Enforcement of an UNCITRAL Arbitral Award in Turkey: Important 2026 Court of Cassation Decision

Türkçe · English · Русский · 中文

Turkish Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2025/3784, Decision No. 2026/1634, 21 April 2026

The Turkish Court of Cassation has upheld an important judgment concerning the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in Turkey.

The dispute arose out of an investment arbitration between Turkmenistan and Turkish investors conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules in PCA Case No. 2013-27.

The arbitral tribunal ordered the payment to Turkmenistan of EUR 356,843.98 in arbitration costs and USD 700,000 in legal fees.

Proceedings were subsequently initiated in Turkey for recognition and enforcement of the relevant parts of the arbitral award.

Decision of the Istanbul Anatolian 9th Commercial Court

The Istanbul Anatolian 9th Commercial Court, in Case No. 2019/271 and Decision No. 2022/560, granted the application for recognition and enforcement.

The Court applied the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

The Court found, among other matters, that the award had been rendered in Stockholm, Sweden, and that the requirements for enforcement under the New York Convention had been satisfied.

Court of Appeal Proceedings

The judgment was appealed before the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 46th Civil Chamber.

By its decision dated 20 March 2025, Case No. 2023/3419 and Decision No. 2025/398, the Regional Court dismissed the appeals on the merits.

The case was thereafter brought before the Turkish Court of Cassation.

Decision of the Turkish Court of Cassation

The 6th Civil Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation examined the case under file number 2025/3784.

A hearing was held on 21 April 2026.

The defendants raised several objections, including allegations that:

• the arbitral award was not final,
• the New York Convention was not applicable,
• the award was insufficiently clear for enforcement,
• liability for arbitration costs had not been adequately allocated,
• enforcement would violate Turkish public policy.

The Court of Cassation did not consider these objections sufficient to overturn the appellate judgment and upheld the decision granting enforcement.

Does a Foreign Arbitral Award Have to Be “Final”?

One particularly important issue concerns the distinction between an award being final and being binding.

Under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention, the relevant question is generally whether the award has become binding on the parties, rather than whether it has obtained a form of finality comparable to a domestic court judgment.

The Turkish courts accepted that this requirement had been met.

This aspect of the judgment is particularly relevant for international parties seeking enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Turkey.

Public Policy and Enforcement in Turkey

Public policy is frequently invoked as a defence against enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

However, the public policy exception does not generally permit Turkish courts to conduct a fresh examination of the merits of the underlying arbitration.

In the present proceedings, enforcement of the arbitration costs and legal fees was not considered contrary to Turkish public policy.

Enforcement of UNCITRAL and PCA Awards in Turkey

The judgment is also important from an investment arbitration perspective. Related practice also includes the enforcement of ICSID awards in Turkey.

The underlying proceedings were conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and administered in connection with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).

Obtaining an arbitral award and enforcing it against assets located in Turkey are legally distinct stages.

Depending on the applicable international convention and the circumstances of the case, a foreign arbitral award will generally require recognition and enforcement by the competent Turkish courts before compulsory execution proceedings can be pursued in Turkey. The same framework is often relevant alongside enforcement of foreign judgments in Turkey and private international law rules.

Why the Decision Matters

The judgment is relevant in particular to:

• enforcement of UNCITRAL awards in Turkey,
• application of the New York Convention in Turkey,
• the distinction between binding and final arbitral awards,
• public policy objections,
• enforcement of arbitration costs and legal fees,
• enforcement of investment arbitration awards in Turkey.

Cindemir Law Office – Arbitration Enforcement in Turkey

Cindemir Law Office advises international clients on the recognition, enforcement and execution of foreign arbitral awards and foreign court judgments in Turkey.

The firm represents companies, individuals and foreign states in matters involving international arbitration, investment disputes and enforcement proceedings under the New York Convention.

Turkmenistan was represented in these Turkish enforcement proceedings by Dr. Gökhan Cindemir, Attorney at Law.

Dr. Gökhan Cindemir
Attorney at Law – Cindemir Law Office

Türkçe · English · Русский · 中文

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.