Each month we select a few recent decisions of the Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) that matter to creditors, and explain them in plain English. The full Turkish texts are linked.
1. A foreign judgment can be enforced even if the debtor later went insolvent abroad
Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, 2025/6280 E., 2026/3123 K., 2 June 2026 · Turkish text
Creditors sought recognition and enforcement in Türkiye of a German court judgment ordering the debtor to pay EUR 50,000. The debtor argued that the judgment should not be enforced because he had gone through insolvency proceedings in Germany after it was given. The regional court held that a judgment for payment of money does not breach Turkish public policy, that the correctness of the foreign judgment cannot be reviewed in enforcement proceedings, and that the later German insolvency does not prevent recognition and enforcement in Türkiye. The Court of Cassation upheld that decision unanimously.
Why it matters: a foreign creditor holding a money judgment can still pursue the debtor's assets in Türkiye; the debtor's later insolvency abroad was not accepted as a defence in the enforcement (tenfiz) case.
2. Arbitration: the costs part of a foreign award can be enforced on its own
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, 2025/3784 E., 2026/1634 K., 21 April 2026 · Turkish text
Several Turkish companies lost an investment arbitration seated in Sweden, and the tribunal ordered them to pay the respondent state's arbitration costs and legal fees. The state sought enforcement in Türkiye of that costs ruling only. The Court upheld enforcement under the New York Convention: an award that is binding on the parties is sufficient, even if it is not "final" in the domestic sense, and enforcing a costs ruling does not breach Turkish public policy. Payments that two of the debtors had already made under a settlement protocol did not prevent enforcement; they are to be taken into account at the execution stage.
Why it matters: a party that wins an arbitration can enforce a costs award in Türkiye without waiting for the award to become final, and part-payments are dealt with during execution rather than as a bar to enforcement.
3. Security for costs: Indian creditors are exempt under de facto reciprocity
Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber, 2025/7000 E., 2026/5003 K., 1 July 2026 · Turkish text
Under Article 48 of Law No. 5718, foreign claimants who sue or start enforcement proceedings in Türkiye must normally deposit security for costs, unless a treaty or de facto reciprocity provides otherwise. An Indian company's enforcement proceedings were cancelled by the lower courts because it had not deposited security. The Court of Cassation obtained information from the Ministry of Justice that Turkish nationals and companies are not required to pay security in India merely because they are foreign. It held that Indian creditors are therefore exempt in Türkiye on the basis of de facto reciprocity, and reversed the decision.
Why it matters: before depositing security, a foreign creditor should check whether its home country treats Turkish claimants in the same way. If it does, the requirement may not apply, and a cancellation on this ground can be challenged.
4. Concordat: only a creditor that formally objected can appeal the approval
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, 2026/1996 E., 2026/2270 K., 21 May 2026 · Turkish text
A company's concordat (composition) plan was approved by the court, and a creditor that had asked to intervene in the proceedings appealed against the approval. Under Article 308/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the approval decision may be challenged by the debtor, by a creditor that applied for the concordat, or by other creditors that objected; the latter have 10 days from the announcement of the approval. The Court found that this creditor had not made a proper objection under Article 308/a, so it had no right of appeal, and its appeal was dismissed unanimously.
Why it matters: a creditor that disagrees with a concordat plan must file a formal objection during the proceedings. In this case, a request to intervene did not preserve the right to challenge the approval.
This update is general information, not legal advice. Prosedür Law, İzmir · [email protected]