I. Nature of the Decision and Applicable Law

The first step in the analysis is to determine whether the document in question is a judgment of a state court or an award rendered by an arbitral tribunal. Russia’s arbitrazh courts are state courts that adjudicate commercial and other economic disputes. Translating their name into Turkish as “tahkim mahkemesi” (arbitral tribunal) does not turn their judgments into arbitral awards. By contrast, decisions of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (ICAC) are awards rendered by private arbitration.

The decision of the Ankara 8th Commercial Court of First Instance (Ankara 8. Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi) dated 7 July 2021 in Case No. E.2020/347, K.2021/464 directly addresses this distinction. The court held that the Arbitrazh Court of the City of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region is a commercial court within the Russian judicial system and applied Article 50 et seq. of MÖHUK. The fact that the Ministry of Justice initially provided information concerning arbitral (private arbitration) awards also illustrates how the terminology used in a translation may affect the course of proceedings.

Accordingly, an application should be accompanied by the original Russian-language decision, information establishing the status of the body that issued it, and an accurate explanation in Turkish. In addition, whether a decision is classified as “Russian” does not depend on the creditor’s nationality. In the case of a court judgment, the decisive factor is the state in which it was rendered; in the case of arbitration, the principal factors are the seat of arbitration and the legal regime governing the award.

II. Distinction Between Recognition and Enforcement

Recognition (tanıma) gives a foreign court judgment the effect in Türkiye of a final judgment or conclusive evidence. Enforcement (tenfiz) makes it possible to enforce the decision through the Turkish enforcement authorities. For example, reliance in Turkish proceedings on a final Russian court judgment establishing a fact, as having preclusive effect, requires recognition; recovery from a debtor’s assets in Türkiye on the basis of a judgment ordering payment requires enforcement.

Under Article 58(1) of MÖHUK, reciprocity is not a requirement for the recognition of court judgments. Accordingly, disputes concerning reciprocity with Russia cannot, in themselves, constitute grounds for refusing recognition alone. Where enforcement is sought, Article 54(1)(a) must additionally be considered. Pursuant to Article 63 of MÖHUK, recognition of arbitral awards is subject to the provisions governing enforcement; the New York Convention likewise provides common grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement.

III. Requirements for the Enforcement of Russian Court Judgments

1. A Decision in a Private-Law Matter and Its Becoming Final
Article 50 of MÖHUK concerns foreign court judgments rendered in civil matters that have become final under the law of the state in which they were issued. Parts of criminal judgments relating to civil rights may also fall within Article 50(2). By contrast, public-law decisions concerning taxes and administrative penalties do not fall within this regime merely because they require the payment of a sum of money.

Whether a judgment has become final is determined under Russian law. It cannot be required that the judgment pass through an appellate system equivalent to the Turkish system. At the same time, a statement in the document that the judgment is enforceable does not in every case replace the need to separately establish that it has become final. Under Article 53 of MÖHUK, the applicant must submit a duly authenticated original or certified copy of the judgment, a duly authenticated document confirming that the judgment has become final, and certified Turkish translations of those documents. An apostille, where applicable, certifies the official authenticity of a document; it does not, by itself, prove that the judgment has become final or that the requirements for enforcement have been met.

2. Reciprocity and Assessment of Recent Case Law
Article 54(1)(a) of MÖHUK recognises three alternative bases for reciprocity: an international agreement; a provision of foreign law permitting the enforcement of Turkish court judgments; or actual practice. The existence of any one of these is sufficient. In the decisions reviewed from 2025 and 2026, the starting point was that Türkiye and Russia had no agreement providing for the enforcement of court judgments. This finding does not entirely preclude enforcement; rather, it requires an examination of statutory or de facto reciprocity.

