action is filed, and the general statute of limitations applicable to the underlying claim, together with any limitation period attached to the judgment itself, governs how long the claimant has to bring the enforcement action.

Tenfiz actions are brought before the competent Turkish civil court of first instance, determined by the debtor's domicile or, in commercial matters, other applicable venue rules. The court examines reciprocity as a preliminary matter alongside the other conditions set out in Article 54.

The claimant should submit the final and enforceable foreign judgment together with a certified translation, evidence that the judgment is final under the law of the rendering state, and material demonstrating the relevant form of reciprocity, such as the text of a treaty, foreign legislation, or documentation of enforcement practice, supported where useful by an opinion on foreign law.

A frequent mistake is assuming that reciprocity is presumed simply because Türkiye maintains diplomatic or trade relations with the foreign state; reciprocity in this legal sense must be specifically established. Another mistake is filing the action without first checking whether a relevant treaty exists, which can either simplify the case considerably or, if wrongly assumed, weaken it. Parties also sometimes conflate reciprocity with recognition of foreign law generally, which is a separate concept.

Reciprocity should be investigated before, not after, a tenfiz action is filed. A properly documented reciprocity file at the outset avoids delay and strengthens the claimant's position from the first hearing onward. Foreign creditors are advised to gather this evidence together with the judgment itself, as part of a single enforcement strategy.