In its decision dated 11 September 2025 and numbered 2025/452 E. and 2025/4021 K. (the “Decision”), the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal made significant observations to the effect that whether a foreign decision sought to be enforced qualifies as a court judgment must be determined under the law of the country in which the decision was rendered.
Under the Turkish International Private and Procedural Law No. 5718 (“IPPL”), the enforcement in Türkiye of final judgments rendered by foreign courts in civil matters is subject to an enforcement decision being issued by the competent Turkish court. However, the procedures through which judicial decisions are rendered, the authorities empowered to issue such decisions, and the formal characteristics of judgments may differ across legal systems. This gives rise to the question of which law and which criteria should govern the determination of whether a foreign decision qualifies as a “court judgment” eligible for enforcement under the IPPL.
In the Decision, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal addressed this issue in the context of a decision rendered under a special procedure under German law by a judicial officer, without a judge’s signature or a court seal, and assessed whether such decision could be enforced in Türkiye.
- Background of the Decision
In the case subject to the Decision, following the defendant’s failure to regularly pay the instalments of a loan obtained from a bank in Germany, a final decision was rendered against the defendant by the Hünfeld Local Court through a simplified payment order procedure initiated by the bank. The claimant argued that the receivable underlying the final decision had been assigned to it and accordingly sought the recognition and enforcement of the foreign decision in Türkiye.
The First Instance Court dismissed the claim on the grounds that the document sought to be enforced had been issued by a judicial enforcement officer rather than a judge, did not bear a court seal or the name of a judge, and did not make it possible to determine how the proceedings had been conducted. Accordingly, the First Instance Court concluded that the relevant document did not qualify as a court judgment.
Upon the claimant’s appeal, the 21st Civil Chamber of the İzmir Regional Court of Second Instance overturned the First Instance Court’s decision and granted the claim for enforcement, holding that the foreign decision had been served on the defendant, that the defendant’s right of defence had not been restricted, and that the requirements for enforcement set forth under Article 54 of the IPPL had been satisfied.
- Assessment of the Court of Appeal
In assessing the dispute, the Court of Appeal first examined the nature of the procedure under German law designed to provide faster and less costly judicial protection for monetary claims, which may be described as a simplified payment order procedure.
The Court of Appeal noted that this procedure is conducted within the court system by specially authorised judicial officers; if the debtor objects to the payment order issued at the initial stage, the dispute is referred to proceedings in which the merits are examined, whereas, in the absence of an objection, an “enforcement order” rendering the payment order enforceable is issued.
The Court of Appeal further found that such enforcement order has the same legal effect under German law as a decision rendered following proceedings in which the merits of the dispute are examined, becomes final if no objection is filed following service, and has both substantive and formal res judicata effect under German law. On this basis, the Court of Appeal held that, although the decision sought to be enforced had been signed by a judicial officer rather than a judge, it nevertheless constituted a decision rendered by a judicial authority and having both substantive and formal res judicata effect under German law.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal established that whether a foreign decision possesses the formal characteristics of a court judgment under Turkish law is not, in itself, decisive. Rather, the nature of the decision should be determined by reference to how it is characterised and the legal effects it produces under the legal system of the country in which it was rendered.
In the case at hand, the Regional Court of Second Instance’s decision granting enforcement was upheld, taking into account that the apostilled originals and translations of the foreign decision and the document relating to the assignment of the receivable had been submitted, that the date on which the foreign decision became final was indicated on the decision, and that the defendant had failed to substantiate its objections regarding the alleged irregularity of service.
- Conclusion
The Decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal is significant in that it establishes that the formal characteristics of court judgments under Turkish law are not, in themselves, decisive when determining whether a foreign decision qualifies as a court judgment eligible for enforcement in Türkiye.
According to the Decision, where a decision is rendered by judicial officers acting within the court system under foreign law, the procedure through which the decision was rendered, its legal nature under the relevant foreign legal system, and the legal effects it produces must also be taken into consideration. In this respect, the absence of a judge’s signature or a court seal will not, in itself, constitute an obstacle to enforcement where the decision is regarded under the relevant foreign law as being judicial in nature and having res judicata effect.
Nevertheless, establishing that a foreign decision qualifies as a court judgment is not, by itself, sufficient for enforcement. The other requirements for enforcement prescribed under the IPPL must also be separately assessed in light of the circumstances of each case.
