Enforcing ICC Arbitral Awards in Türkiye: What the Case Law Shows

Türkiye is a New York Convention state, and its courts enforce ICC awards made abroad in most cases. In our review of 25 Court of Cassation decisions on ICC awards, dating from 2007 to 2026, about two thirds went in favour of the award creditor. The refusals sit in a few predictable places, and several of them trace back to how the arbitration clause was drafted and signed.

Which rules apply
The New York Convention comes first. Türkiye has been a party since 1992, with the reciprocity and commercial reservations, and the Convention takes priority over domestic law. The Act on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK, Law No. 5718) fills the gaps in Arts. 60–63, including the procedure. The Court of Cassation's General Assembly of Civil Chambers restated this order in November 2023.

Whether an ICC award needs an enforcement action at all depends on its seat:

• Seat outside Türkiye. The award is a foreign award and must be enforced through the courts. The General Assembly reads the Convention as a territorial rule: what counts is where the award was made.
• Seat in Türkiye. The award is a Turkish award under the International Arbitration Law (Law No. 4686), even though it was rendered under the ICC Rules. There is no enforcement action. The losing party may bring a set-aside action, and the creditor obtains an enforceability certificate. In September 2025 the İstanbul Regional Court dismissed an enforcement action for an İstanbul-seated ICC award on exactly this ground. That decision was open to appeal when it was rendered.

The enforcement court does not review the merits. It examines two grounds of its own motion, arbitrability and public policy. Every other ground must be raised and proved by the award debtor.

How the enforcement action runs
Enforcement is a separate court action. It is not a retrial, but it does pass through two levels of appeal.

1. Court. The action is filed with the commercial court, sitting as a panel, at the place the parties agreed in writing. Failing that, it is filed where the debtor is domiciled or resident in Türkiye, or where its assets are located.
2. Documents. The claimant files the arbitration agreement and the award, as originals or certified copies, with certified Turkish translations. In practice this means an apostilled award and a sworn translation.
3. Proof that the award is binding. The 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation accepts that an ICC award is binding once rendered under the ICC Rules, and it has relied on a letter from the ICC Secretariat to that effect.
4. Mediation. Pre-action mediation is not required where the claimant asks only for enforcement (11th Civil Chamber, April 2026).
5. Security for costs. A foreign claimant must post security unless a treaty or reciprocity exempts it (MÖHUK Art. 48).
6. Court fee. The fee is fixed, not proportional to the award. The General Assembly settled this in June 2019, and the 11th Civil Chamber has followed it since.
7. Appeals. The judgment can be appealed to the regional court and then to the Court of Cassation. An appeal suspends execution of the enforcement judgment (MÖHUK Art. 57(2)).
8. Interim attachment. The creditor can ask for an attachment over the debtor's assets while the action or an appeal is pending. In the two regional court decisions we reviewed, the security was set at 15% of the claim.

On timing, in four recent ICC files the route from filing to the Court of Cassation's decision took roughly three and a half to six and a half years.

Where enforcement fails
The refusals in the case law fall into three groups. The arbitration agreement is the most common.

The arbitration agreement

• Unclear intent to arbitrate. In July 2025 the 11th Civil Chamber upheld the refusal of a London-seated ICC award. The contract paired the ICC clause with a clause giving English courts non-exclusive jurisdiction, and a later novation agreement gave those courts exclusive jurisdiction. The Chamber held that the will to arbitrate must be clear and leave no doubt.
• Unauthorised signatory. In February 2025 the same Chamber upheld the refusal of a Paris-seated ICC award. The people who signed for the Turkish company were neither its authorised representatives nor its commercial agents, and the claimant could not prove that the company had ratified the contract.
• Wrong institution. A clause referring disputes to "the International Arbitration Court in England" did not designate the ICC. The 19th Civil Chamber held in 2011 that the ICC award was not an award of the tribunal the parties had agreed on.

One point works in the creditor's favour. A debtor that defended the arbitration on the merits without objecting cannot deny the signature or the clause for the first time before the enforcement court (11th Civil Chamber, April 2022).

The right to be heard
The leading refusal concerns an ICC award of USD 60.5 million in damages. The tribunal fixed the amount largely on the claimant's own valuation report. The respondent's lawyers and experts saw a redacted version, the respondent itself was not allowed to see it, and its authors remained anonymous and could not be cross-examined. The 11th Civil Chamber treated this as a serious breach of the right to be heard and of public policy, and refused enforcement. The General Assembly left that result in place in November 2023.

The earlier liability award from the same arbitration was recognised.

Tax and conflicting Turkish judgments

• Tax. Where the debtor argues that the award gives effect to a tax-avoidance arrangement, the court must look into the merits to that limited extent. In 2012 the General Assembly sent back an enforcement judgment for an ICC award that ordered a public body to refund withholding tax.
• Final Turkish judgments. An award that cannot be reconciled with a final Turkish judgment can offend public policy. In 2007 the 11th Civil Chamber held that an ICC award on a VAT dispute could not be enforced for that reason, and because it found the dispute non-arbitrable. An acquittal for lack of evidence, by contrast, does not conflict with an award that finds contractual liability on the same facts (General Assembly, November 2023).

