Foreign Judgment Enforcement in Türkiye: Court of Cassation 2025/7596

A court in Hamburg issued a judgment on 17.10.2006. Those who obtained the judgment in their favour bring an enforcement (exequatur) action so that this ruling, together with the cost determination decisions concerning the court costs, can also be enforced in Türkiye. While the case is pending, a provisional article that entered into force in 2019 changes the course of cases against companies deemed to have offered their shares to the public because of their number of shareholders; in 2023 the Constitutional Court annuls this provisional article. The case goes back and forth between the regional court of appeal, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation and the General Assembly of Civil Chambers. The question that finally has to be answered is this: once the statutory provision it rested on has disappeared, can the enforcement of a foreign court judgment be considered contrary to Turkish public policy?

By its decision of 17.12.2025, Docket No. (E.) 2025/3406, Decision No. (K.) 2025/7596, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld, finally and unanimously, under Article 370/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK), the regional court of appeal's decision of insistence that had granted the enforcement request.

🇩🇪 The Hamburg judgment and the enforcement request

According to the text of the decision, the plaintiffs' counsel requested enforcement of the judgment dated 17.10.2006 of the 27th Civil Chamber of the Hamburg Civil Court of First Instance in the Federal Republic of Germany, and of the cost determination decisions concerning the court costs. The subject matter of the foreign judgment, the identity of the parties and the amount awarded do not appear in the Court of Cassation ruling; for this reason no information on these points is given in this article.

Counsel for the defendant asked for the claim to be dismissed and raised three objections:

The objection that became decisive in the later stages of the dispute was the public policy objection. As can be understood from the reasoning of the regional court of appeal, this objection was discussed in connection with a special statutory provision concerning joint-stock companies deemed to have offered their shares to the public because of their number of shareholders.

📜 Provisional Article 4: timeline of its insertion and annulment

The provision referred to in the decision as "Provisional Article 4 added to Law No. 7194" appears in the legislation information system as Provisional Article 4 of Law No. 3332 on Measures to Be Taken to Encourage the Capital Market, Spread Capital Widely and Regulate the Economy and … . According to the official records, the timeline is as follows:

1. 05.12.2019: Provisional Article 4 was added to Law No. 3332 by Article 41 of Law No. 7194. The decision states that the provision was published in the Official Gazette No. 30971 of 07.12.2019; the entry-into-force table in the legislation system also shows 07.12.2019 as the date of entry into force.
2. 18.05.2023: The Constitutional Court, by its decision Docket No. E.2020/11, Decision No. K.2023/98, annulled the first and second paragraphs of Provisional Article 4.
3. 12.09.2023: According to the table in the legislation system, the annulment decision entered into force on this date.

The regional court of appeal accepted that Provisional Article 4 and Article 16 of Capital Markets Law No. 6362 contain mandatory provisions concerning joint-stock companies deemed to have offered their shares to the public because of their number of shareholders and whose shares are traded on the stock exchange. In the court's view, however, these provisions are not of a nature that would violate Turkish public policy and thereby prevent enforcement of a foreign court judgment.

How the annulment of the same provisional article produced procedural consequences in another enforcement case is covered in our article Constitutional Court annulment and a new provision in enforcementTR; the effect of an annulment decision on res judicata is covered in our article res judicata after a Constitutional Court annulmentTR.

🔄 The Chamber, the decision of insistence and the General Assembly

The "Appeal" section of the decision sets out step by step the route the case followed:

Thus, in a case in which it had earlier expressed a view in favour of reversal, the Chamber upheld the regional court of appeal's decision granting the claim after the Constitutional Court annulment decision entered into force.

🧭 The public policy test in enforcement

Article 54 of Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK) lists the conditions under which the competent court grants enforcement. One of these conditions, in paragraph 1(c) of the article, is that "the judgment must not be manifestly contrary to public policy". The other conditions concern reciprocity, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts and the right of defence.

The decision does not refer to Article 54 of MÖHUK by number; however, the whole discussion revolved around this public policy criterion. Two points stand out in the regional court of appeal's approach:

• The fact that a statutory provision is mandatory was not regarded as sufficient, by itself, for it to count as a "public policy" rule for enforcement purposes.
• The provisions in Provisional Article 4 and in Article 16 of the Capital Markets Law were assessed as special provisions concerning certain joint-stock companies; they were not seen as among the fundamental values that would prevent a foreign court judgment from being enforceable in Türkiye.

The approach of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers rests on a temporal element: an appeal review is carried out according to the law in force on the date of the review. With the entry into force of the annulment decision, the ground on which the earlier reversal rested changed; in light of the new situation the Chamber also upheld the decision of insistence.

📈 What it means for companies deemed to have offered shares to the public

Under the first paragraph of Article 16 of Law No. 6362, the shares of joint-stock companies with more than five hundred shareholders are deemed to have been offered to the public, excluding companies whose shares are traded on the stock exchange and companies that raise money from the public through crowdfunding, and these companies are also subject to the provisions on publicly held companies. The second paragraph provides that such companies whose shares are not traded on the stock exchange must apply to the exchange within two years at the latest after acquiring this status. The enforcement in Türkiye of decisions taken in foreign courts against companies that reach a large number of shareholders is one of the areas in which this status is discussed in practice.

The framework that the decision sets out for cases of this kind can be summarised as follows:

However, the decision contains no assessment of the merits of the foreign judgment. Other enforcement conditions, such as finality, the right of defence or reciprocity, are matters examined separately in each case. The Chamber's reasoning is a short reasoning for upholding, and the detail is largely to be read from the regional court of appeal decision that was upheld.

❔ Frequently Asked Questions

For detailed information and legal support, you can contact Savun Law & Consultancy. Contact details are on the contact page, and other case law is found in the Precedent DecisionsTR archive.