Introduction
Arbitration involving states is a practical reality of international business. Governments, public bodies and state-owned companies participate in infrastructure projects, energy investments and cross-border commercial transactions. These relationships can give rise to disputes, and arbitration may result in an award requiring either a state or a private party to make payment.

Turkish case law offers concrete examples. The Keban Dam dispute involved an ICC arbitration between foreign contractors and Türkiye’s State Hydraulic Works (DSİ).[3] In a different setting, the Turkish Court of Cassation’s 2021 judgment concerned Turkmenistan’s attempt to recover costs awarded against İçkale İnşaat in ICSID proceedings.[5] These cases illustrate that states and public bodies may appear on different sides of an arbitration and its subsequent enforcement proceedings.

For a party holding an award against the Republic of Türkiye, the practical question is how to turn that award into payment. The answer depends on the applicable enforcement regime, the identity of the award debtor, the procedural requirements of the competent court and the legal status of the assets targeted for recovery. This article examines those issues through Turkish Court of Cassation decisions and academic commentary, offering practical guidance to creditors preparing an application for recognition and enforcement.

1. The legal nature of the award determines the application route
The initial review should go beyond the name of the arbitral institution appearing on the award. The seat of arbitration, the procedure applied, the source of consent to arbitration and whether the award was rendered under the ICSID Convention must all be established. In particular, an award made under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules does not benefit from the special regime in Article 54 of the ICSID Convention merely because the arbitration was administered by ICSID.

Awards rendered under the ICSID Convention are governed by Articles 53–55 of that Convention. For other foreign arbitral awards, the first question is whether the New York Convention applies. Given Türkiye’s reciprocity and commercial reservations, applicants must examine whether the state in which the award was made is a contracting state and whether the underlying relationship is commercial under Turkish law. Describing a dispute as an investment dispute does not dispense with this examination. Foreign arbitral awards outside the Convention’s scope must be assessed under Articles 60–63 of Türkiye’s Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (MÖHUK), together with any other applicable treaties.[1][2]

Nor should an award made in an arbitration seated in Türkiye automatically be submitted to the procedure for enforcing foreign arbitral awards. The applicable domestic or international arbitration regime and its corresponding setting-aside and enforceability mechanisms must first be identified. Institutional arbitration and foreign arbitration are not synonymous.

The purpose of the application must also be clear. Relying on an award’s res judicata or conclusive evidentiary effect is different from compelling performance of a monetary obligation. Under the general regime for foreign arbitral awards, recognition alone does not meet a creditor’s need for compulsory execution. Ekşi’s discussion of the distinction between recognition and enforcement illustrates why the relief sought must be framed accordingly.[3]

2. The special application procedure for ICSID awards must be followed
Article 54 of the ICSID Convention requires contracting states to recognise awards as binding and enforce their pecuniary obligations as if they were final judgments of their own courts. The applicant must submit a copy of the award certified by the ICSID Secretary-General to the designated court or authority. This regime does not permit a further enforcement review on public policy, arbitrability or procedural grounds under Article V of the New York Convention. Annulment and other post-award remedies are dealt with within the ICSID system, and any stay of enforcement must be taken into account.[4]

The judgment of the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 28 April 2021, E. 2021/875, K. 2021/4586, demonstrates the risk of commencing judgment-based execution proceedings directly, without first applying to a competent authority in Türkiye. In that case, Turkmenistan sought to recover arbitration costs awarded against İçkale İnşaat. The Republic of Türkiye was therefore not the award debtor. The Court rejected the omission of the application stage required by Article 54(2) and held that the execution proceedings should be set aside.[5]

The judgment’s statement that no competent authority had been designated should not be repeated as a description of the present position. Türkiye’s notification of 1 February 2017 designates the commercial court of first instance at the place specified in the parties’ written agreement or, in the absence of such an agreement, at the debtor’s domicile, then residence and, failing both, the location of the relevant assets. Where there is no commercial court of first instance, the civil court of first instance is designated. The notification and the 2021 judgment must be read together; an account that reverses the chronology of the notification and judgment is incorrect.[6]

Our practical recommendation is to rely expressly on Article 54(2) and Türkiye’s designation in the application, attaching the certified award and documents establishing the current position on any stay or annulment proceedings as separate exhibits. A Turkish translation, documents establishing authority to act and a breakdown of the pecuniary obligations sought should also be prepared. The requested judicial action should not be framed as a fresh review of the award under ordinary exequatur requirements. Where the Republic of Türkiye is the debtor, territorial jurisdiction and representation of the state must be addressed expressly.