In its decision in Case No. E.2020/347, K.2021/464, the Ankara 8th Commercial Court of First Instance examined the requirements for enforcement under Russian law and the legal opinions available in the case file and found that statutory reciprocity existed. In its decision dated 18 January 2022 in Case No. E.2021/3417, K.2022/80, the 15th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (İstanbul BAM 15. HD) likewise relied on earlier cases in which Russian judgments had been enforced in Türkiye and set aside a decision refusing enforcement on the ground that reciprocity was absent. The outcome of that second decision was not the direct granting of the application, but the remittal of the case for a fresh examination.

The decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 6. HD) dated 24 February 2025 in Case No. E.2023/4469, K.2025/679 demonstrates a stricter approach to evidence. The Chamber did not consider the mere fact that Russian judgments had been enforced in Türkiye sufficient. As adequate evidence had not been submitted that Turkish judgments were enforced in Russia, de facto reciprocity was not established in that case. Since the expert opinions submitted on statutory reciprocity contradicted one another, the court directed that a certified translation of the relevant Russian legislation and a verifiable expert opinion from experts selected from an appropriate university department be obtained. The decision does not establish a general rule that Russian judgments can never be enforced.

A different outcome is reflected in the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 10 September 2025 in Case No. E.2025/564, K.2025/5247. The decision granting enforcement of a judgment of the Arbitrazh Court of the City of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region for a debt arising from maritime carriage was upheld. The court of first instance had found de facto reciprocity, and the Court of Cassation rejected the grounds of appeal, except for the ground concerning court fees. The Chamber did not, however, address the reciprocity issue separately or in detail. Accordingly, the decision is a specific example demonstrating that enforcement is possible; it does not support the conclusion that the reciprocity issue has been definitively resolved for all cases.

The decision of the Istanbul 1st Commercial Court of First Instance dated 12 February 2026 in Case No. E.2025/381, K.2026/102 is also noteworthy from the perspective of current practice. Following the reversal by the 6th Civil Chamber, the court appointed experts. The majority of the experts found that statutory reciprocity existed, while one expert expressed a contrary view. In addition, relying on the fact that the 11th Civil Chamber had upheld the decision on 10 September 2025, the court again granted the application for enforcement. According to the entry in the UYAP system, this decision had not yet become final and should therefore be treated as a first-instance example demonstrating that the debate remains ongoing.

The practical conclusion to be drawn from these decisions is that, wherever possible, a claimant should support its argument on reciprocity both with current Russian legislation and with Russian decisions enforcing Turkish court judgments. It should also be verified whether the precedents concern court judgments or arbitral awards. Enforcement in Russia of a Turkish arbitral award under the New York Convention does not, in itself, establish de facto reciprocity in respect of judgments of state courts. Nor does a statement by the Ministry of Justice that country-specific statistics are unavailable, by itself, establish the absence of reciprocity. These legal assessments follow from the distinction required by the decisions reviewed.

3. Exclusive Jurisdiction and Excessive Jurisdiction
Under Article 54(1)(b) of MÖHUK, a judgment must not have been rendered on a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts. A typical example is a judgment concerning rights in rem in immovable property located in Türkiye. Conversely, in an ordinary commercial claim for payment, the fact that the debtor is a Turkish company or has assets in Türkiye does not, in itself, establish exclusive jurisdiction.

Subject to an objection by the defendant, the same provision also protects against a foreign court assuming jurisdiction where it has no genuine connection with the dispute or the parties. Exclusive jurisdiction and an objection based on excessive jurisdiction must be assessed separately. In addition, employment, consumer and family disputes are governed by their own protective rules and applicable conventions; it would be incorrect to classify all such matters indiscriminately as “incapable of enforcement”.

4. Proper Service and the Right to Be Heard
Under Article 54(1)(ç) of MÖHUK, defective service, lack of representation, or a judgment rendered in a party’s absence in breach of the applicable procedural law is examined upon the objection of the person against whom enforcement is sought. Serious infringements of the right to be heard are also relevant from the perspective of public policy. In light of the applicable rules on international service of documents, it should be demonstrated which document was served on the defendant, when service took place and whether the defendant had an opportunity to present its defence.

The decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 29 May 2014 in Case No. E.2014/2883, K.2014/10015 is an example of enforcement being refused because the notice in the Russian proceedings was returned and the defendant was not afforded an opportunity to defend itself. The Chamber rejected applications to reconsider its earlier decision upholding the refusal.

By contrast, in Case No. E.2025/564, K.2025/5247 (decision dated 10 September 2025), service was found to have been effected in accordance with Russian procedural law, and the defendant’s failure to participate in the proceedings was not considered an obstacle to enforcement. The finding that the detention of the company’s chairman of the board did not, in itself, deprive the company of the ability to be represented was also upheld. These two examples demonstrate that a judgment rendered in a party’s absence is not the same as depriving that party of the opportunity to defend itself.

5. Public Policy and the Prohibition on Review of the Merits
Article 54(1)(c) of MÖHUK requires that the judgment not be manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy. This review cannot be used to recalculate the debt or reinterpret the contract in place of the Russian court. The question is whether the effects of the judgment in Türkiye are compatible with fundamental principles such as the basic requirements of fairness and the right to be heard.

The decision of the Grand General Assembly of the Court of Cassation for the Unification of Case Law (Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu) dated 10 February 2012 in Case No. E.2010/1, K.2012/1 defines this boundary. The Assembly held that the mere absence of reasoning in a foreign court judgment does not constitute a manifest breach of public policy. Nor does a difference between Russian and Turkish procedure, in itself, prevent enforcement. By contrast, proceedings in which a party was deprived of the opportunity to defend itself must be assessed separately.

IV. Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Rendered in Russia

1. Application of the New York Convention
Türkiye and the Russian Federation are parties to the New York Convention. Subject to Türkiye’s reservations, the Convention applies to arbitral awards made in the territory of another Contracting State and arising out of relationships that are considered commercial under Turkish law. This framework provides a legal basis for the enforcement of commercial arbitral awards rendered in Russia that is distinct from the regime governing judgments of state courts.

The Convention’s reciprocity reservation concerns whether the award was made in the territory of another Contracting State. The examination of de facto reciprocity applicable to judgments of state courts under Article 54(1)(a) of MÖHUK cannot additionally be imposed on arbitral awards falling within the scope of the Convention. The Convention remains applicable pursuant to Article 1(2) of MÖHUK. Articles 60–63 of MÖHUK play a supplementary role, insofar as consistent with the Convention and applicable; they are also relevant to arbitral awards that do not fall within the Convention.

2. Arbitration Agreement and Documents to Be Submitted
Under Articles II and IV of the New York Convention, duly authenticated originals or certified copies of the arbitration agreement and the arbitral award must be submitted. Duly authenticated translations of documents not drawn up in Turkish must also be included in the case file. Before filing the application, it should be verified whether the arbitration clause covers the particular dispute, whether the tribunal that rendered the award was constituted in accordance with the parties’ agreement, and whether the representatives had the requisite authority. Article 61 of MÖHUK likewise identifies the arbitration agreement, the arbitral award and their certified translations as the basic set of documents.

3. Binding Effect and the Impact of an Application to Set Aside
Arbitral awards are not subject to the same requirement of becoming final as court judgments. Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention provides for refusal where the award has not yet become binding on the parties, has been set aside, or its enforcement has been suspended by a competent authority. Article 60(1) of MÖHUK also recognises binding effect as an alternative criterion of sufficiency. It would therefore be incorrect to consider a separate order of a Russian state court declaring the award enforceable mandatory in every case.

This distinction was applied in the decision of the Izmir 2nd Commercial Court of First Instance dated 19 November 2025 in Case No. E.2025/694, K.2025/1029. Having considered the certificate dated 23 October 2024 confirming that the award of the arbitral institution at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation was binding, together with the contractual documents, the court granted the application for enforcement. The fact that an application to challenge the award had been filed in Russia was not, in itself, considered sufficient to refuse enforcement. This first-instance decision, which has not yet become final, is a specific example of the application of the binding-effect criterion.

