Enforcing UK High Court Judgments in Turkey: 2026 Commercial Guide

Securing a money judgment in the English High Court of Justice — whether in the Commercial Court, the Chancery Division or the King's Bench Division — is often only half the task. When the judgment debtor holds real estate, bank accounts or company shares in Türkiye, the creditor must pass through the Turkish private international law framework before the English judgment can be enforced through Turkish enforcement proceedings (icra takibi).

Under Article 50 of the Turkish Code on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (MÖHUK, Law No. 5718), a foreign judgment in a civil matter that is final under the law of the issuing state can be executed in Türkiye only after a competent Turkish court has granted an enforcement decision. The creditor therefore brings a separate enforcement action, known as a tenfiz davası, before the Turkish court of first instance (asliye mahkemesi) designated by Article 51. This guide sets out the statutory conditions, the documents and the procedure, from the English proceedings through to execution in Türkiye.

Key Takeaways: Enforcing UK High Court Orders in Turkey

• Reciprocity Must Be Evidenced, Not Assumed: MÖHUK Article 54(1)(a) accepts three bases: a reciprocal agreement between Türkiye and the issuing state, or a statutory provision or de facto practice in that state allowing Turkish judgments to be enforced. Whether one of them exists for England & Wales is decided by the Turkish court on the evidence in each case, so the applicant should be ready to show how English courts treat Turkish money judgments.
• The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention Does Not Bridge the Gap: The Convention entered into force for the United Kingdom on 1 July 2025, but Türkiye does not appear in the HCCH status table (checked September 2026). Enforcement in Türkiye therefore runs through MÖHUK.
• Brexit Does Not Change the Turkish Test: Türkiye is not an EU Member State, so the EU Brussels I Recast Regulation never governed the enforcement of UK judgments in Türkiye. The Turkish court applies MÖHUK Articles 50 to 59 in the same way before and after Brexit.
• No Re-Hearing of the Merits: Under Article 55(2) of MÖHUK, the debtor may object only that the statutory enforcement conditions are not met, that the judgment has been fully or partly satisfied, or that an obstacle to its execution has arisen.
• Finality and Certified Documents: Only judgments that are final under English law qualify (Article 50). Article 53 calls for a certified copy of the judgment and a certified document showing finality, each with a certified Turkish translation; as the UK and Türkiye are both parties to the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention, English public documents are certified by apostille.
• Court Fees: Article 4 of the Fees Law No. 492 charges tenfiz actions under Tariff No. 1 according to the value, type and nature of what the foreign judgment awarded. For a money judgment this points to the proportional judgment fee in Tariff No. 1, currently 68.31 per thousand (6.831%) of the amount; under Article 28(a), one quarter is paid on filing and the balance within one month of service of the decision.

The Statutory Architecture: MÖHUK Law No. 5718

The enforcement and recognition of foreign court judgments in Türkiye is governed by Articles 50 to 59 of the Turkish Code on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (Law No. 5718 (MÖHUK)), in Part Two, Chapter Two of the Code; Articles 60 to 63 of the same chapter deal with foreign arbitral awards. Article 1(2) reserves the provisions of international conventions to which Türkiye is a party. Beyond the threshold in Article 50 (a judgment in a civil matter that is final under the law of the issuing state), Article 54(1) lists four conditions that the court examines before granting enforcement:

1. Reciprocity (MÖHUK Article 54/1-a)

Article 54(1)(a) requires “an agreement based on reciprocity between the Republic of Türkiye and the state where the judgment was given, or a provision of law or de facto practice in that state enabling the enforcement of judgments given by Turkish courts” (our translation of the Turkish text). The statute therefore offers three alternative bases: (i) an agreement based on reciprocity, (ii) a provision of law in the foreign state, or (iii) de facto practice in the foreign state.

For England & Wales, whether one of these bases exists is decided by the Turkish court on the evidence in each case, and this guide does not treat the point as settled. The applicant should be ready to evidence how English courts treat Turkish money judgments, for example with a reasoned legal opinion on English law and practice, accompanied by a certified Turkish translation, filed with the enforcement petition.

Reciprocity is a condition of enforcement only. Under Article 58(1), where a foreign judgment is relied on in Türkiye as conclusive evidence or as res judicata (recognition), sub-paragraph (a) of Article 54(1) does not apply.

