German Bond Fraud Claim in Türkiye: Istanbul Appeal Court 2025/1297

Bonds sold on the promise of renewable energy, and investor money flowing into works of art... A story that began in Germany came before the Turkish courts years later through an enforcement proceeding started in Istanbul. The investor wanted to collect from the company's manager a claim that had been entered in the insolvency table in Germany; the manager argued that the foreign insolvency decision was not recognised in Türkiye and that the claim was time-barred.

By its decision of 2 October 2025 (Docket No. (E.) 2024/216, Decision No. (K.) 2025/1297), the 43rd Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal rejected on the merits, unanimously, under Article 353/1-b-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), the defendant manager's appeal against the first-instance decision that had upheld the investor's action to annul the objection. The decision was issued with the right of further appeal to the Court of Cassation open.

☀️ Solar Energy Bonds and the Vanished Capital

According to the claimant's account, the defendant is the founder and a partner of a joint-stock company (AG) established in Germany. People who wished to invest in the company were told that its purpose was to invest in renewable and solar energy, and close to EUR 45 million was collected from a large number of people, the claimant among them. According to the claimant, this money was taken out of the company's account through sham transactions such as the purchase of works of art.

In its decision, the Regional Court of Appeal set out in detail the findings of the criminal judgment of the Hamburg Regional Court dated 9 April 2013. According to those findings:

The Regional Court described the matter as "receipt fraud" and sentenced the defendant to 5 years of imprisonment. By its decision of 18 February 2014, the 5th Criminal Senate of the German Federal Court set this judgment aside, on the ground that the investors' financial loss had to be calculated concretely through an expert, and stated that, if the loss could not be proved, the provision on capital investment fraud (Section 264a StGB) should be considered. As reported in the decision, the other partner was acquitted because no active act of fraud could be proved against him.

⚖️ The Insolvency in Hamburg and the Enforcement in Istanbul

Consumer insolvency was opened against the defendant by a decision of the Hamburg Local Court dated 15 July 2008. On 1 September 2008 the claimant had the claim, arising from an intentionally committed tort, entered in the insolvency estate. The bankrupt's objection to this entry was removed on 2 June 2010, and a decision dated 12 January 2011 recorded that the objection of the insolvency administration had also been dealt with on 17 November 2010. The claimant's claim in the table thus became final at EUR 11,985.33.

Alleging that the defendant had not declared a property in Türkiye in the insolvency liquidation, the claimant started enforcement proceedings without a court judgment in Istanbul on 7 January 2021. The proceeding claimed EUR 11,985.33 in principal and EUR 3,826.25 in accrued interest, a total of EUR 15,811.58. The defendant objected to the proceeding, and it was suspended.

The claimant brought an action to annul the objection under Article 67 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK). The Istanbul 21st Commercial Court of First Instance upheld the action by its decision of 15 November 2023; it annulled the objection, allowed the proceeding to continue and awarded 51,162.16 TL as compensation for denial in enforcement proceedings.

🛡️ The Manager's Objections

At the appeal stage the defendant's counsel grouped the defences under the following headings:

1. The claim is time-barred.
2. The German Federal Court set aside the conviction; the first-instance court ignored this decision.
3. The debt belongs to the company; no claim can be directed against the manager.
4. The insolvency entry document has no validity in Turkish law; an action cannot be brought in Türkiye without recognition and enforcement.
5. Interest cannot be awarded because the defendant was never put in default.

🌍 Which Country's Law Applies?

The Chamber began by finding that the dispute was a private-law dispute with a foreign element and by determining the applicable law. Under Article 2/1 of MÖHUK, the judge applies of his own motion the Turkish conflict-of-laws rules and the foreign law that is competent under those rules. Article 34/1 of MÖHUK subjects obligations arising from a tort to the law of the country where the tort was committed.

Accordingly, the Chamber made a two-layer distinction: matters such as the definition of the action, procedural objections, rules of evidence, interim legal protection and compensation for denial in enforcement proceedings are subject to the Turkish court's own law (lex fori), while German law applies to the substance of the dispute. Relying on the expert report, it was stated that under Section 823 of the German Civil Code (BGB), a person who intentionally or negligently and unlawfully violates another's property or another right is obliged to compensate the loss.

The objection that the defendant was the wrong party was rejected within this framework. The Chamber held that the counterpart in Turkish law of the action is the liability of a company manager, that even though German law has no special rule on manager liability, the tort provisions can be relied on, and that it was correct to bring the action against the manager alleged to be responsible for the loss. How a manager's liability appears in Turkish law was covered earlier on our site in the article a shareholder's indirect lossTR.

📜 Does an Insolvency Table Count as a Document?

The most notable part of the decision concerns the evidential value of the foreign insolvency table. The expert panel reported that, under Section 178(3) of the German Insolvency Code (InsO), entries in the table have the effect of a court judgment with the force of res judicata, as to the amount and rank of the established claims, for the insolvency administration and all insolvency creditors, and that this effect also applies to individual proceedings outside the insolvency liquidation.

Starting from this finding, the Chamber said that the entry document must be accepted as an official document under Article 224 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), and that unless the contrary is proved by evidence of the same force, the claim determined in the document will be taken as the basis in the case. Article 224 HMK makes the status of foreign official documents depend on confirmation by the competent authority and reserves international conventions; the claimant had also argued that the table bore an apostille.

🔗 The Effect of an Unrecognised Insolvency Decision

It was undisputed between the parties that the defendant's personal insolvency in Germany had not been recognised and enforced in Türkiye, and that the insolvency had been closed for lack of assets. The Chamber read this against the defendant:

⏳ Limitation, the Criminal Case and Interest

Limitation: Referring to Section 197 of the German Civil Code, the decision states that the limitation period for claims established within the insolvency procedure is thirty years. It also reports that, under Section 302 of the German Insolvency Code, a discharge from residual debts does not cover debts arising from an intentionally committed tort. Since this period had not expired at the date of the proceeding and of the action, the limitation objection was rejected.

The criminal judgment that was set aside: The Chamber stressed that the reasoning of the Federal Court's decision to set the judgment aside did not clear the defendant's act; on the contrary, it said that the act could amount to investment fraud and that the loss had to be calculated by an expert. Since the other partner was acquitted, the defendant is the sole partner and authorised officer of the company. Because under German law a conviction, and its becoming final, is not required for tort liability, it was not considered necessary to wait for the outcome of the continuing criminal case.

Interest: The decision accepted that no separate notice of default is needed, relying on a provision of German law (in the decision's wording, Article 849 of the German Code of Obligations) under which the injured party may claim interest on tort claims from the date the loss occurred. The claimant asked for interest from 12 January 2011, the date on which the objection to the entry in the table was removed. The expert calculated the accrued interest as EUR 4,790.19, but since EUR 3,826.25 was claimed in the proceeding, no error was seen in the first-instance decision.

💡 What the Decision Means for Investors

In investment fraud, the perpetrators and their assets are often in different countries. This decision shows what consequence an entry in an insolvency table that has become final abroad can have in a claim action in Türkiye. The Chamber treated the fact that the foreign insolvency decision had not been recognised not as a point against the investor, but as a circumstance that sets aside the bar on individual actions.

The scope of the decision is limited, however: the result rests on the expert panel's findings on German law. In cases where the law of another country applies, the effect of the table and the limitation period may differ.

🔍 Frequently Asked Questions

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