THE AUTHOR:
Erdem Küçüker, Associate at Akıncı Law Office
Introduction
The arbitration procedure under Turkish law is regulated in two sets of laws. Arbitration proceedings seated in Türkiye with no foreign elements are governed by Chapter 11 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure (2011) (“CCP”). Arbitration proceedings seated in Türkiye, which include a foreign element (e.g., the nationality of the parties, shareholding of the parties or the subject matter of the legal dispute), or where the parties explicitly chose it as the law applicable to the procedure, are regulated by the Turkish International Arbitration Act (2001) (“TIAC”).
In both scenarios, no formal enforcement proceedings (in the sense of the New York Convention (1958)) are required, though it suffices to pursue internal legal remedies (Istanbul Court of Appeal, 13th Civil Chamber, 25 September 2025, Docket No: E. 2023/179, Decision No: K. 2025/1461, findable here), which is the subject of this article.
Arbitral Awards Within the Scope of the CCP
Parties may bring a setting-aside action within one month from the receipt of the notification, before the Court of Appeal, which acts as the first-instance court in the setting-aside application (Article 439(1 and 4) CCP).
Under the reasoning of Article 439(4) CCP, which deals with the setting aside of arbitral awards, an arbitral award is enforceable once it has been rendered. Therefore, an award-creditor may commence enforcement proceedings directly and the filing of a setting-aside action does not automatically suspend the enforcement of the award (Court of Cassation, 8th Civil Chamber, 9 December 2015, Docket No: E. 2015/19985, Decision No: K. 2015/22057; Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber, 20 June 2018, Docket No: E. 2018/2566, Decision No: K. 2018/6364; Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, 26 June 2024, Docket No: E. 2024/1885, K. 2024/2306, findable here). That said, per Article 439(4) CCP, if the applicant files a request for suspension, the court may grant the suspensive effect of the award upon the applicant’s depositing of the security in the amount of that was ordered in the arbitral award. Per Article 439(6) CCP, if the court of appeal rejects the setting aside application, the suspensive effect of the award will be lifted, and the award will become enforceable, even if the Parties may still appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. In any case, for enforcement purposes, the award-creditor does not need to obtain an enforceability certificate (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, 8 April 2026, Docket No: E. 2026/1265, K. 2026/1313, findable here; Istanbul 17th Commercial Court, 6 June 2024, Docket No: E. 2024/190, Decision No: K. 2024/254, findable here).
Arbitral Awards Within the Scope of the TIAC
Parties may bring a setting-aside action within thirty days from the receipt of the notification, before the Court of Appeal, which acts as the first-instance court in the setting-aside application (Article 15(A)(1 and 4) TIAC).
Article 15(A)(4) TIAC provides that, if any of the parties files such an action, enforcement of the award is automatically suspended (Court of Cassation, 8th Civil Chamber, 12 June 2017, Docket No: E. 2017/12500, Decision No: K. 2017/8827, findable here). Therefore, the applicant does not need to file a separate application for the suspensive effect. Such effect continues until the termination of the setting aside proceedings (which includes the appeal before the Court of Cassation).
Under Article 15(B) TIAC, a party must file an application before the first instance court for an enforceability certificate (icra edilebilirlik şerhi), to proceed with the enforcement of the award. The Court of Cassation held that the award-creditor can only proceed with the enforcement of a TIAC award if it obtains such a certificate (Court of Cassation, 8th Civil Chamber, 28 October 2015, Docket No: E. 2014/14866, Decision No: K. 2015/19388; Court of Cassation, 8th Civil Chamber, 16 December 2015, Docket No: E. 2014/14898, Decision No: K. 2015/22651, findable here).
Article 15(B) TIAC empowers the first-instance courts (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) to issue this certificate. If the dispute is of a commercial nature, the commercial courts of first instance (asliye ticaret mahkemesi) have jurisdiction (Additional Provision No. 1 TIAC).
The article addresses the scope of the court’s review depending on whether the parties filed a setting aside action against the award or not.
- For the first alternative (i.e., if the setting aside action is filed), the first-instance court will only issue the enforceability certificate if it is established that the setting-aside application is finally dismissed. In this scenario, the court will not conduct any further review of the award (Istanbul Court of Appeal, 14th Civil Chamber, 14 July 2025, Docket No: E. 2025/1248, Decision No: K. 2025/1293, findable here).
- For the second alternative (i.e., no setting aside action is filed or the parties waived such right in advance), the first-instance court shall assess whether the time limit has expired without a setting-aside action having been filed or whether the parties’ waiver is valid. If this requirement is met, the court will then analyze whether the award violates public policy and the dispute is arbitrable (Istanbul Court of Appeal, 14th Civil Chamber, 4 February 2026, Docket No: E. 2026/61, Decision No: K. 2026/159; Istanbul Court of Appeal, 12th Civil Chamber, 22 December 2022, Docket No: E. 2022/1657, Decision No: K. 2022/1830, findable here). If both conditions are met, the court will issue the certificate.
The decision of the first-instance court may be appealed before the Court of Appeal, which will render a final decision on the matter.
Interim Measures
The arbitration legislation does not provide for a special interim measure mechanism for the enforcement of arbitral awards. That said, parties may seek interim measures under the general mechanisms provided by civil procedure and enforcement law.
In two cases concerning awards governed by the TIAC, the Court of Appeal (which renders final decisions on the interim measure applications) decided that, pending issuance of the enforceability certificate, the award creditor may seek an interim measure over the debtor’s assets (Istanbul Court of Appeal, 15th Civil Chamber, 16 March 2026, Docket No: E. 2026/194, Decision No: K. 2026/345; Istanbul Court of Appeal, 12th Civil Chamber, 11 July 2018, Docket No: E. 2018/1069, Decision No: K. 2018/909, findable here).
However, in one case, the Court of Appeal decided on the contrary and held that the setting-aside proceedings also prevent a party from seeking interim measures (Istanbul Court of Appeal, 3rd Civil Chamber, 11 December 2025, Docket No: E. 2025/3095, Decision No: K. 2025/3201, findable here).
Conclusion
The enforcement of local arbitral awards differs depending on the law governing the arbitration proceedings. If the arbitral award is governed by the CCP, the legislator granted such an award a broader enforcement power. In this regard, a CCP award’s enforcement is not automatically suspended by filing a setting-aside action, and it may be enforced directly without an additional certification procedure. On the other hand, a TIAC award may be automatically suspended by filing setting-aside proceedings (without a security requirement), and it may be enforced only after an enforceability certificate is obtained.
On that note, an award-creditor might wish to consider seeking interim measures on the debtor’s assets, while the setting-aside proceedings or enforceability-certificate proceedings are pending.
Therefore, the law governing arbitral proceedings has substantive significance for the enforcement of the award. Arbitral tribunals and courts should correctly characterize the law governing the proceedings in their awards/decisions and parties should be mindful of such distinction/its consequences, and they should properly assist the tribunals/courts for that purpose.
For further discussions on the topic, see also Erdem Küçüker, ‘Hakem Kararının İptali Davasıyla İlgili Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu ve Milletlerarası Tahkim Kanunu Hükümleri Arasındaki Farklar’, Lexpera Blog; Erdem Küçüker, ‘Milletlerarası Tahkim Kanunu Uyarınca Verilen Hakem Kararlarına İcra Edilebilirlik Şerhi Verilmesi Usulü’, Nasamer Law Blog.