An application to set aside an arbitral award and the setting aside of the award are two different matters. Under Article VI of the New York Convention, the court considering enforcement may adjourn its decision where an application to set aside or suspend the award has been made to a competent authority; at the request of the party seeking enforcement, it may also order the other party to provide appropriate security. An adjournment is not automatic. If the award has been set aside or its enforcement suspended, the ground for refusal under Article V(1)(e) must be assessed separately.

4. Grounds for Refusal and Burden of Proof
As a general rule, the party against whom the award is invoked bears the burden of proving the grounds for refusal under Article V(1) of the New York Convention. These include the incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement; lack of proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings, or inability to present one’s case; the award dealing with matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement; non-compliance of the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the procedure with the parties’ agreement or applicable law; and the award not yet being binding, having been set aside or having been suspended. The court may examine arbitrability and public policy under Article V(2) of its own motion.

The decision of the 12th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal dated 9 December 2021 in Case No. E.2020/677, K.2021/1832 clearly illustrates this allocation of the burden of proof in relation to two arbitral awards rendered by the ICAC at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. The Chamber found that the respondent had been notified of the arbitration and the selection of the arbitrators and had failed to prove its allegation that its right to be heard had been restricted. General assertions that the award had been rendered for political reasons or in breach of Turkish law were not considered sufficient, and the application for enforcement was granted. The first-instance decision was set aside in respect of the court fee and a new decision was rendered. The lesson from the decision is that an objection based on public policy must be linked to specific facts.

V. Procedure, Security and Court Fees

1. Court Having Jurisdiction
For court judgments, Article 51 of MÖHUK designates the court of first instance (asliye mahkemesi) as the competent court. The commercial disputes reviewed were heard by commercial courts of first instance (asliye ticaret mahkemesi). It cannot, however, be said that a commercial court has jurisdiction over every Russian judgment; the nature of the dispute and the specific rules on subject-matter jurisdiction must be taken into account. As regards territorial jurisdiction, the primary connecting factor is the place of residence in Türkiye of the person against whom enforcement is sought or, in the absence of a place of residence, that person’s place of stay. If neither exists, an application may be brought before a court in Ankara, Istanbul or Izmir.

For arbitral awards, the territorial jurisdiction rule in Article 60(2) of MÖHUK is different. The competent court is the court at the place designated by the parties in writing. In the absence of such an agreement, jurisdiction lies with the court at the place of residence in Türkiye of the person against whom the award was rendered or, if there is no such place, that person’s place of stay; if neither exists, jurisdiction lies with the court at the location of the assets against which enforcement may be levied. For commercial arbitral awards, the rules governing commercial courts must also be considered in determining subject-matter jurisdiction. The Ankara–Istanbul–Izmir alternative provided for court judgments cannot be transposed to this provision without modification.

2. Security Required from Foreign Parties and Interim Relief
The security for costs required from foreign claimants under Article 48 of MÖHUK is a separate issue from the reciprocity requirement for enforcement. Article 17 of the 1954 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure, to which both Türkiye and Russia are parties, exempts persons falling within its scope from the obligation to provide security. The Ministry of Justice’s guidance states that the provision is interpreted as applying to legal entities as well. In the reviewed decisions of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal in 2021 and the Court of Cassation in 2025, the exemption was applied to Russian companies. When filing an application, the company’s nationality and compliance with the Convention’s requirements concerning the relevant person and place of establishment should be documented.

This exemption does not, in itself, dispense with security that may be required for a provisional attachment of assets (ihtiyati haciz). Where provisional attachment is sought to secure a monetary claim, the requirements under Article 257 et seq. of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK), as well as the applicable prima facie evidentiary standard, must be assessed separately. Depending on the nature of the relief sought, the appropriate route is either provisional attachment or interim measures (ihtiyati tedbir). The existence of a foreign judgment does not eliminate the need for a separate order of a Turkish court granting interim relief; nor can it be asserted that a fixed percentage of security will apply in every case.

