Recognition and Enforcement of HKIAC and Hong Kong Arbitral Awards in Türkiye
An assessment of Turkish Court of Cassation decisions and arbitration clause drafting
Foreign awards made in arbitrations administered by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) may be recognised and enforced in Türkiye. Compulsory execution requires an enforcement order from the competent Turkish court. The principal issues are the validity of the arbitration agreement, proper notice, the opportunity to present a case, the binding effect of the award and public policy. [1–2]
The research conducted as of 10 October 2026 did not locate a Turkish Court of Cassation judgment directly addressing enforcement in Türkiye of an award expressly identified as arising from an HKIAC-administered arbitration. This does not establish that no such judgment exists. The discussion below distinguishes the verified cases connected with Hong Kong from general enforcement decisions that may also inform the assessment of HKIAC awards.
Legal basis for recognition and enforcement
Recognition allows a foreign arbitral award to have res judicata or conclusive evidentiary effect in Türkiye; enforcement permits compulsory execution. Articles 60–63 of Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (MÖHUK) govern foreign arbitral awards. Article 63 also subjects recognition to the provisions governing enforcement. Article 1(2) preserves the application of international treaties. [1]
Where an award falls within the 1958 New York Convention, the Convention applies in the first instance. Türkiye has made reservations limiting its application to awards made in the territory of another contracting State and disputes arising from legal relationships considered commercial under Turkish law. The United Nations depositary notification states that the Convention applies to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under the responsibility of the People’s Republic of China from 1 July 1997. Accordingly, commercial awards made in Hong Kong may satisfy the territorial connection required by Türkiye’s reciprocity reservation. [2–4]
Article V of the New York Convention addresses incapacity or invalidity of the arbitration agreement, deficiencies in notice or the opportunity to present a case, excess of jurisdiction, irregularities in the tribunal’s composition or procedure, and issues concerning binding effect, setting aside and suspension. The party resisting enforcement generally bears the burden of proving the grounds in Article V(1). Arbitrability and public policy may be examined by the court on its own initiative. Enforcement review does not entail a rehearing of the merits. [2]
Distinguishing HKIAC from a Hong Kong seat
An arbitration involving HKIAC may proceed under its institutional rules or under UNCITRAL rules with HKIAC administration; the chosen procedure must be identified clearly. HKIAC may also serve only as the appointing authority. Selecting HKIAC does not necessarily make Hong Kong the seat in every case. The institution, rules and legal seat must be identified separately. The fact that one party is a Hong Kong company likewise does not make an award an HKIAC award. [7]
Court of Cassation cases connected with Hong Kong
Enforcement of a CIETAC award and the opportunity to present a case
The judgment of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation dated 11 February 2026, docket No. 2025/3994 (E.), decision No. 2026/918 (K.), concerns enforcement of an award of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) arising from sales contracts involving a Hong Kong-registered company. The first contract specified a price of USD 660,000 for a drilling machine and accessories. The respondent alleged lack of notice of the arbitration and violations of its right to present a case and public policy in the appointment of arbitrators and the proceedings. [5]
The first-instance court granted enforcement, stating that the clause contained no specific provision on the form of notices, that the award was binding and that the merits could not be reviewed. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Cassation affirmed that outcome. The affirmation cannot be read as making absence of notice or an actual denial of the opportunity to present a case immaterial. A practical lesson for HKIAC proceedings is to retain evidence of notices and opportunities to participate. This is not an HKIAC-specific precedent. [5]
ICC arbitration involving a Hong Kong company
In the judgment of the 19th Civil Chamber dated 29 May 2013, docket No. 2013/5305 (E.), decision No. 2013/9912 (K.), the claimant was also a Hong Kong company. The dispute nevertheless arose from ICC arbitration which the contract provided would take place in Beijing. Enforcement was sought for the award dated 15 February 2011, case No. 16960/CYK. Although the first-instance court granted enforcement on the basis of binding effect, the Court of Cassation reversed on the calculation of court fees and did not examine the remaining appeal grounds. The judgment therefore cannot establish either enforcement of an HKIAC award or affirmation by the Court of Cassation of the binding-effect analysis. [5]
General enforcement decisions relevant to the assessment of HKIAC awards
Authority to sign and the principle of good faith
The judgment of the 11th Civil Chamber dated 9 April 2004, docket No. 2003/6774 (E.), decision No. 2004/3751 (K.), considered an objection that the representative signing the arbitration clause lacked specific authority. Taking account of performance of the contract and the respondent’s failure to raise the objection despite repeated notices during arbitration, the Court of Cassation held that raising it only at the enforcement stage breached the principle of good faith and reversed the refusal of enforcement. [6]
This judgment should not be presented as an HKIAC precedent. It also dates from an earlier legislative regime; authority to sign and represent a party today must be assessed under the applicable current law. Its limited lesson is that an authority objection is considered together with the party’s conduct. Silence during arbitration cannot be assumed to cure every lack of authority.