3. Documents and relief sought for awards outside the ICSID Convention
Article IV of the New York Convention requires the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy, the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy, and the necessary translations. Article 61 of MÖHUK likewise regulates the award, arbitration agreement and certified translations. Authentication and translation requirements should not be reduced to a blanket assumption that every document requires an apostille, without considering the applicable treaty.[2][7]

When preparing the application, it is advisable not to translate only the operative part of the award. Any correction, supplementary or costs decisions should also be checked. Where consent to arbitration consists of an offer in an investment treaty and the investor’s acceptance, the documents establishing that consent should be assembled accordingly. In contract-based arbitration, signature and authority documents, amendments and any assignment documents should be reviewed together.

The relief sought must identify the award and the precise parts for which enforcement is requested. Principal, currency, the type of interest and its commencement date, arbitration costs and awarded legal fees should be distinguished. Partial payments made after the award must be credited, and the procedural consequences of subsequently adding a previously unclaimed item should be considered. An enforcement application is not a means of creating a payment obligation that the award does not contain.

The binding nature of an award must also be distinguished from its having been separately declared enforceable in the country where it was made. In its judgment of 21 February 2008, E. 2007/8481, K. 2008/1465, the 19th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld enforcement of an award found to be binding and to satisfy the other requirements. This decision, discussed by Deynekli, illustrates the importance of preparing the application to establish the award’s binding effect.[8]

4. The enforcement court does not retry the underlying dispute
In its judgment of 9 November 2000, E. 2000/7171, K. 2000/7602, the 19th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation treated an objection that damages had been awarded twice under a single contract as a matter going to the merits. It held that the enforcement court could not review the award’s substantive correctness on that basis. The decision, reproduced by Deynekli, demonstrates that enforcement proceedings are not an appeal against the award.[8]

For applicants, the practical value of this principle lies in properly classifying the debtor’s objections instead of reopening the entire evidentiary record. An allegation that damages were calculated incorrectly is different from an allegation that a party was denied an opportunity to respond to a damages report. The former may fall within the prohibition on merits review; the latter may concern the right to present one’s case. The creditor’s response should be structured around that distinction.

For the grounds in Article V(1) of the New York Convention, the burden of proof rests principally with the party relying on them. Arbitrability and public policy may also be considered by the court under Article V(2). Creditors should nevertheless not rely on the allocation of the burden of proof as a reason to prepare an incomplete record. Notices of arbitrator appointments, service records, procedural timetables, extensions, hearing notices and the parties’ submissions should remain readily available.[7]

5. Public policy objections require a specific response
In its judgment of 12 May 2014, E. 2014/2183, K. 2014/3226, the 15th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation approached public policy by reference to the consequences the foreign decision would produce in Türkiye. A difference between the law applied and Turkish law, or a breach of a mandatory rule, is not in itself a sufficient ground for refusal. Ekşi’s analysis of this judgment is relevant to preventing public policy from becoming an unrestricted instrument for blocking enforcement.[9]

The Court of Cassation’s Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments, in its decision of 10 February 2012, E. 2010/1, K. 2012/1, likewise held that the mere absence of reasons did not prevent enforcement of a foreign court judgment. That decision did not directly concern an arbitral award. It should therefore not be treated as a rule automatically rendering every deficiency in an award’s reasoning immaterial: the arbitration agreement, applicable rules and procedural safeguards must be assessed separately.[10]

Simply asserting that there is no breach of public policy is not an adequate strategy. The applicant should identify the fundamental legal value said to be affected and explain how enforcement would bear on that value. Payment from the state budget is not equivalent to a legal violation of public policy. Conversely, a genuine denial of the opportunity to present a case cannot be dismissed merely by invoking the prohibition on merits review. The public policy review discussed in this section does not apply to awards rendered under the ICSID Convention.

Older decisions involving public bodies must be read in their historical context. In the Keban Dam judgment of 10 March 1976, E. 1617, K. 1052, the 15th Civil Chamber treated ICC Court approval of an award in the arbitration between the State Hydraulic Works (DSİ) and foreign contractors as a public policy problem. In its judgment of 10 July 1991, E. 2383, K. 3667, the same Chamber subsequently accepted that ICC Court scrutiny did not violate arbitrator independence or public policy. This development, described by Ekşi, shows why the 1976 judgment cannot be presented as a current and unchanging basis for refusal.[3]

6. Setting aside and enforcement proceedings must be coordinated
For awards outside the ICSID Convention, applicants should check whether proceedings to set aside the award or suspend its enforcement have been brought at the seat. Articles V(1)(e) and VI of the New York Convention address the consequences for recognition and enforcement. An application to set aside an award is different from a decision setting it aside. Article VI also allows consideration of an adjournment and a request for suitable security.[7]

