Can Heirs Seek Recognition of a Foreign Divorce in Türkiye?

Many couples who divorce abroad put off having the foreign court's decision recognised in Türkiye for years. When one spouse dies in the meantime, an unexpected question arises: is the former spouse, who still appears as "married" in the Turkish population register, an heir, or can the divorce decision of the foreign court still take effect in Türkiye after the death? Because this question directly determines the inheritance shares, it becomes decisive for the deceased person's children to know who may bring a recognition action and until when.

In its decision of 17.06.2026, Docket No. E.2025/7717, Decision No. K.2026/6780, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that the heirs of a father who died without having a foreign divorce decision recognised in Türkiye during his lifetime have a legal interest in seeking recognition and enforcement of that decision. The Chamber reversed by majority vote both the first-instance decision, which had dismissed the case on the ground that "the heirs cannot bring this action", and the appeal decision upholding it.

🌍 From Rotterdam to Karaman: The Course of the Case

According to the text of the decision, the chronology of events is short but weighty in its consequences:

• 31.03.2016: The spouses divorced abroad by a decision of the Rotterdam Court.
• 28.09.2016: The foreign court decision became final.
• 28.09.2016 – 01.05.2021: During this period of more than four years, neither spouse brought a recognition or enforcement action in Türkiye.
• 01.05.2021: The husband died.
• The deceased's children brought an action against the former spouse for recognition and enforcement of the foreign court decision on their father's divorce.

The aim of the children who brought the action is clear: if the foreign decision is not recognised in Türkiye, under Turkish law the marriage is treated as having ended by death and the former spouse will be among the heirs as the surviving spouse. If it is recognised, the marriage will have ended by divorce and the former spouse's statutory right to inherit will not arise.

🚫 Reasons for Dismissal at First Instance and on Appeal

The Karaman 2nd Family Court dismissed the action without examining the merits. The court's reasoning consists of the following steps:

1. Although the foreign decision became final in 2016, neither spouse took any step to make it effective in Türkiye.
2. It was stressed that the deceased spouse had the opportunity to bring a recognition and enforcement action during the more than four years between finality and death, but did not do so.
3. Because the foreign decision had not been recognised in Türkiye on the date of death, it was held to have no validity under Turkish law and the marriage to have ended by death.
4. Because no recognition and enforcement action had been brought during the deceased spouse's lifetime, it was concluded that the heirs could not bring such an action after that point.

The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Konya Regional Court of Appeal also rejected the appeal on the merits, so the first-instance court's approach was preserved at the appeal stage.

⚖️ The Court of Cassation's Reasons for Reversal

The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation assessed the dispute under Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK). The Chamber first distinguished two concepts: recognition is the acceptance, in another country, of the binding force of a court decision; enforcement is the quality of a decision, arising from its binding force, that sets public authority in motion for material enforcement measures.

At the centre of the reasoning is Article 52/1 of the MÖHUK. Under this provision, anyone with a legal interest may request enforcement of a decision. The Chamber did not read this wording narrowly and made the following findings:

The Chamber stated that the first-instance court must rule, positively or negatively, on the merits of the recognition and enforcement request, and that the evidence must be assessed on that basis. As a result, the appeal decision was set aside and the first-instance decision was reversed in favour of the claimants.

A notable aspect of the decision is that the Court of Cassation made no assessment of whether the conditions for recognition were met in this case. The reversal rests solely on the affirmative answer to the question "can the heirs bring this action?". Whether the foreign decision meets the conditions in the MÖHUK will be examined by the first-instance court to which the case returns.

🗣️ Dissenting Opinion: A Strictly Personal Right

That the decision was taken by majority shows how contested the issue is. The member who wrote the dissent found the first-instance court's reasons for dismissal correct and expressed the following views:

• The right to have a divorce decision obtained from a foreign court take effect under Turkish law as well belongs to the parties to the marriage and concerns the person's family status; it is a strictly personal right, and rights of this kind in principle do not pass to heirs.
• The deceased took no step towards recognition for more than four years between finality and death. According to the dissent, this long inaction binds the heirs.
• Because the foreign judgment had not been recognised in Türkiye at the time of death, the parties are still married in the population records; under Turkish law the marriage ended by death.
• The heirs could bring a recognition action only if the deceased had brought it during his lifetime and died while the proceedings were pending.

The dissent argued that the heirs cannot exercise this right on the basis of a purely financial interest and that the decision should have been upheld. The majority did not adopt this view and relied on the broad wording of Article 52/1 of the MÖHUK.

🧮 Effect of Recognition on Inheritance Shares

The practical importance of the decision comes from the link between recognition and inheritance law. Under Article 181/1 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), divorced spouses cannot be each other's statutory heirs in that capacity and, unless the contrary follows from the disposition, they lose the rights granted to them by dispositions upon death made before the divorce.

Two provisions of the MÖHUK on recognition are also relevant here:

1. MÖHUK Article 58/1: A foreign court judgment can be accepted as conclusive evidence or as a final judgment only if the court finds that it meets the conditions for enforcement. The reciprocity condition in Article 54/1-a does not apply to recognition.
2. MÖHUK Article 59: The effect of a foreign judgment as a final judgment or as conclusive evidence takes effect from the moment the foreign court decision became final.

The text of the decision does not refer separately to Article 59. However, this provision helps explain why the majority view makes sense: even if the recognition decision is given after the death, its effect as a final judgment may reach back to 2016, the date on which the foreign decision became final. In its reasoning the Court of Cassation also stated expressly that, if recognised, the marriage will have ended by divorce rather than by death, and that this will affect the inheritance share.

For another assessment of standing to sue in inheritance law, see the series' article on the General Assembly of Civil Chambers decision on standing in disinheritance actionsTR.

🔍 Open Questions Left by the Decision

While the reversal opens an important door, it leaves some matters to the first-instance court's assessment:

It should also be noted that the decision was taken by majority, and whether the Chamber will establish settled case law on this point will become clear from later decisions.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

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