Defences that do not work
Several objections come up again and again and have been rejected:

• "The award is not final." An ICC award does not need a finality certificate from the courts of the seat. A partial award on jurisdiction made in Geneva was held recognisable from the day it was rendered (11th Civil Chamber, June 2019; see also November 2024).
• "A challenge is pending at the seat." The debtor has to prove that the award was set aside or suspended. A challenge to other parts of the award before the Swiss Federal Tribunal did not stop enforcement of the unchallenged costs orders (11th Civil Chamber, October 2025).
• "The tribunal was wrongly composed." Where the clause is silent on the number of arbitrators, the ICC Rules decide, and the ICC Court may appoint a sole arbitrator. An arbitrator who shares the claimant's nationality is not partial for that reason alone (11th Civil Chamber, November 2016).
• "The interest or the costs are excessive." Compound interest is not against Turkish public policy (İstanbul Regional Court, December 2019). Nor is the size of a costs award: an ICC costs award of about USD 1.6 million and EUR 3.8 million was enforced (11th Civil Chamber, February 2022).
• "The tribunal got the law wrong." The enforcement court does not re-examine how the tribunal applied the substantive law or weighed the evidence.
• "The contract was not in Turkish." A clause in a foreign language is valid where one party is foreign (6th Civil Chamber, December 2023).

Open questions in 2026
Three points are not settled and deserve attention before filing.

• Court fee in construction disputes. In May 2026 the Ankara Regional Court required a proportional fee for the enforcement of an ICC award arising from a subcontract. It relied on decisions of the 6th Civil Chamber, which hears construction disputes, about foreign court judgments. This departs from the General Assembly's 2019 ruling. We found no decision of the 6th Civil Chamber on the fee for an arbitral award.
• Proof of binding force. Some first-instance courts still order the claimant to file a finality annotation within a fixed period. In one ICC case the action was dismissed when the claimant did not comply, and the dismissal stood because the claimant had not appealed to the regional court (6th Civil Chamber, May 2025).
• Hybrid dispute clauses. The July 2025 refusal came after the arbitral tribunal had upheld its own jurisdiction, in a contract governed by English law. Contracts that combine an ICC clause with a court jurisdiction clause carry real enforcement risk in Türkiye.

Practical points
The case law suggests a short list of precautions for anyone who may need to enforce an ICC award against assets in Türkiye.

When drafting the contract

• Keep the dispute clause to arbitration alone and name the ICC precisely. If a court jurisdiction clause is needed, state that it serves only to support the arbitration.
• Have the Turkish counterparty's authorised signatories sign, and keep proof of their authority with the contract.
• Repeat or expressly preserve the arbitration clause in every amendment and novation.

During the arbitration

• Keep a record of every notice sent to the respondent and of its participation.
• Make sure the respondent itself has access to the evidence the tribunal will rely on, above all on quantum.

When enforcing

• File proof that the award is binding with the first submission, such as an ICC Secretariat letter and any decision of the courts of the seat.
• Ask for an interim attachment early, and budget for the security.
• Expect appeals to suspend execution, and plan for a process measured in years.

This article reflects the case law reviewed up to June 2026. It is general information and not legal advice.

Key decisions reviewed
The analysis is based on a review of Court of Cassation and Regional Court decisions concerning the enforcement of ICC arbitral awards in Türkiye. The key decisions referred to in this article include:

General Assembly, 8 November 2023 — E. 2022/11-660, K. 2023/1066. Order of the applicable rules, public policy test and the right to be heard.
General Assembly, 27 June 2019 — E. 2017/19-930, K. 2019/812. Fixed court fee for enforcement proceedings.
General Assembly, 8 February 2012 — E. 2011/13-568, K. 2012/47. Territorial test, tax law and public policy.
11th Civil Chamber, 2 April 2026 — E. 2025/5174, K. 2026/1864. No requirement for pre-action mediation in enforcement proceedings.
11th Civil Chamber, 16 October 2025 — E. 2025/271, K. 2025/6277. Challenge pending at the seat and partial enforcement.
11th Civil Chamber, 3 July 2025 — E. 2024/5356, K. 2025/4827. Unclear intent to arbitrate.
11th Civil Chamber, 20 February 2025 — E. 2024/228, K. 2025/1098. Unauthorised signatory.
11th Civil Chamber, 27 November 2024 — E. 2024/54, K. 2024/8389. No requirement for a finality certificate from the seat.
11th Civil Chamber, 5 April 2022 — E. 2020/7475, K. 2022/2843. Objections not raised during the arbitration.
11th Civil Chamber, 24 February 2022 — E. 2020/2115, K. 2022/1276. Enforcement of a costs award.
11th Civil Chamber, 11 June 2019 — E. 2017/3469, K. 2019/4259. Binding force of an ICC award and partial award.
11th Civil Chamber, 3 November 2016 — E. 2015/11441, K. 2016/8701. Sole arbitrator and arbitrator nationality.
11th Civil Chamber, 1 May 2007 — E. 2006/7396, K. 2007/6672. VAT dispute and conflict with a final tax judgment.
19th Civil Chamber, 7 June 2011 — E. 2011/4149, K. 2011/7619. Wrong arbitral institution designated in the arbitration clause.
6th Civil Chamber, 27 May 2025 — E. 2024/1419, K. 2025/2213. Failure to file a finality annotation.
6th Civil Chamber, 12 December 2023 — E. 2023/3007, K. 2023/4212. Validity of a foreign-language arbitration clause.
Ankara Regional Court, 31st Civil Chamber, 7 May 2026 — E. 2026/353, K. 2026/475. Proportional court fee in a construction-related enforcement dispute.
İstanbul Regional Court, 13th Civil Chamber, 25 September 2025 — E. 2023/179, K. 2025/1461. ICC award seated in İstanbul.
Sakarya Regional Court, 5th Civil Chamber, 19 June 2020 — E. 2020/275, K. 2020/292. Interim attachment.
İstanbul Regional Court, 14th Civil Chamber, 12 February 2020 — E. 2019/2410, K. 2020/158. Interim attachment.
İstanbul Regional Court, 16th Civil Chamber, 9 December 2019 — E. 2017/3494, K. 2019/2686. Compound interest.