2. Absence of Turkish Exclusive Jurisdiction (MÖHUK Article 54/1-b)

The judgment must not have been given on a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts. In addition, if the defendant objects, the judgment must not have been given by the court of a state that assumed jurisdiction although it had no real connection with the subject matter of the dispute or with the parties.

A frequently cited example of exclusive jurisdiction is a dispute over rights in rem in Turkish immovable property: under Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), the court where the property is located has exclusive (kesin) jurisdiction over such disputes. A High Court judgment ordering payment of a debt or damages under a commercial contract, loan agreement, guarantee or charter party does not concern rights in rem in Turkish land. Where the English court's jurisdiction rested on a choice-of-court clause or on the defendant's activities in England, keep the evidence of that connection, because the second limb of Article 54(1)(b) turns on it if the debtor objects.

3. Compatibility with Turkish Public Policy (MÖHUK Article 54/1-c)

Article 54(1)(c) requires that the judgment is not manifestly (açıkça) contrary to Turkish public policy (kamu düzeni). The word “manifestly” matters: in Turkish doctrine, a foreign judgment is not refused merely because Turkish substantive law would have reached a different result, and the objection is reserved for outcomes that conflict with the fundamental values of the Turkish legal order. MÖHUK uses the same “manifestly contrary” standard in Article 5, where it limits the application of foreign law.

In practice, the enforcement petition should explain each component of the sum awarded — principal, contractual or statutory interest, and costs — so that the Turkish court can see how the figures were reached and what the English court decided on each of them.

4. Compliance with Due Process & Defense Rights (MÖHUK Article 54/1-ç)

Under Article 54(1)(ç), enforcement is refused if the person against whom it is sought was not duly summoned before the English court under English law, was not represented there, or had judgment given against them in their absence or by default contrary to that law — and that person objects to enforcement before the Turkish court on one of these grounds. The condition is therefore raised by the debtor's objection, and it is where the service history of the English proceedings comes under scrutiny.

UK claimants who served a defendant resident in Türkiye informally, for example by email or courier, give the debtor a ground to invoke under this provision. Both states are parties to the 1965 Hague Service Convention (in force for the UK since 10 February 1969 and for Türkiye since 28 April 1972, according to the HCCH status table), and the status table records declarations or reservations by Türkiye concerning Articles 8, 10, 15 and 16. Article 10 of the Convention covers service by postal channels and direct service through judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the state of destination, so check Türkiye's declarations before relying on any route other than a request through its Central Authority.

Procedural Roadmap: From London High Court to Turkish Bailiff

Which chamber of first instance hears the case depends on the nature of the dispute. Article 51(1) of MÖHUK assigns tenfiz cases to the courts of first instance (asliye mahkemesi), and under Article 5(1) of the Turkish Commercial Code the commercial court of first instance (asliye ticaret mahkemesi) hears all commercial cases. The court may grant enforcement in full or in part, or refuse it (Article 56).

Can You Enforce an English Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) in Turkey?

A frequent question from UK litigators is whether an interim freezing injunction (a Mareva or worldwide freezing order) granted by the High Court can be enforced against Turkish assets before the English trial ends.

Article 50 of MÖHUK makes the tenfiz route available for judgments in civil matters that are final (kesinleşmiş) under the law of the issuing state. An interim freezing order made before trial is not a final judgment, so it does not fit that route. To secure Turkish bank accounts, receivables or other assets while the London proceedings continue, the creditor applies to the Turkish courts for provisional measures of their own: a precautionary attachment (ihtiyati haciz) under Articles 257 and following of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law (İİK, Law No. 2004), or an interim injunction (ihtiyati tedbir) under Articles 389 and following of the HMK.

Under İİK Article 257, a precautionary attachment is available for a money debt that is due and not secured by a pledge; for a debt not yet due, only in the cases listed in that article. Under Article 258, the creditor must produce evidence that satisfies the court of the claim and, where relevant, of the grounds for attachment. The deadlines that follow are short: under Article 261 the creditor must ask the enforcement office to carry out the order within ten days of the order, failing which it lapses, and under Article 264 a creditor who obtained the attachment before suing or starting enforcement proceedings must file a lawsuit or an enforcement request within seven days of the attachment being carried out (or, if it was carried out in the creditor's absence, of service of the attachment report). For an interim injunction, HMK Article 392(1) requires the applicant to provide security for the loss the other side and third parties may suffer if the measure proves unjustified, unless the court, in the cases listed there and giving express reasons, dispenses with it. Plan the Turkish filings before applying.