3. Court Fees: Ad Valorem or Fixed Fees and the Method of Calculation
(a) Legal Framework
Court fees are governed by Law No. 492 on Fees (Harçlar Kanunu, hereinafter the “HK”) and Tariff No. 1 annexed thereto. The law contains a specific provision for foreign court judgments: under Article 4 of the HK, applications for the enforcement of foreign court judgments are subject to the fee under Tariff No. 1, calculated “according to the value, type and nature of the matter awarded in such judgments” (ilamda hükmolunmuş şeyin değeri, nevi ve mahiyetine göre). As regards arbitral awards, Article 3 of the HK refers to the regime applicable to domestic arbitral awards: the fee for the judgment is charged upon the judge’s endorsement of the arbitral award as enforceable, “according to the nature of the award”, and the same approach applies to foreign arbitral awards.

Under Tariff No. 1 (Section A/III), the judgment fee (karar ve ilam harcı) is payable in one of two forms. An ad valorem fee (nispi harç) applies to cases involving a determinable monetary value and, where a decision is rendered on the merits, is calculated on the amount awarded at a rate of 68.31 per thousand (6.831%). A fixed fee (maktu harç) applies to cases not subject to an ad valorem fee and also where the claim is dismissed; for 2026, it amounts to TRY 732.00. Law No. 6728 of 2016 inserted the following sentence into this item of the Tariff: “No fee shall be charged under the provisions of this subparagraph in arbitration proceedings” (Tahkim yargılamasında bu bent hükümlerine göre harç alınmaz). The rate of 68.31‰ is prescribed by law and is not subject to annual revaluation; fixed amounts are revised annually. For 2026, they were increased by 18.95% pursuant to Presidential Decision No. 10783 and announced in General Communiqué No. 98 under the Law on Fees.

(b) Practice Concerning Judgments of State Courts
The 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation consistently characterises an action for enforcement as a declaratory action (tespit davası), rather than an action seeking an order for payment, and on that basis applies a fixed court fee and a fixed attorney’s fee. In its decision dated 25 April 2017 in Case No. E.2015/14689, K.2017/2412, the Chamber corrected the ad valorem fee charged and replaced it with a fixed fee. The same approach was set out, by reference to the Chamber’s established practice, in the majority decision dated 16 March 2022 in Case No. E.2020/5273, K.2022/2001. The dissenting opinion noted, however, that Article 4 of the HK requires an ad valorem fee because the foreign judgment concerns a monetary claim. In the decision dated 10 September 2025 in Case No. E.2025/564, K.2025/5247, discussed above, the Chamber likewise replaced the ad valorem fee imposed by the appellate court with a fixed fee.

A different approach can be observed in other courts. In its decision dated 27 June 2019 in Case No. E.2017/19-930, K.2019/812, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation (Hukuk Genel Kurulu, HGK) expressly stated that the Law on Fees “specifically regulates the charging of an ad valorem fee in proceedings for the enforcement of foreign court judgments”, whereas no such specific rule exists for foreign arbitral awards. In its decision dated 17 October 2024 in Case No. E.2024/104, K.2024/173, the Constitutional Court of Türkiye rejected a referral by the Istanbul 14th Commercial Court of First Instance challenging the constitutionality of the word “value” (değeri) in Article 4 of the HK. The referring court had argued that an action for enforcement is declaratory in nature and should therefore be subject to a fixed fee. By a majority, the Constitutional Court held that charging an ad valorem fee did not impose an excessive burden on the parties: only one quarter of the fee is paid in advance; if the claim is granted, the balance is borne by the defendant; and the debtor may voluntarily comply with the foreign judgment. Three judges supported the fixed-fee position in their dissenting opinion.

Regional courts of appeal frequently apply an ad valorem fee. In its decision dated 12 November 2024 in Case No. E.2024/910, K.2024/1595, concerning enforcement of a Baku commercial court judgment ordering payment of USD 400,000, the 14th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal upheld a decision applying an ad valorem fee and ordered the defendant to pay the remaining appellate ad valorem fee of TRY 569,797.36. Among the decisions reviewed for this article, the Istanbul 1st Commercial Court of First Instance also calculated an ad valorem fee in its decision dated 12 February 2026 in Case No. E.2025/381, K.2026/102.