Binding effect and enforcement of arbitration costs
The judgment of the 6th Civil Chamber dated 21 April 2026, docket No. 2025/3784 (E.), decision No. 2026/1634 (K.), concerned investment arbitration conducted in Stockholm under UNCITRAL rules. Recognition and enforcement were sought in Türkiye for the part of the award dated 8 June 2015, case No. 2013/27, awarding Turkmenistan EUR 356,843.98 in arbitration costs and USD 700,000 in legal fees. The first-instance court considered binding effect sufficient under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention and relied on the award having been made in Sweden when assessing reciprocity. The Court of Cassation affirmed recognition and enforcement. [5]
The case is not about HKIAC, but informs the general analysis of binding effect, the seat and enforcement of a costs ruling. Article 35.2 of the HKIAC Rules 2024 likewise provides for awards to be final and binding. The applicable version of the rules, any setting aside or suspension of the award, and the precise part for which enforcement is sought must nevertheless be explained separately. A substantial amount of costs does not by itself determine acceptance or refusal in every case. [2, 5, 7]
Drafting a Hong Kong arbitration clause with enforcement in Türkiye in mind
Identify the institution and rules expressly. If HKIAC institutional arbitration is intended, specify its full name and the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules. If administration by HKIAC under UNCITRAL rules is intended, state that choice separately. The HKIAC Rules 2024 took effect on 1 June 2024; the applicable version depends on the parties’ agreement and the commencement date. Current rules do not automatically govern an earlier arbitration. [7]
Specify the legal seat. If Hong Kong is intended, expressly designate Hong Kong as the seat. Hearings elsewhere or online are distinct from the legal seat. The institution’s address or the other party’s registered office does not replace the designation of a seat. This choice matters for procedural law, setting-aside review and the enforcement regime applicable in Türkiye. [2, 7]
Record the agreement in writing and define its scope. Document the intention to arbitrate in a written form that can be proved, and define the scope of disputes concerning formation, performance, breach, termination and validity. Use the parties’ correct legal names. Whether a group company, surety or guarantor is bound requires separate assessment. In transactions involving several contracts, the clauses and appointment procedures should be consistent. Provisions concerning Turkish courts should not obscure the intention to arbitrate the merits. [2]
Document signing and representative authority. Distinguish the authority of a corporate organ from authority under a power of attorney. If the applicable law requires specific authority to agree to arbitration, document it expressly. Retain authorised-signatory records, corporate resolutions and powers of attorney with the contract. Do not rely on good faith later curing a lack of authority. [2, 6]
Consider the relevant laws separately. The law governing the substantive contract may differ from the law governing the validity of the arbitration agreement. Under Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention, the latter is assessed primarily under the parties’ chosen law or, absent a choice, the law of the country where the award was made. A Hong Kong seat does not necessarily subject the substantive contract to Hong Kong law. [2]
Make appointments and notices workable. The number of arbitrators, appointment method and language should suit the parties’ needs and the selected rules. Specify notice addresses, use of email and notification of address changes. Preserve dispatch and delivery records during arbitration and ensure a reasonable and equal opportunity to present a case. Formal compliance with the rules does not itself cure an actual denial of that opportunity. [2, 5]
Address arbitrability and public policy. The subject matter must be capable of resolution by arbitration under Turkish law, and the effects of recognition or enforcement in Türkiye must not contravene public policy. Describing an award as final, binding or enforceable in Türkiye does not remove this review. Treaty reservations and mandatory enforcement requirements cannot be displaced by a private contract. [2–4]
Preparing the enforcement application
Under Article IV of the New York Convention and the applicable MÖHUK provisions, the arbitration agreement and award must be submitted in the required form of originals or duly certified copies, with the necessary certified Turkish translations. The application should identify the seat, applicable rules, binding effect, operative provisions to be enforced and debtors. Notices, authority documents, appointment records and any evidence of payment should be organised in the file. [1–2]
Under Article 60(2) MÖHUK, enforcement is sought from the court of first instance at the place agreed by the parties in writing. Absent such agreement, territorial jurisdiction follows the award debtor’s domicile in Türkiye, then its place of residence, and, if neither exists, the location of assets capable of execution. The nature of the dispute must also be considered when identifying subject-matter jurisdiction. An agreement on the place of enforcement proceedings in Türkiye should not be confused with a clause submitting the underlying dispute to Turkish courts. [1]
The New York Convention does not impose a general prerequisite of first obtaining an enforcement order from a Hong Kong court before seeking enforcement in Türkiye. Setting-aside or suspension decisions are nevertheless relevant under Article V(1)(e). Where an application for setting aside or suspension is pending before a competent authority, the Turkish court may adjourn its enforcement decision under Article VI and, at the creditor’s request, require suitable security. A pending application must be distinguished from an award actually being set aside or suspended. [2]
Conclusion
HKIAC awards made in Hong Kong and falling within the New York Convention can, as a matter of law, be recognised and enforced in Türkiye. The verified Hong Kong-connected Court of Cassation cases concern CIETAC and ICC arbitration; they do not establish a settled enforcement practice specific to HKIAC. Each HKIAC award must be assessed on its own record for a valid arbitration agreement, representative authority, procedural safeguards, binding effect, arbitrability and public policy.
Parties planning recovery in Türkiye should begin preparing when drafting the arbitration clause. Express selection of the institution and rules, designation of the legal seat, documented signing authority and retained notice records reduce the scope for later objections. A well-drafted clause does not guarantee enforcement, but helps prevent validity and procedural problems that a court may examine.
Sources and scope of the research
Research date: 10 October 2026. The official Yargıtay decision-search service was searched for HKIAC, Hong Kong and Hongkong together with arbitration-related Turkish terms. The full texts of decisions Nos. 2026/918, 2013/9912 and 2026/1634 were examined on the official site. Decision No. 2004/3751 was examined from a published judgment copy. Failure to identify a direct HKIAC enforcement judgment does not exclude unpublished judgments or decisions that do not appear in searches because of anonymisation.
The legal-characterisation section of decision No. 2026/918 uses the expression foreign court judgment. The classification here follows the CIETAC arbitral award described in the claim and first-instance reasoning in the same judgment. The fee-related reversal in the 2013 case has not been used as an assessment of the current fee regime
[1] Law No 5718; [2] New York Convention; [3] UN treaty status and reservations; [4] UN Hong Kong notification; [5] Yargıtay decision search; [6] 11th Chamber 2003/6774 E 2004/3751 K; [7] HKIAC Rules 2024