Strategic Guidance for UK Claimants & Solicitors

To reduce the grounds on which a Turkish debtor can resist enforcement, consider these points from the first day of the London proceedings:

1. Serve Through Hague Service Convention Channels: If the defendant is domiciled or resident in Türkiye, send a request for service to the Central Authority that Türkiye has designated under Article 2 of the Convention, and check Türkiye's declarations before relying on another method. Service by email or other informal means alone leaves room for an objection under MÖHUK Art. 54(1)(ç).
2. Document Finality: Ask the English court for a document confirming that the judgment is final, because Article 53(1)(b) requires a duly certified document showing finality, with a certified translation.
3. Record the Jurisdictional Connection: Keep the jurisdiction clause or other material showing why the English court had jurisdiction; it answers an objection under the second limb of Article 54(1)(b).
4. Prepare the Reciprocity Evidence Early: Commission the material on English law and practice before filing, so that the Article 54(1)(a) condition is addressed in the petition itself.
5. Review Assets Before Filing: Collect the information available on the debtor's assets in Türkiye — for example company records published in the Turkish Trade Registry Gazette and any known real estate or bank relationships — so that an application for precautionary attachment can be made with its supporting evidence.

Common Questions About Enforcing UK High Court Judgments in Turkey

Can an English High Court judgment be enforced directly in Turkey?

No. Under MÖHUK Article 50, a foreign civil judgment that is final under the law of the issuing state can be executed in Türkiye only after the competent Turkish court grants an enforcement decision (tenfiz). Once enforcement is granted, the judgment is executed like a Turkish judgment (Article 57(1)); an appeal (temyiz) against the decision suspends execution (Article 57(2)).

Does Brexit affect the enforcement of UK judgments in Turkey?

Brexit does not change the Turkish legal test. Because Türkiye is not an EU Member State, the Brussels I Recast Regulation never applied to enforcement of UK judgments there. Both before and after Brexit, the Turkish court applies MÖHUK Articles 50 to 59, including the reciprocity condition in Article 54(1)(a), which it assesses on the evidence filed in each case.

What documents are required from the English High Court?

Article 53 of MÖHUK lists two documents: (1) the original judgment duly certified by the authorities of the issuing state, or a copy certified by the court that gave it, and (2) a duly certified document showing that the judgment is final. Each must be filed with a certified Turkish translation. Because the UK and Türkiye are both parties to the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention, English public documents are certified for use in Türkiye by apostille rather than consular legalisation.

Will the Turkish judge review the merits of the UK High Court case?

No re-hearing of the merits is provided for. Article 55(2) of MÖHUK lets the debtor object only on the grounds that the enforcement conditions are not met, that the judgment has been fully or partly performed, or that an obstacle to its performance has arisen; Turkish doctrine describes this as the prohibition of révision au fond. The public-policy condition in Article 54(1)(c) is limited to judgments manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy.

Which Turkish court hears the enforcement application?

Article 51 of MÖHUK gives jurisdiction to the court of first instance (asliye mahkemesi). The application is filed where the debtor is domiciled in Türkiye; if there is no domicile, where the debtor resides; and if there is neither, before the courts of Ankara, Istanbul or Izmir.

Can an English worldwide freezing order be enforced in Turkey?

Not through tenfiz. MÖHUK Article 50 covers judgments that are final under the law of the issuing state, and an interim freezing order is not final. To secure assets in Türkiye while the English case continues, the creditor applies to a Turkish court for a precautionary attachment under the Execution and Bankruptcy Law (Article 257 and following) or an interim injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure (Article 389 and following).

Does the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention apply between the UK and Turkey?

Not at present. The UK has been a party since 1 July 2025, but Türkiye does not appear in the HCCH status table for the Convention (checked September 2026). A UK judgment is therefore enforced in Türkiye under MÖHUK, not under the Convention.

This guide is general information on Turkish law, not legal advice on your own matter. Rules and practice change; check the position before you act.