Accordingly, there is no uniform practice: courts of first instance and regional courts of appeal often require an ad valorem fee, whereas the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, where the issue comes before it, replaces that fee with a fixed fee. In practical terms, an applicant should be prepared to pay one quarter of the ad valorem fee upon filing if the court so requires. Further procedural steps will not be taken unless the fee is paid (Article 32 of the HK), and where the fee is underpaid, the proceedings are suspended until the shortfall is paid (Article 30 of the HK). Any fee paid in excess in advance is refundable upon application at the end of the proceedings (Article 31 of the HK).

(c) Practice Concerning Arbitral Awards
In relation to foreign arbitral awards, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers, in the above-mentioned 2019 decision, held that under Article 3 of the HK the fee must be the same as that charged for domestic arbitral awards. Since, following the 2016 amendment, no ad valorem fee is charged in domestic arbitration proceedings, no such fee may be charged for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards either; a fixed fee is therefore payable. The same result follows from Article III of the New York Convention, which prohibits the imposition on foreign arbitral awards of substantially more onerous conditions or higher fees than those imposed on domestic awards. The 12th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal followed this approach in its 2021 decision concerning two ICAC awards.
Nevertheless, publications refer to decisions of certain regional courts of appeal in 2022 that continued to charge an ad valorem fee. The fee issue should therefore be clarified in advance in this category of cases as well.

(d) How the Ad Valorem Fee Is Calculated
Where the court applies an ad valorem fee, the calculation involves the following steps.

First, the fee base (harca esas değer) must be determined. Under Article 4 of the HK, this is the value of the relief awarded in the foreign judgment, generally comprising the principal debt together with any other amounts awarded in the same judgment. The claimant must state the value of the claim in the statement of claim (Article 16 of the HK). If it becomes apparent during the proceedings that the actual value is higher, the proceedings may continue only after the advance portion of the fee has been paid on the additional amount (Article 30 of the HK).

Second, any amount denominated in a foreign currency is converted into Turkish lira at the exchange rate applicable on the date the action for enforcement is filed. The Court of Cassation requires the court to “determine the equivalent of the claim amount in Turkish lira as at the date of filing the action and charge the ad valorem fee on that amount”. In practice, the exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye on the filing date is used. Subsequent exchange-rate fluctuations do not affect the fee amount: in the Istanbul case from 2024, the fee base was calculated using the exchange rate on the 2023 filing date, although the appellate decision was rendered at the end of 2024.

Third, the rate of 68.31‰ is applied to the fee base. The resulting amount is the judgment fee payable at the relevant instance and may not be lower than the fixed fee (TRY 732.00 for 2026).

Fourth, the payment procedure must be determined. Upon filing the action, the applicant pays the court filing fee (başvurma harcı; TRY 732.00 for courts of first instance in 2026) and one quarter of the ad valorem judgment fee as an advance payment (peşin harç) (Articles 27 and 28(1)(a) of the HK). The remaining three quarters (bakiye karar ve ilam harcı) must be paid within one month of service of the judgment. If the claim is granted, this amount is borne by the defendant, and the advance paid by the claimant is included in the costs of the proceedings and recoverable from the defendant (Article 326 of the Code of Civil Procedure, HMK). Failure to pay the balance does not prevent service of the judgment, its enforcement or an appeal (Article 28(1)(a) of the HK). If the claim is dismissed, the claimant is charged a fixed fee and any excess advance is refunded upon application (Article 31 of the HK). A small fixed power-of-attorney fee (vekâlet harcı) and an advance for litigation expenses (gider avansı, Article 120 of the HMK), which is not a court fee, are payable separately.

