Recognition and Enforcement of Austrian Judgments in Türkiye: Treaty Reciprocity and Court of Cassation Practice

An Austrian court judgment is not automatically enforceable in Türkiye. A party seeking execution must obtain an enforcement order from a Turkish court. The bilateral convention between Türkiye and Austria provides the main treaty basis for reciprocity, but the date, subject matter and other enforcement requirements must also be checked.

The Türkiye–Austria Convention

The Convention between the Republic of Türkiye and the Republic of Austria on the Recognition and Enforcement of Court Judgments was signed on 23 May 1989. Türkiye approved it through Law No. 3727 of 8 May 1991, and it was published in the Official Gazette on 23 September 1991. The Turkish Ministry of Justice records its entry into force as 1 November 1992. Article 17 applies the Convention to judgments given after that date. Publication and entry into force are therefore distinct dates.

Official Convention text · Turkish Ministry of Justice treaty information

For judgments within its scope, the Convention supplies a treaty basis for reciprocity under Article 54(1)(a) of Turkish Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK). It does not make enforcement automatic. The judgment must qualify under the Convention and satisfy the remaining conditions.

Court of Cassation decisions

In its decision of 25 October 2022 (11th Civil Chamber, File No. 2021/1832, Decision No. 2022/7401), the Court reviewed enforcement proceedings concerning an Austrian fuel debt. The lower appellate court referred to the bilateral agreement and reciprocity between Türkiye and Austria; the Court of Cassation upheld that ruling. Decision text

In 11th Civil Chamber decision of 31 May 2023 (File No. 2022/6677, Decision No. 2023/3391), the Austrian judgment concerned a commercial debt of EUR 270,987.87. An earlier reversal required the trial court to clarify whether the judgment had become final after a retrial application in Austria. Once finality and enforceability were established, the Court upheld enforcement, correcting only the court-fee calculation. The procedural history highlights the need to prove finality independently of treaty reciprocity. Decision text

Family-law examples include the 2nd Civil Chamber’s decision of 4 May 2023 (File No. 2023/1377, Decision No. 2023/2153), concerning a property division and compensation award, and its decision on the same date (File No. 2022/10349, Decision No. 2023/2205), concerning child maintenance. Reciprocity between Türkiye and Austria was accepted in the lower-court reasoning and did not prevent enforcement in those cases. Property decision · Maintenance decision

The 2nd Civil Chamber’s decision of 3 February 2010 (File No. 2009/11199, Decision No. 2010/1610) states that the 1989 Convention was in force. That dispute concerned recognition of a divorce judgment. Since reciprocity under Article 54(1)(a) is not required for recognition under Article 58 of MÖHUK, the decision supports the Convention’s status but should not be presented as a ruling that examined all enforcement requirements. Decision text

Requirements beyond reciprocity

The Turkish court may examine whether the judgment is final and enforceable in Austria, whether the Austrian court had jurisdiction under the Convention, whether enforcement would be manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy, and whether the defendant received proper notice and a meaningful opportunity to defend the case. The judgment must also fall within the Convention’s subject-matter and temporal scope.

For a judgment issued before 1 November 1992, the applicable historical treaty framework should be identified separately. Arbitral awards also follow a different regime and should not be treated as foreign court judgments under MÖHUK Article 54.

Conclusion

The 1989 Türkiye–Austria Convention provides the treaty basis for enforcing qualifying Austrian judgments in Türkiye. Court of Cassation decisions show enforcement proceedings involving commercial debts, property division and maintenance. The outcome in any particular case depends on the judgment’s date and scope, finality, enforceability and the other applicable requirements.

About the author

Av. Dr. Gökhan Cindemir holds a doctorate in International Trade Law. His work focuses on private international law, cross-border commercial disputes, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Türkiye.