Recognition and Enforcement of German Judgments in Turkey: Reciprocity and Court of Cassation Case Law

Whether a judgment issued in Germany can produce legal effects in Turkey depends on whether recognition or enforcement is sought. Recognition gives the foreign judgment its effect as a final judgment in Turkey; enforcement makes it enforceable by Turkish execution authorities. An enforcement application must satisfy the conditions in Article 54 of Turkish Private International and Procedural Law No. 5718 (MÖHUK).

Reciprocity is required for enforcement, not recognition

Article 54(1)(a) MÖHUK requires reciprocity between Turkey and the state where the judgment was issued. Reciprocity may arise under an international treaty, statutory rules, or de facto practice. The inquiry is therefore not limited to whether a general bilateral enforcement treaty exists; the relevant foreign law and its application must also be considered.

This condition differs from recognition. Under Article 58 MÖHUK, reciprocity is not required for recognition. The scope of the 1929 arrangements between Turkey and Germany concerning judicial relations must also be identified carefully. They should not be described as a general bilateral treaty providing for enforcement of every civil judgment. Nuray Ekşi discusses the 1929 arrangements and their subject matter in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, 2nd ed., Beta Yayınları, Istanbul, 2020, pp. 462–463.

Turkish Court of Cassation decisions involving Germany

In its decision of 11 April 2013 (former 19th Civil Chamber, 2013/1721 E., 2013/6597 K.), the Court of Cassation reviewed enforcement of a German regional court judgment for payment of a debt. The first-instance court had found reciprocity with Germany and granted enforcement. The Chamber rejected the appeal and held the judgment lawful; the reciprocity finding in that case was left undisturbed. Full text of the decision.

The 3rd Civil Chamber’s decision of 5 June 2023 (2023/117 E., 2023/1766 K.) concerned a judgment of the Darmstadt Regional Court in case 29 O 64/20, ordering payment of EUR 50,095. The lower courts allowed enforcement, referring to reciprocity with Germany. The Court of Cassation affirmed the regional appellate decision, finding the conditions under Article 54 MÖHUK satisfied. Service, the defendant’s opportunity to present a defence, and public policy were also relevant to the review. Full text of the decision.

Family-law cases provide further examples. In its decision of 4 May 2023 (2nd Civil Chamber, 2022/11402 E., 2023/2199 K.), the Court of Cassation did not disturb the enforcement outcome based on the lower court’s finding of legal and de facto reciprocity between Turkey and Germany. The reversal concerned only the amount of the attorney’s fee. Full text of the decision.

In another family-law case, decided on 4 April 2024 (2nd Civil Chamber, 2023/9905 E., 2024/2436 K.), the lower courts’ finding of reciprocity was not overturned on that ground. The decision was reversed on an international jurisdiction issue, so it should be read with that procedural scope in mind. Full text of the decision.

Other conditions remain case-specific

These decisions illustrate Turkish courts’ acceptance of reciprocity with Germany in the cases before them. They do not mean that every German judgment will automatically be enforced. The court must also examine the other requirements under Article 54 MÖHUK, including whether the judgment is final, whether the foreign court had jurisdiction, whether the defendant was duly served and given an opportunity to be heard, and whether enforcement would clearly violate Turkish public policy. Certified copies, proof of finality and service, and appropriate Turkish translations should be prepared for the application.

Author – Dr. Gökhan Cindemir
Dr. Gökhan Cindemir is an attorney registered with the Istanbul Bar Association and has practised law since 2008. He holds a doctorate in international trade law.