{"id":290718,"date":"2026-05-28T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-28T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=290718"},"modified":"2026-06-01T13:49:22","modified_gmt":"2026-06-01T11:49:22","slug":"2025-arbitration-year-in-review-turkiye","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/05\/28\/2025-arbitration-year-in-review-turkiye\/","title":{"rendered":"2025 Arbitration Year In Review – T\u00fcrkiye"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n\n\n\n

THE AUTHORS:<\/strong>
Emel \u00d6zaltun<\/strong>, Legal Counsel
Elif Kap\u0131s\u0131z,<\/strong> LL.M. Graduate from the University of Geneva
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

This article was featured in Jus Mundi<\/a>‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review<\/strong>, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Download now<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Throughout 2025,\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/a>\u00a0continued to feature prominently in both investment and commercial arbitration developments. While no new investment treaty claims were initiated by or against T\u00fcrkiye, several ongoing cases saw significant procedural and enforcement milestones. Turkish investors remained active in international\u00a0fora<\/em>, with key decisions issued in cases involving Libya and other states. Domestically, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019s role as a respondent also remained under close observation, particularly in relation to ongoing proceedings at the\u00a0ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, 2025 was an equally active year for international commercial arbitration involving T\u00fcrkiye. Although no legislative amendments were adopted, Turkish courts delivered a number of significant, detailed decisions on key arbitration issues. These included the validity and scope of arbitration agreements, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, and the availability of interim measures, particularly provisional attachment orders, issued in support of foreign arbitral proceedings. Collectively, this growing body of case law signals an increasingly sophisticated and arbitration-supportive judicial approach, clarifying established principles while also shaping emerging trends that will influence how parties draft contracts and conduct their disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Recent Developments in Investment Treaty Arbitration<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Bilateral Investment Treaties (\u201cBITs\u201d)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

No new BITs were signed or entered into force in 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Disputes<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Disputes Involving T\u00fcrkiye<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

No new investment treaty claims were filed against the Republic of T\u00fcrkiye in 2025. However, existing proceedings saw notable developments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On 14 September 2025, Canada-based Alamos Gold\u00a0announced<\/a>\u00a0the sale of its Turkish mining investments to T\u00fcmad Madencilik, a subsidiary of Nurol Holdings, for USD 470 million. The transaction is expected to lead to the discontinuance of\u00a0Alamos Gold v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/a><\/em>, an ICSID arbitration initiated in 2021 under the\u00a0Netherlands\u2013T\u00fcrkiye BIT(1986)<\/a>. The underlying dispute, valued at over USD 1 billion, concerns the state\u2019s alleged refusal to renew permits for a gold and silver mining project in northwestern T\u00fcrkiye.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Subsequently, on 7 October 2025, an ICSID tribunal in\u00a0ENCORE v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>rejected T\u00fcrkiye\u2019s application for expedited dismissal under Arbitration Rule 41. The tribunal found that T\u00fcrkiye had not demonstrated that the\u00a0claims were manifestly without legal merit<\/a>. The case concerns the alleged\u00a0expropriation<\/a>\u00a0of Encore\u2019s\u00a0minority shareholding<\/a>\u00a0in Muradiye Elektrik \u00dcretim A.\u015e., a hydropower company in Van, following Turkish court decisions confiscating shares over alleged links to terrorist organisations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Disputes Involving Turkish Investors Abroad<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Turkish investors also saw progress in long-standing disputes abroad. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On 18 March 2025, the claimant in\u00a0Sistem v. Kyrgyz<\/a><\/em>\u00a0confirmed that Kyrgyzstan had fully satisfied its payment obligations arising from the\u00a02009 ICSID Additional Facility award<\/a>\u00a0and subsequent U.S. court judgments. The acknowledgment, filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, marked the final resolution of a protracted dispute concerning the expropriation of a hotel investment in Bishkek.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court Decisions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

