Enforcing a France Court Judgment in Turkey

Enforcing a French court judgment in Turkey is achievable, but it requires a formal recognition and enforcement procedure before Turkish courts. Turkey does not automatically give effect to foreign judgments. Instead, a creditor must obtain a Turkish court order - known as a tenfiz (enforcement) or tanıma (recognition) decision - before any assets can be seized or obligations compelled. This guide explains the legal framework, the step-by-step procedure, the documents required, realistic timelines and costs, the defences a debtor may raise, and the practical strategies that improve a creditor's chances of success.

Turkey and France are not parties to a bilateral treaty on the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil judgments. This absence is the single most important structural fact for any creditor seeking to enforce a France judgment in Turkey. Without a treaty, the procedure is governed entirely by Turkish domestic law, specifically the International Private and Procedural Law (known by its Turkish acronym MÖHUK, Law No. 5718). Articles 50 through 59 of MÖHUK set out the conditions under which a foreign judgment may be recognised or enforced in Turkey.

MÖHUK draws a clear distinction between two types of proceedings. Tanıma (recognition) is the procedure by which a Turkish court acknowledges that a foreign judgment has legal effect, typically used for status matters such as divorce or custody. Tenfiz (enforcement) is the procedure used when the creditor wants to compel payment of money or performance of an obligation. For a French money judgment - the most common commercial scenario - the creditor must pursue tenfiz proceedings.

The competent court for tenfiz proceedings is the Turkish civil court of first instance (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) in the district where the debtor is domiciled or, if the debtor has no domicile in Turkey, where the debtor's assets are located. Identifying the correct court at the outset avoids procedural delays that can add weeks to the process.

A non-obvious requirement is that Turkey applies a reciprocity condition. Under Article 54(c) of MÖHUK, a Turkish court will refuse enforcement if there is no de facto or de jure reciprocity between Turkey and the country of origin. In practice, Turkish courts have generally accepted that reciprocity exists with France based on established case law, because French courts have enforced Turkish judgments in the past. However, this is a factual question that the applicant must be prepared to demonstrate, usually by submitting evidence of French court decisions that have recognised Turkish judgments. A common mistake is assuming reciprocity is automatic and failing to prepare supporting documentation.

Before a Turkish court will grant tenfiz, it will verify that the French judgment meets all the conditions set out in Article 54 of MÖHUK. These conditions are cumulative: failure on any single point is sufficient grounds for refusal.

The judgment must be final and binding (kesinleşmiş) under French law. A judgment that is still subject to ordinary appeal in France cannot be enforced in Turkey. The applicant must obtain a certificate of finality from the French court or from the relevant French judicial authority confirming that the judgment is res judicata.

The French court must have had proper jurisdiction under Turkish conflict-of-jurisdiction rules. Turkish courts will not enforce a French judgment if, under Turkish law, the French court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. This is assessed by reference to Turkish private international law, not French law. Disputes arising from immovable property located in Turkey, for example, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts, and a French judgment on such a matter would be refused.

The judgment must not violate Turkish public policy (kamu düzeni). This is the broadest and most unpredictable ground for refusal. Turkish courts have used the public policy exception to refuse enforcement of judgments involving punitive damages, certain family law outcomes, and awards that conflict with fundamental Turkish legal principles. For standard commercial money judgments between business parties, the public policy risk is generally low, but it cannot be entirely excluded.

The defendant must have been properly served and given an adequate opportunity to defend themselves in the French proceedings. If the debtor was not duly notified of the French proceedings in accordance with French procedural law, a Turkish court may refuse enforcement on due process grounds. This is particularly relevant where the French judgment was obtained by default.

The subject matter of the French judgment must not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts, and there must be no conflicting Turkish judgment on the same matter between the same parties.

The tenfiz procedure begins with filing a petition (dilekçe) before the competent Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi. The petition must identify the parties, describe the French judgment, state the grounds for enforcement, and confirm that all statutory conditions are met. The petition is accompanied by the required documents (discussed below). Court filing fees are payable at this stage and are calculated as a proportion of the claim value, though they are generally modest relative to the judgment amount.

Once the petition is filed, the court serves notice on the debtor, who has the right to file a written response contesting enforcement. The debtor's response period is typically set by the court and is usually around two weeks, though the court may extend it. After the response period, the court schedules a hearing. In straightforward cases, there may be only one or two hearings. In contested cases, particularly where the debtor raises substantive defences, the hearing process can extend over several sessions.

