For foreign court and arbitral awards to produce legal effects in Türkiye, various legal procedures must be followed. The Law No. 5718 on Act on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (PIPL) and the New York Convention are the primary legal instruments in this area. The growing commercial and legal relations between Türkiye and Russia have brought the recognition and enforcement of decisions rendered by Russian courts and arbitration institutions in Türkiye to the forefront. This study addresses the enforcement of Russian court judgments and Russian arbitral awards in Türkiye, examining critical issues such as the principle of reciprocity and the application of the New York Convention.
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Court Judgments in Türkiye
For foreign court judgments to gain legal validity and enforceability in Türkiye, a decision of enforcement must be obtained from Turkish courts under the PIPL (Art. 50). An enforcement decision allows the foreign court judgment to produce the same legal effects and become enforceable in Türkiye.
Terminological Confusion
Despite their name, the “Arbitrazh” courts in the Russian Federation are not private arbitral tribunals but state courts that handle commercial disputes. However, when the decisions of these courts are translated into Turkish as “arbitral tribunal decisions,” they are often mistakenly interpreted by Turkish courts as arbitral awards. This leads to misjudgments, as the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards are subject to different legal regimes. Therefore, it is recommended that the term “commercial court” be used in translations.
Enforcement Conditions under Article 54 of the PIPL Law: Evaluation in Terms of Russian Court Decisions
1. Reciprocity Condition (Art. 54/1-a)
In order for an enforcement decision to be
granted, there must be:
● an international agreement, (contractual reciprocity)
● a legal provision in that country allowing the enforcement of Turkish judgments, (Legal reciprocity)
● or a de facto practice of recognition and enforcement (De facto reciprocity)
There is no bilateral agreement on enforcement between Türkiye and Russia. However, under Article 244 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, foreign court judgments can be recognized. There are precedents indicating that Russia recognizes Turkish court judgments. The 8th Commercial Court of First Instance in Ankara has also accepted de facto reciprocity (2020/347 Merits No. – 2021/464 Decision No). Furthermore, the 19th Civil Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation, in its decision (Case No. 2018/579, Decision No. 2018/6742), acknowledged the recognition of a Russian court judgment in Türkiye. In addition, Turkish courts request updated information on reciprocity from the Ministry of Justice in each case.
2. Finalization (Art. 54/1-b)
The Russian court decision for which enforcement is sought must be finalized according to the law of the country where the judgment was rendered. This must be proven with an official document, and the stamp indicating that the decision is final must be accurately translated into Turkish.
3. Exclusive Jurisdiction (Art. 54/1-c)
The decision, subject to the enforcement request, must not concern a matter under the Turkish courts’ exclusive jurisdiction. Cases related to the rights in rem over real estate located in Türkiye, bankruptcy and labor disputes fall within this scope. Decisions rendered by Russian courts on such matters cannot be enforced in Türkiye.
4. Violation of Public Order (Art. 54/1-ç)
The decision must not be contrary to Turkish public order. In this context, a clear violation of the right to a fair trial and fundamental rights and freedoms is considered a violation of public order and constitutes an obstacle to enforcement. According to the decision of the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation on the Unification of Judgments dated 10.02.2012 (2010/1 File No, 2012/1 Decision No.), for example, the absence of reasoning in a decision does not constitute a violation of public order. It therefore does not, on its own, prevent enforcement.
Similarly, although the Russian practice of serving only the initial complaint document while requiring the parties to obtain the remaining documents differs from Turkish law, it does not, in itself, constitute a bar to enforcement provided that it does not constitute a clear violation of public order.
5. The Decision Must Relate to Civil Matters
Article 50/2 of the PIPL states: “An enforcement request may also be made for provisions concerning personal rights contained in criminal judgments of foreign courts.” According to this provision, in addition to foreign court decisions rendered as a result of civil proceedings, enforcement may also be sought for provisions related to personal rights contained in criminal judgments of foreign courts. Under this regulation, it is accepted that the plaintiff has a legal interest in claims concerning compensation-related personal rights.
6. Absence of Violation of the Right to Defense
According to Article 54/ç of the PIPL, the absence of a violation of the right to defense means that the person against whom enforcement is sought must have been duly summoned and represented before the court, by the procedural laws of the country where the decision was rendered, and that the judgment was not issued in their absence or violation of those procedures. If the person against whom enforcement is requested objects to the enforcement before the Turkish court because their right to defense was violated in any of these respects, an enforcement decision cannot be granted until it is determined that the foreign court has respected this right. Whether the right to defense has been violated is assessed according to the law of the country where the judgment was issued.
Person Entitled to Request Enforcement
According to Article 52 of the PIPL, anyone with a legal interest in the enforcement of the decision may request its enforcement. Therefore, it is not required for the person requesting recognition or enforcement to be a party to the foreign court decision. Likewise, it is unnecessary for the person making the request or the person against whom it is made to be a Turkish citizen.
Court Fees and Security Requirements
A person filing an enforcement lawsuit must pay a court fee of approximately 7% of the claim’s value. One-fourth of this fee is paid at the time of filing, while the remainder is collected from the party against whom the judgment is rendered at the end of the proceedings. If the enforcement is granted, the portion of the fee initially paid by the claimant will also be recovered from the opposing party. Additionally, foreign claimants are generally required to provide security (cautio judicatum solvi), which ranges from 15% to 40% of the judgment amount. However, under the 1954 Hague Convention, Türkiye and Russia are parties to which Russian natural and legal persons are exempt from this security requirement. This exemption based on reciprocity is also explicitly regulated under Article 48/2 of the PIPL.
Courts Authorized for Recognition and
Enforcement
The competent court for recognition and enforcement cases is the civil court of first instance. However, if the matter concerns family law, the competent court is the family court.
