The international dispute resolution landscape has changed dramatically in recent years. For many businesses, obtaining a favorable court judgment or arbitral award is no longer the most difficult part of a dispute. Increasingly, the real challenge lies in successfully enforcing that decision across borders.
The geopolitical developments following the Russia–Ukraine conflict have significantly reshaped enforcement proceedings worldwide. Russian parties have relied on the so-called Lugovoy Law to pursue claims before Russian state courts despite arbitration agreements, while many European jurisdictions have responded by refusing to recognize or enforce those judgments.
The impact has extended beyond court judgments. International sanctions have also affected the enforcement of arbitral awards in favor of Russian parties, with several European courts declining enforcement on public policy grounds.
Against this backdrop, Türkiye has taken a markedly different approach. Rather than allowing sanctions or geopolitical considerations to drive enforcement decisions, Turkish courts continue to apply their established legal framework: the New York Convention for arbitral awards and Turkish private international law for foreign court judgments.
Although Turkish courts still carefully examine whether the legal requirements for enforcement have been satisfied, a significant recent development has altered the position regarding Russian court judgments. In 2025, the Turkish Court of Cassation recognized de facto reciprocity between Türkiye and Russia, opening the door to the enforcement of Russian state court decisions.
Enforcing Russian Court Judgments in Türkiye
The recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in Türkiye is governed by the Turkish Act on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (MÖHUK).
Before granting enforcement, Turkish courts generally consider four principal requirements.
1. Exclusive Jurisdiction
The dispute must not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts.
For example, matters concerning ownership of real estate located in Türkiye are generally reserved exclusively for Turkish courts and cannot be enforced based upon a foreign judgment.
2. Due Process
The foreign proceedings must have respected the respondent’s procedural rights.
Among other things, Turkish courts examine whether:
- The defendant was properly notified of the proceedings;
- The parties had an opportunity to present their case;
- Basic principles of procedural fairness were observed.
If a party was not properly served or denied the opportunity to defend itself, enforcement may be refused.
3. Public Policy
The foreign judgment must not clearly violate Turkish public policy.
Importantly, Turkish courts do not re-examine the merits of the dispute or determine whether the foreign court correctly applied the law. Public policy review is generally reserved for situations involving manifest violations of fundamental legal principles.
4. Reciprocity
Historically, reciprocity presented the greatest obstacle for Russian judgments.
Since Türkiye and Russia do not have a bilateral treaty governing recognition of judgments, applicants traditionally had to demonstrate de facto reciprocity—that Turkish judgments were, in practice, recognized and enforced in Russia.
For many years, Turkish courts concluded that this requirement had not been established, leading to the routine refusal of enforcement applications involving Russian judgments.
A Significant Change in 2025
That long-standing position shifted in September 2025.
In a landmark decision, the Turkish Court of Cassation concluded that de facto reciprocity between Türkiye and Russia exists, allowing a Russian court judgment to be enforced.
Although the Court did not extensively explain why it changed its previous approach, the practical effect was immediate.
Lower courts quickly began relying on the new precedent, and by early 2026 several first-instance courts were enforcing Russian judgments based on the Court of Cassation’s reasoning.
As a result, reciprocity is no longer viewed as the principal barrier it once was. Provided the remaining statutory requirements are satisfied, Russian court judgments may now be successfully recognized and enforced in Türkiye.
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
The position regarding arbitral awards has historically been more straightforward.
As a party to the 1958 New York Convention, Türkiye has generally adopted an arbitration-friendly approach and has consistently enforced qualifying foreign arbitral awards, including awards rendered in favor of Russian parties.
Unlike several European jurisdictions, Turkish courts have not incorporated international sanctions into their public policy analysis when considering enforcement applications.
The European Approach
Across Europe, enforcement has become increasingly difficult for Russian parties.
Courts in jurisdictions including Germany and Switzerland have refused enforcement of certain arbitral awards after concluding that compliance would conflict with sanctions legislation or broader public policy concerns.
Recent decisions from German appellate courts have treated sanctions as overriding considerations, while the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has similarly emphasized the importance of preventing sanctioned entities from indirectly benefiting from arbitral awards.
The issue is also currently before the Court of Justice of the European Union, where further guidance on the relationship between sanctions and arbitration enforcement is expected.
Türkiye’s Different Position
Türkiye has taken a notably different path.
Because it is not part of the international sanctions regime imposed against Russia, Turkish courts generally do not treat those sanctions as part of Turkish public policy.
Instead, enforcement applications continue to be assessed according to the procedural standards contained in the New York Convention.
Recent Turkish decisions demonstrate that courts remain focused on matters such as:
- Proper notice;
- Due process;
- Validity of the arbitration agreement;
- Compliance with Convention requirements.
Broader geopolitical considerations or foreign sanctions regimes have generally not formed part of the courts’ analysis.
This approach has created a more predictable legal environment for parties seeking enforcement in Türkiye.
Practical Implications
The divergence between Europe and Türkiye has become increasingly significant.
While enforcement opportunities for Russian parties have narrowed considerably across many European jurisdictions, Türkiye has moved toward a more neutral and procedural model.
For businesses involved in international disputes, several practical observations emerge:
- Russian state court judgments now have a significantly greater prospect of enforcement in Türkiye than they did previously.
- Foreign arbitral awards continue to be assessed primarily under the New York Convention rather than broader geopolitical considerations.
- Parties should still ensure that procedural requirements—particularly those relating to jurisdiction, due process, and public policy—are carefully satisfied before seeking enforcement.
Final Thoughts
Cross-border enforcement has become one of the most strategically important aspects of international dispute resolution.
As sanctions regimes and geopolitical tensions continue to influence enforcement practices worldwide, jurisdictions have adopted increasingly different approaches.
Türkiye’s recent recognition of de facto reciprocity with Russia, together with its continued adherence to the New York Convention for arbitral awards, signals a commitment to a procedural and relatively neutral enforcement framework.
For businesses, investors, and international arbitration practitioners, this evolving landscape underscores the importance of considering enforcement strategy from the outset of any cross-border dispute—not simply after obtaining a favorable judgment or arbitral award.