Fifth, fees payable at the appellate stages must be taken into account. Under Tariff No. 1 (A/III/1), the same rates apply to decisions of regional courts of appeal and the Court of Cassation that uphold the challenged decision or determine the dispute on the merits. Accordingly, in a case subject to an ad valorem fee, an appeal (istinaf) or cassation appeal (temyiz) requires payment of the fixed appeal fee (TRY 2,002.00 for an appeal and TRY 3,608.50 for a cassation appeal in 2026) and one quarter of the ad valorem fee. If the appeal is dismissed on the merits, the remaining ad valorem fee is charged to the appellant, as occurred in the Istanbul case in 2024. If the decision is set aside, the advance is refunded upon application.

(e) Calculation Example
Assume that a Russian arbitrazh (state commercial) court orders payment of USD 1,000,000 and that the hypothetical exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye on the date the enforcement action is filed in Türkiye is TRY 42.00 to USD 1. The fee base is TRY 42,000,000. The ad valorem judgment fee would amount to TRY 42,000,000 × 0.06831 = TRY 2,869,020.00. Upon filing the action, the applicant would pay TRY 732.00 as the court filing fee and an advance of TRY 717,255.00 (one quarter); the remaining TRY 2,151,765.00 would be charged at the conclusion of the proceedings and, if the claim is granted, borne by the defendant. If the court instead applies a fixed fee, the amounts payable upon filing would be TRY 732.00 as the court filing fee and TRY 732.00 as the judgment fee, totalling TRY 1,464.00.



If the case proceeds through all three instances under the ad valorem fee regime, the aggregate court fees may approach one fifth of the amount sought to be recovered; this was the point made by the judges of the Constitutional Court in their dissenting opinion. The example is illustrative only: the actual amounts depend on the tariff in force on the date of the decision, the exchange rate on the filing date and the position taken by the particular court on the applicable type of fee.

(f) Practical Recommendations
Given the divergence in practice, it is advisable to state the value of the claim and the exchange rate applicable on the filing date in the application for enforcement, pay the fixed fee by reference to the practice of the 11th Civil Chamber, and be prepared to pay one quarter of the ad valorem fee if required by the court. If an ad valorem fee is nevertheless charged and the Court of Cassation subsequently corrects the decision, the amount paid in excess of the fixed fee may be claimed back. When assessing the costs of recovery in Türkiye, fees at all instances should be budgeted for, bearing in mind that they are ultimately borne by the unsuccessful party. For arbitral awards, Article III of the New York Convention provides an additional argument.

When proceeding to compulsory enforcement following a decision granting enforcement, the effect of any appeal must be considered separately. Article 57(2) of MÖHUK provides that an appeal to the Court of Cassation suspends enforcement; Article 61(2) extends this rule to arbitral awards. The granting of an application for enforcement does not mean that the decision can in every case be enforced immediately.

VI. Conclusion

The first decisive step in the recognition and enforcement in Türkiye of Russian court judgments and arbitral awards is to classify the decision correctly. Articles 50–59 of MÖHUK apply to judgments of Russia’s state arbitrazh courts; the New York Convention applies to commercial arbitral awards rendered in Russia that fall within its scope. Reciprocity is not required for recognition of court judgments alone. For enforcement, however, a specific basis for reciprocity must be established.

The decisions reviewed demonstrate that Russian court judgments can be enforced, but it cannot be said that reciprocity has been unequivocally recognised in every case. The reversal by the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation in 2025 and the decision upheld by the 11th Civil Chamber in the same year should be considered together. In the case of arbitral awards, the principal considerations are the parties’ participation in the Convention, the validity of the arbitration agreement and the binding nature of the award. The issue of court fees remains unsettled: in 2024, the Constitutional Court held the ad valorem fee under Article 4 of the Law on Fees to be constitutional; the 11th Civil Chamber continues to apply a fixed fee; and, in respect of arbitral awards, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers ruled out an ad valorem fee. Under both regimes, proper preparation of the documents, a clear record of procedural matters relevant to the right to be heard, and advance calculation of court fees are no less important than the legal basis for the application.