Appeal to the Court of Cassation

Temyiz lies against decisions of the Regional Court of Appeal, not directly against first-instance judgments, and only where the statutory criteria are met. Article 362 of the Code of Civil Procedure lists the decisions that cannot be appealed to the Court of Cassation, using a monetary threshold and the type of case as criteria. A tenfiz decision on a foreign judgment is subject to the ordinary appellate remedies under Article 55 of Law No. 5718 and may reach the Court of Cassation where those conditions are met.

The appeal must be lodged within the limited period set by the Code of Civil Procedure, which runs from notification of the reasoned decision of the Regional Court of Appeal, not from the hearing date or an informal announcement of the result. Because the period is bounded, the notification record establishing when it began to run is a core part of the appeal file. Tracking the notification date carefully is therefore essential: a missed deadline leaves the istinaf decision final and closes the route to the Court of Cassation.

In a tenfiz case the general position is that, until the decision granting enforcement of the foreign judgment becomes final, it does not produce the effects needed to proceed against assets in Türkiye, so a timely appeal typically keeps that outcome pending. Parties sometimes assume enforcement can start immediately after the first-instance ruling, which is a recurring misunderstanding. Both the claimant and the debtor should therefore plan from the outset for the realistic total duration of the process, including possible istinaf and temyiz stages, rather than treating the first hearing as the final word.

No. The Court of Cassation reviews legality only and does not reassess facts, and the appellate courts generally limit new evidence, so the complete evidentiary case should be put at first instance wherever possible. In a tenfiz appeal the review focuses on whether the statutory conditions in Article 54 of Law No. 5718, such as reciprocity, jurisdiction, public policy and due process, were correctly applied, not on whether the foreign court decided the underlying dispute correctly. A petition built on generalised objections to the merits will not be entertained; it must identify specific legal errors.