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

An Italian civil or commercial judgment generally needs an enforcement order from a Turkish court before it can be enforced in Turkey. The relevant framework includes Turkish International Private and Procedural Law No. 5718 (MÖHUK) and the bilateral Convention between Turkey and Italy.

The Turkey–Italy Convention

The Convention on judicial protection, mutual assistance in civil and criminal matters, and enforcement of judicial decisions was signed on 10 August 1926. Turkey approved it by Law No. 1394 on 16 February 1929. It was published in the Official Gazette on 3 March 1929 and entered into force on 15 May 1931. The 1929 date is the publication date, not the date the Convention entered into force.

Articles 19–21 address recognition and enforcement requirements and related procedural safeguards. They form part of the Convention’s framework for cross-border judicial decisions; they should not be described solely as “reciprocity provisions.”

Article 54(1)(a) of MÖHUK requires treaty, statutory, or de facto reciprocity between Turkey and the state in which the judgment was given for enforcement in Turkey. Turkish decisions concerning Italian judgments have referred to the bilateral Convention as a basis for treaty-based reciprocity. Reciprocity is not required for recognition under Article 58 of MÖHUK.

Court of Cassation decisions

In 11th Civil Chamber, 6 March 2023, E. 2020/5278, K. 2023/1319, the Court of Cassation considered enforcement of a commercial judgment issued by the Court of Udine on 12 September 2011 for USD 105,000. The first-instance court relied on the Turkey–Italy Convention and found reciprocity. The Court of Cassation affirmed the enforcement decision. Reciprocity, however, was not a separate contested issue that the Chamber independently analyzed in detail. The decision is best understood as leaving the lower court’s treaty-based finding undisturbed.

In 19th Civil Chamber, 18 November 2019, E. 2018/2605, K. 2019/5172, the first-instance court also relied on the Convention and found that the Italian judgment fell within its scope. The Court of Cassation’s modification and affirmance concerned court-fee and attorney-fee calculations. This case should not be overstated as a standalone ruling on disputed reciprocity.

A separate line of cases concerns Italy’s decreto ingiuntivo. In General Assembly of Civil Chambers, 15 December 2022, E. 2022/11-880, K. 2022/1750, the central issue was whether the particular Italian order qualified as a final judgment capable of enforcement under Article 50 of MÖHUK. The ruling does not mean that every decreto ingiuntivo can automatically be enforced in Turkey. Following the General Assembly’s decision, the 11th Civil Chamber considered the remaining grounds of appeal and affirmed the judgment on 5 July 2023, E. 2023/3242, K. 2023/4172 (decision text).

Practical implications

The decisions reviewed show that Turkish courts have relied on the Turkey–Italy Convention as a treaty basis in enforcement proceedings involving Italian judgments. In most of the cited cases, however, reciprocity was not independently contested before the Court of Cassation. The court must also examine finality, proper notice and the defendant’s opportunity to participate, Turkish public policy, and the scope of the enforcement request.

Further reading: Nuray Ekşi, Yabancı Mahkeme Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizi [Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments], 2nd ed., Beta Yayınları, pp. 462–463.

About the author

Attorney Gökhan Cindemir holds a PhD in International Trade Law. His work focuses on international private law, cross-border disputes, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in Turkey.