At the hearing, the Turkish court does not re-examine the merits of the French judgment. This is a critical point: the tenfiz court is not an appellate body. It reviews only whether the formal conditions of Article 54 of MÖHUK are satisfied. The creditor cannot introduce new evidence on the underlying dispute, and the debtor cannot re-litigate the substance of the French decision. The court's role is limited to a formal gateway review.

If the court is satisfied that all conditions are met, it issues a tenfiz kararı (enforcement order). This order has the same legal force as a Turkish court judgment. The creditor can then use it to initiate enforcement proceedings through the Turkish enforcement offices (İcra Müdürlüğü) under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İcra ve İflas Kanunu, Law No. 2004). Enforcement mechanisms include bank account attachment, seizure of movable and immovable assets, and garnishment of receivables.

If the court refuses tenfiz, the creditor may appeal to the Regional Court of Appeal (Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi) and, if necessary, to the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay). Appeals add time and cost but are sometimes warranted, particularly where the first-instance court has misapplied the reciprocity condition or the public policy exception.

We can help structure the enforcement application correctly the first time, including preparing the petition, assembling the document package, and coordinating with local Turkish counsel. Contact us at info@vlolawfirm.com.

Assembling the correct document package is one of the most practically demanding aspects of the process. Errors or omissions in the document package are a leading cause of delay and, in some cases, outright refusal.

The core documents required are:

• The original French judgment or a certified copy, bearing the court's official seal.
• A certificate of finality (certificat de non-appel or equivalent) issued by the French court confirming the judgment is final and no longer subject to ordinary appeal.
• An apostille affixed to each French document under the Hague Apostille Convention (both France and Turkey are contracting states, which simplifies authentication significantly).
• A sworn Turkish translation of each document, prepared by a sworn translator (yeminli tercüman) recognised in Turkey.
• Evidence of proper service on the defendant in the French proceedings, such as the process server's report or the court's service record.
• Evidence supporting reciprocity, typically consisting of published French court decisions that have recognised or enforced Turkish judgments.

The apostille requirement is one area where the France-Turkey relationship is straightforward: because both countries are parties to the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961, documents issued by French courts can be apostilled by the competent French authority (the Procureur de la République at the relevant Court of Appeal) without the need for full diplomatic legalisation. This saves time and cost compared to jurisdictions outside the Convention.

A common mistake made by foreign creditors is submitting translations prepared by translators not recognised by Turkish courts, or failing to have the apostille affixed before translation. The correct sequence is: obtain the original document, affix the apostille, then have the apostilled document translated into Turkish by a sworn translator.

The timeline for tenfiz proceedings in Turkey varies considerably depending on whether the debtor contests the application and on the workload of the court in question. In uncontested cases, where the debtor does not file a response or raises only weak objections, a first-instance tenfiz decision can be obtained in roughly three to six months from the date of filing. In contested cases, particularly in busy commercial courts in Istanbul or Ankara, the process can take twelve to twenty-four months or longer, especially if the debtor pursues appeals.

The cost structure has several components. Court filing fees in Turkey are calculated as a proportion of the claim value and are generally at the lower end compared to Western European jurisdictions. Professional fees for Turkish legal counsel are the most significant cost item. Experienced Turkish attorneys handling international enforcement matters typically charge on a time-and-materials basis, with retainers starting from the low thousands of euros for straightforward cases and rising substantially for complex or contested matters. Translation costs depend on the volume of documents but are usually modest. Apostille fees in France are minimal.

A practical scenario: a French company obtains a judgment against a Turkish distributor for unpaid invoices totalling several hundred thousand euros. The distributor has a bank account and warehouse in Istanbul. The French company instructs Turkish counsel, assembles the document package within four to six weeks, files the tenfiz petition, and - because the distributor does not contest - obtains the enforcement order within five months. It then uses the order to attach the distributor's bank account through the Istanbul enforcement office within days of receiving the tenfiz kararı.

A contrasting scenario: a French individual obtains a judgment against a Turkish company in a dispute involving a Turkish property. The Turkish company contests enforcement, arguing that the French court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute concerned immovable property in Turkey. The Turkish court agrees and refuses tenfiz. The French creditor must then consider whether to pursue a fresh claim before Turkish courts on the merits, which restarts the litigation process entirely.

Many creditors underestimate the importance of identifying and locating the debtor's assets in Turkey before or during the tenfiz proceedings. Obtaining a tenfiz order against a debtor with no traceable assets in Turkey is a pyrrhic victory. Asset tracing - through Turkish commercial registries, land registries, and banking channels - should run in parallel with the legal proceedings.