Competent Court
The jurisdiction and competence of the court which will decide on the recognition and enforcement decision is regulated under Article 51 of the PIPL. Accordingly, the enforcement decision may be requested from the court of the place of residence in Türkiye of the person against whom enforcement is sought, or, if there is no place of residence, from the place where the person is domiciled. If the person has neither a place of residence nor a domicile in Türkiye, the request may be made to one of the courts in Ankara, Istanbul, or Izmir.
Requests for Protective Measures
The enforcement creditor may request provisional measures or attachments with or before the enforcement lawsuit. When the courts grant such requests, they usually require a security deposit. The amount of the security ranges between 15% and 40% of the claim amount and can be provided in cash or the form of a bank guarantee. Apart from the fixed court fee, no additional costs apply.
Recognizability of Russian Court Judgments
Türkiye generally recognizes and enforces Russian court decisions. However, misinterpreting the term “arbitrazh court” as explained above may create difficulties in the recognition process. This issue should be carefully emphasized in the translation and application documents.
Recognition and enforcement are two distinct legal institutions. Recognition is sufficient, particularly for declaratory judgments that do not require enforceability, whereas enforcement is necessary for constitutive or performance-based judgments that carry enforceability. A decision that has been enforced is also deemed to have been recognized. Furthermore, while the condition of reciprocity is not required for recognition, it must be met for enforcement. Clearly stating these distinctions is important in order to prevent common conceptual misunderstandings in practice and potential procedural or substantive errors during the application process
Recognition of Turkish Judgments in Russia
Turkish court judgments are also recognized in Russia within the principle of the reciprocity framework. Articles 409–417 of the Russian Federation Civil Procedure Code and 16, 32, 74, 241–246, and 256 of the Arbitration Procedure Code regulate the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments. Turkish lawyers use precedents containing Turkish judgments recognized in Russia as evidence in Turkish courts. However, the lack of regular monitoring of these decisions by Turkish diplomatic missions may cause difficulties documenting reciprocity.
Recognition and Enforcement of Russian
Arbitral Awards in Türkiye
The primary reference point for the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards is the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, dated June 10, 1958. This convention was prepared to ensure that arbitral awards issued between member states are valid in other member states and to enhance the effectiveness of arbitration. Türkiye and Russia are parties to this convention; however, their modes of participation and practical applications differ.
Regarding Whether Türkiye and Russia Are Parties to the New York Convention
Türkiye became a party to the Convention with certain reservations and incorporated it into its domestic law by ratifying it in 1991. According to Türkiye’s reservation, the Convention applies only between countries that are parties to the Convention, thereby giving importance to the reciprocity requirement. Russia, on the other hand, has not become a direct party to the Convention. However, as the Soviet Union signed the Convention in 1958 and ratified it in 1960, Russia, as the successor state to the Soviet Union, is considered an indirect party to the Convention. Nevertheless, Russia has not taken additional steps to re-accede to the Convention.
The Principle of Reciprocity and Its Practical Effects
Although both countries are parties to the New York Convention, the principle of reciprocity poses a significant obstacle in practice. There is no direct bilateral agreement between the Turkish and Russian legal systems regarding the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. This situation complicates the recognition and enforcement process of Russian arbitral awards in Türkiye. However, in its decision dated 9 June 1999 (Case No. 1999/19-467, Decision No. 1999/489), the General Assembly of the Turkish Court of Cassation held that Russian arbitral awards may be enforced in Türkiye under the New York Convention.
Legal Infrastructure Deficiencies and New Initiatives
Some developments have taken place to address this deficiency. Indeed, on July 2, 2019, the Russian Federation signed the final text of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, adopted during the 22nd Diplomatic Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, to which Türkiye is also a party. The main objective of this Convention is to establish a predictable and effective regime for the cross-border recognition and enforcement of court judgments in the international arena. Although this effort aims to enhance predictability in enforcing international arbitral awards, Türkiye and Russia have not yet initiated specific implementation within this framework.
Practical Issues Encountered
Currently, the enforcement of Russian arbitral awards in Türkiye has a limited scope of effect for the following reasons:
•There is no international agreement between Türkiye and Russia governing the recognition of arbitral awards.
•Türkiye has ratified the New York Convention with a reciprocity condition.
•Russia’s indirect participation in the Convention raises certain doubts in practice.
•The discretion and interpretative differences of the courts make the enforcement process unpredictable.
Conclusion and Evaluation
For the developing commercial and economic relations between Türkiye and the Russian Federation to progress healthily and to ensure legal certainty between the parties, it is of great importance to establish a clear, reciprocal, and practically effective mechanism for recognizing and enforcing arbitral awards. Although the New York Convention currently provides a basic framework, it is necessary to more clearly define and strengthen the principle of reciprocity through bilateral agreements or international treaties to which both states are parties.
Even though the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation can be recognized and enforced in Türkiye if they meet the conditions stated in Article 54 of the PIPL, and Turkish court decisions are also de facto recognized in Russia, the main point to be emphasized is that the enforcement of arbitral awards has become much more prioritized and practically more important than the enforcement of court decisions.
This is because, in international trade, parties increasingly choose arbitration and turn to the arbitration institution as a neutral, fast, and flexible resolution method. In this context, securing the cross-border enforceability of arbitral awards has become a legal and economic necessity. Any uncertainty or difficulty experienced in enforcing arbitral awards directly undermines confidence in the arbitration institution. It creates a significant area of risk for both Turkish and Russian investors.
Therefore, establishing a more predictable, mutually trustworthy, and adequate infrastructure for recognizing and enforcing arbitral awards is a strategic necessity not only in the field of judiciary but also in terms of strengthening economic cooperation.