2025 also saw several important court rulings in enforcement proceedings brought by Turkish investors, particularly against Libya.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On 4 February 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia\u00a0confirmed<\/a>\u00a0the arbitral\u00a0award in\u00a0Etrak v. Libya<\/a><\/em>, rejecting Libya\u2019s motion to stay the case pending enforcement actions elsewhere. The court\u00a0found<\/a>\u00a0it had jurisdiction under the\u00a0Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act<\/a>\u2019s (\u201cFSIA<\/strong>\u201d)\u00a0arbitration exception<\/a>\u00a0and that parallel proceedings abroad did not justify suspension under the\u00a0New York Convention<\/a>. The court also dismissed Libya\u2019s\u00a0res judicata<\/a><\/em>\u00a0objection and, on 3 March 2025, entered\u00a0judgment<\/a>\u00a0in favour of Etrak for approximately USD 30 million, plus post-judgment interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shortly thereafter, on 12 February 2025, France\u2019s\u00a0Cour de Cassation<\/em>\u00a0upheld<\/a>\u00a0the Paris Court of Appeal\u2019s\u00a0decision<\/a> confirming the validity of the\u00a0ICC (International Chamber of Commerce)<\/a>\u00a0award in\u00a0Cengiz v. Libya<\/a><\/em>, rejecting Libya\u2019s annulment bid. The court found no excess of powers or legal error in the lower court\u2019s determination that Libya\u2019s corruption allegations related to the merits rather than jurisdiction and upheld the tribunal\u2019s attribution of armed-group activity during the Arab Spring to the state. The decision leaves intact the\u00a02018 award<\/a>\u00a0of approximately USD 50 million in favour of Turkish investor Cengiz.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the same day, the\u00a0Cour de Cassation<\/em>\u00a0also\u00a0dismissed<\/a>\u00a0Libya\u2019s appeal in\u00a0Nurol v. Libya<\/a><\/em>, confirming the validity of a partial ICC award that upheld jurisdiction under the\u00a0Libya\u2013T\u00fcrkiye BIT\u00a0(2009)<\/a>. The court affirmed that the treaty had duly entered into force, that the dispute arose after its entry into force, and that Libya\u2019s\u00a0corruption allegations<\/a>\u00a0pertained to the merits. Libya was ordered to bear the costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Later in the year, on 19 September 2025, the US District Court for the District of Columbia\u00a0granted<\/a>\u00a0Etrak\u2019s motion for post-judgment discovery, ordering Libya to produce documents by 3 November 2025 and warning that non-compliance could result in escalating fines. The decision forms part of Etrak\u2019s ongoing global enforcement campaign of its\u00a02019 BIT award against Libya<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Developments in Commercial Arbitration <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Although 2025 did not bring any legislative amendments in the field of international arbitration, it has nevertheless been an active year for commercial arbitration in T\u00fcrkiye from a case-law perspective. Turkish courts at all levels have continued to deliver detailed and well-reasoned decisions on core issues such as the validity and scope of arbitration agreements, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, and the use of provisional measures in support of arbitration. Taken together, these judgments not only clarify existing principles but also signal emerging trends in the judicial approach to arbitration, and they are likely to influence how parties structure their contracts and conduct their disputes in the years ahead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Law<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Provisional Attachments in Foreign Arbitral Awards<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In its decision numbered\u00a02025\/259, 2025\/265<\/a>, dated 18 March 2025, the 31st Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal considered when Turkish courts may grant provisional attachment orders based on a foreign arbitral award that has not yet been recognized or enforced in T\u00fcrkiye. The dispute arose from an ICC arbitration conducted outside T\u00fcrkiye, which resulted in an award ordering the respondent to pay approximately USD 1.84 million. Relying on this award, the claimant initiated recognition and enforcement proceedings before the Ankara 14th Commercial Court of First Instance and, at the same time, requested a provisional attachment over the respondent\u2019s assets located in T\u00fcrkiye.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court of First Instance accepted the request and ordered a provisional attachment over the respondent\u2019s movable and immovable assets and receivables up to the Turkish Lira equivalent of the awarded amount. Initially, the court treated the foreign arbitral award as equivalent to a domestic court judgment and therefore did not require the claimant to provide any security. The respondent objected, arguing that the award had not yet been declared enforceable in T\u00fcrkiye and therefore did not constitute a due and payable claim within the meaning of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. The respondent further argued that granting an attachment at this stage risked prejudging the outcome of the recognition and enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Upon examining the objection, the Court of First Instance partly revised its position. It held that the arbitral award established a specific and determined monetary claim and that, in principle, the conditions for provisional attachment were satisfied. However, it accepted that, until recognition and enforcement were granted, the award could not be equated with a domestic judgment. Accordingly, the claimant could not benefit from an attachment without providing security. The court therefore decided to maintain the attachment but made it conditional on the claimant depositing security equal to 15% of the Turkish-Lira equivalent of the claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The respondent applied to the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, reiterating its arguments that there was no \u201cmatured\u201d debt until the foreign award was formally enforced and that granting attachment at this stage gave the claimant the practical benefits of enforcement in advance. The claimant opposed the appeal, noting that it had already deposited the required security and that all statutory requirements for a provisional attachment were satisfied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ankara Regional Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance. It confirmed that a foreign arbitral award may be relied upon to demonstrate the existence of a monetary claim for the purpose of granting a provisional attachment, even before formal recognition and enforcement, provided that the claimant furnishes appropriate security. At the same time, it emphasized that such an award cannot be treated as a domestic judgment allowing attachment without security until an enforcement decision is rendered in T\u00fcrkiye.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This judgment reflects a balanced approach. Turkish courts are willing to support arbitral awards rendered outside T\u00fcrkiye by granting protective measures at an early stage, while also protecting respondents\u2019 interests by requiring claimants to provide security until the award has acquires the status of an enforceable judgment in T\u00fcrkiye. The decision is final and cannot be challenged through an ordinary legal remedy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Arbitration Agreement in Foreign Language and Defense Rights<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In its decision numbered\u00a02024\/6135, 2024\/8652<\/a>, dated 4 December 2024, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation examined a dispute arising from a commercial contract dated 11 September 2019. The contract contained an arbitration clause referring disputes to an arbitral tribunal under the rules of the Grain and Feed Trade Association in London, with English law as the governing law. The tribunal rendered an arbitral award on 9 September 2020 in favor of the claimant. The claimant subsequently applied to the Turkish courts for recognition and enforcement of this foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention and Law No. 5718 on International Private and Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The respondent objected to recognition and enforcement on two principal grounds:<\/p>\n\n\n\n