Understanding the defences a debtor may raise is essential for a creditor to anticipate and counter them effectively. Turkish law limits the debtor's defences to the formal conditions of Article 54 of MÖHUK. The debtor cannot re-litigate the merits of the French judgment.

The most commonly raised defences are:

• Lack of reciprocity: the debtor argues that French courts do not enforce Turkish judgments, so Turkey should not enforce French judgments. This defence is generally weak given the established case law, but it requires the creditor to be prepared with counter-evidence.
• Lack of jurisdiction of the French court: the debtor argues that under Turkish conflict-of-jurisdiction rules, the French court had no authority to hear the case.
• Violation of public policy: the debtor argues that enforcement would offend fundamental Turkish legal principles. This is the most unpredictable defence and requires careful analysis of the specific judgment.
• Defective service: the debtor argues it was not properly notified of the French proceedings and was denied the right to defend itself.
• Existence of a conflicting Turkish judgment: if a Turkish court has already decided the same matter between the same parties, the French judgment cannot be enforced.

In practice, the public policy and jurisdiction defences are the most frequently litigated. A creditor who has obtained a straightforward commercial money judgment from a French court, in a dispute with proper international jurisdiction, and where the debtor was duly served, is in a strong position to defeat all of these defences.

A non-obvious risk is the debtor filing a negative declaratory action (menfi tespit davası) in Turkey simultaneously with or before the tenfiz proceedings, seeking a Turkish court declaration that the debt does not exist. While this does not directly block tenfiz, it can complicate the enforcement landscape and create parallel litigation. Creditors should monitor Turkish court registries for such actions.

What happens if the French judgment was obtained by default?

A default judgment from France can be enforced in Turkey, but it faces heightened scrutiny on the due process condition. The Turkish court will examine whether the debtor was properly served with the French proceedings in accordance with French procedural law and whether the debtor had a genuine opportunity to appear and defend. If service was effected through diplomatic channels or under the Hague Service Convention (to which both France and Turkey are parties), and the French court's records confirm proper service, the default judgment should satisfy the Turkish requirement. The creditor should obtain detailed service records from the French court and include them in the document package. A common mistake is assuming that a French default judgment is automatically valid for Turkish purposes without verifying the service documentation.

How long does the full enforcement process take from French judgment to asset recovery in Turkey?

The total timeline from obtaining the final French judgment to actually recovering assets in Turkey typically ranges from six months in the most straightforward uncontested cases to two to three years in contested cases that proceed through appeals. The tenfiz proceedings themselves account for most of this time. Once the tenfiz kararı is issued, the subsequent enforcement through the İcra Müdürlüğü can move relatively quickly - bank account attachments can be executed within days of the order. The key variable is whether the debtor contests the tenfiz application and whether appeals are pursued. Creditors should factor this timeline into their commercial decision-making and consider whether interim protective measures are available in Turkey to preserve assets during the proceedings.

Is it worth pursuing tenfiz if the debtor has limited assets in Turkey?

The answer depends on a careful cost-benefit analysis. If the debtor's Turkish assets are modest or uncertain, the cost of tenfiz proceedings - including Turkish legal fees, translation, and the time of management - may outweigh the recoverable amount. In such cases, creditors should consider alternatives: pursuing enforcement in other jurisdictions where the debtor has assets, negotiating a settlement using the French judgment as leverage, or investigating whether the debtor has assets in third countries that may be easier or cheaper to reach. Asset tracing before committing to tenfiz proceedings is strongly advisable. If the debtor has substantial, identifiable assets in Turkey - real estate, bank accounts, receivables from Turkish customers - tenfiz is generally a sound investment.

Enforcing a French court judgment in Turkey is a structured but demanding process governed by Turkish domestic law under MÖHUK. The absence of a bilateral treaty means the creditor must satisfy Turkish courts on reciprocity, jurisdiction, due process, and public policy. With the right document package, competent local counsel, and a clear picture of the debtor's Turkish assets, a tenfiz order is achievable and provides a powerful enforcement tool.

VLO Law Firm advises international clients on judgment enforcement matters involving France and Turkey. We can assist with tenfiz petition preparation, document authentication and translation coordination, reciprocity evidence, debtor asset tracing, and liaison with Turkish enforcement offices. To request a consultation, contact: info@vlolawfirm.com