Accordingly, obtaining only the document commencing the foreign proceedings is insufficient. The latest interim decision, the scope of any stay and whether it remains in force should be monitored. Exceptional instances in which annulled awards have been enforced elsewhere should not be treated as a basis for assuming the same outcome in Türkiye. For ICSID Convention awards, the relevant remedies are those provided within the Convention, rather than the setting-aside jurisdiction of a national court at the seat.[4]

7. Match the award debtor with the owner of the target assets
The Republic of Türkiye, a public body with separate legal personality and a state-owned company are not interchangeable. The debtor identified in the operative part of the award should be compared with the contracting party, the respondent in the arbitration and the debtor named in the enforcement application. State ownership of a company does not mean that an award against the state can be executed against all of that company’s assets. Equally, a state-owned company’s debt does not automatically become a debt of the Treasury.

An asset investigation should therefore do more than produce a list of assets connected with Türkiye. Ownership, separate legal personality, actual use, security interests and third-party rights must be examined together. If the creditor seeks exceptionally to disregard separate legal personality, the factual and legal requirements for doing so must be established in the jurisdiction where execution is sought. Deferring this investigation until after filing may mean discovering too late that successful enforcement proceedings offer no realistic route to recovery.

8. Distinguish domestic exemptions from attachment and immunity abroad
In proceedings against the Republic of Türkiye within Türkiye, the central issue is the domestic rules exempting assets from attachment, rather than the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state. Article 82(1)(1) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law protects state property and property declared exempt from attachment by special legislation. Obtaining exequatur or establishing enforceability under the ICSID regime therefore does not mean that a particular state asset can necessarily be attached. A state asset should not be assumed attachable in Türkiye merely because it is used commercially.[11]

When targeting assets of the Republic of Türkiye in another country, that country’s rules on state immunity from execution become decisive. Article 55 of the ICSID Convention preserves these protections. Eskiyörük’s article published on DergiPark examines the distinction between consent to arbitration, recognition and enforcement, and execution against particular assets, especially diplomatic accounts and central bank assets. Consent to arbitration does not amount to a waiver of immunity from execution in every jurisdiction and for every category of property.[12]

Before applying abroad, creditors should assess under local law how commercial use can be established, whether special authorisation is required and whether any existing waiver covers the target asset. Obtaining an enforcement order in Türkiye first is not a universal prerequisite to applying elsewhere. The procedural route in each execution jurisdiction should be developed separately, and recoveries in parallel proceedings should be tracked to prevent double recovery.

9. Preparations to complete before filing
In practice, we recommend preparing the file in the following order. The focus should be on the application’s procedural viability and prospects of recovery, rather than on retelling the underlying dispute.

• Award and regime review: record in a single working memorandum whether the ICSID Convention applies, the seat, the award’s binding effect, any supplementary decisions and the status of any stay.

• Debtor and representation review: verify the identity of the state, public body or company, its correspondence with the party named in the award, and proper representation for the application and service.

• Jurisdiction and venue review: apply Türkiye’s ICSID designation or, for other awards, Article 60(2) of MÖHUK and the rules on subject-matter jurisdiction to the specific case. Do not apply directly to the administrative courts merely because the dispute involves the state.

• Document and evidence review: complete the certified award and arbitration agreement, translations, authority documents, service records and current documents from any foreign proceedings.

• Relief and calculation review: separately identify the amounts to be enforced, interest and credits for payments; do not seek relief beyond the award’s scope.

• Costs and deadlines review: budget for court fees, translation and service; examine any security required of the foreign applicant under Article 48 of MÖHUK and any treaty-based or reciprocal exemption. Limitation periods and execution deadlines should be diarised separately for each jurisdiction.[13]

• Recovery review: establish ownership, legal status and attachability of the target asset; compare a request for voluntary payment with execution options in Türkiye and abroad.

Interim protection should form part of this assessment. Filing an enforcement application does not automatically establish an entitlement to provisional attachment; the specific conditions for relief and protections applicable to the target asset must be examined separately. Likewise, obtaining a first-instance decision does not resolve questions concerning appeals or suspension of enforcement. The route under Article 61(2) of MÖHUK, which refers to Articles 55–57, should be planned without conflating it with the special ICSID regime.[2]

Conclusion
An enforcement strategy for an award against Türkiye should begin with selection of the correct legal regime and extend to identification of assets from which recovery is possible. Omitting the special application stage for an ICSID award, overlooking documentary requirements and procedural safeguards for other awards, or treating every state-connected asset as belonging to the debtor can each have serious consequences.

The practical lesson from Court of Cassation decisions is to establish the legal requirements for the application rather than reopen the merits of the award. For creditors, the most useful file is one that explains why the award is enforceable, which objections cannot succeed and why, and how the enforceable award can ultimately be converted into payment.

Source notes and case references
Page references below refer to the publications’ printed pagination. Decisions discussed through academic commentary are identified together with the source through which they were consulted. Sources last accessed on 28 October 2026. In Turkish case citations, E. denotes the case number and K. the decision number. Original Turkish publication titles are retained for ease of retrieval.
[1] New York Convention, Article I. For Türkiye’s status and reservations, see UNCITRAL, Status of the New York Convention, the Türkiye entry and notes (a) and (c). On the distinction between ICSID and other investment arbitration awards, see also [4]. UNCITRAL status table.
[2] Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (MÖHUK), Articles 1(2), 55–57 and 60–63, particularly Articles 60(2), 61 and 62(1)(h). Legislation.
[3] Nuray Ekşi, “Yargıtay Kararları Işığında ICC Hakem Kararlarının Türkiye’de Tanınması ve Tenfizi”, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 67(1), 2009, pp. 54–74; recognition and enforcement at p. 55; Keban and subsequent developments at pp. 61–62, notes 32–33. Decisions cited: Court of Cassation, 15th Civil Chamber, 10 March 1976, E. 1617, K. 1052; 10 July 1991, E. 2383, K. 3667. Case numbers are reproduced as given in the source. Full text on DergiPark.
[4] ICSID Convention, Articles 50–55, particularly Articles 53, 54(1)–(3) and 55. See also ICSID, Recognition and Enforcement — ICSID Convention Arbitration. ICSID Convention Chapter IV.
[5] Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber, 28 April 2021, E. 2021/875, K. 2021/4586. Underlying award: İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/24, costs portion of the award of 8 March 2016. The judgment was consulted through the publicly accessible content on LEXPERA. Judgment text.
[6] “ICSID Hakem Kararlarının Türkiye’de İcrası ve Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesinin 28.04.2021 Tarihli Kararı”, LEXPERA Blog, particularly sections 4–5 concerning the designation notified on 1 February 2017. See also ICSID, Enforcement of ICSID Awards, 2024, para. 111 and note 158, recording Türkiye’s designation of courts. Designation and case commentary.
[7] New York Convention, Articles II, IV, V and VI: documentary requirements, grounds for refusal, burden of proof, adjournment and security. Convention text.
[8] Adnan Deynekli, “Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Türkiye’de Tanınması ve Tenfizinde Karşılaşılan Sorunlar”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 16, Special Issue 2014 (printed in 2015), pp. 105–122, particularly p. 116, note 17, and p. 118, note 20. Decisions cited: Court of Cassation, 19th Civil Chamber, 9 November 2000, E. 2000/7171, K. 2000/7602; 21 February 2008, E. 2007/8481, K. 2008/1465. Full text on DergiPark.
[9] Nuray Ekşi, “Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tenfizinde Kamu Düzeni”, Public and Private International Law Bulletin, 40(1), 2020, pp. 143–201, particularly pp. 164–165, notes 132–133. The public policy reasoning of the Court of Cassation, 15th Civil Chamber, 12 May 2014, E. 2014/2183, K. 2014/3226, is discussed through the extract in this article; the case citation was also checked against the LEXPERA record. Full text on DergiPark.
[10] Court of Cassation, Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments, 10 February 2012, E. 2010/1, K. 2012/1. The decision concerns enforcement of foreign court judgments without reasons. See also Ekşi, 2020, pp. 164–165. Published judgment.
[11] Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, Article 82(1)(1). For the constitutional assessment of the exemption of state property from attachment, see Constitutional Court, 21 October 1992, E. 1992/13, K. 1992/50. The special legislation governing the debtor entity must also be examined in current practice. Constitutional Court judgment.
[12] Serhat Eskiyörük, “Güncel İçtihatlar Işığında Uluslararası Tahkim Kararlarının Devlet Bankaları Aleyhine Cebri İcrasında Bağışıklık Savunması”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2), 2022, pp. 290–305, particularly pp. 294–301. DOI: 10.21492/inuhfd.1090308. Full text on DergiPark.
[13] MÖHUK, Article 48: security required of foreign parties bringing proceedings or commencing execution in Türkiye, and exemptions based on reciprocity, subject to applicable international treaties. Consolidated legislation.