Public Policy (Kamu Düzeni): Why a Foreign Judgment Is Refused
You won abroad. Now you need that win to actually count in Türkiye (Turkey) — and one phrase keeps coming up: public policy, or kamu düzeni . In plain terms, a Turkish court will refuse to enforce ( tenfizTenfizEnforcement of a foreign judgment in TürkiyeThe Turkish court decision that makes a foreign judgment enforceable in Türkiye — the step that lets you actually collect.Glossary → , making a foreign judgment executable in Türkiye) or recognise ( tanımaTanımaRecognition of a foreign judgment in TürkiyeThe court decision that makes a foreign judgment legally effective in Türkiye as proof — without, by itself, making it enforceable.Glossary → , giving it legal effect) a foreign judgment if giving it force would clash head-on with the core principles of Turkish law and morality. The reassuring part: this is a narrow gate, not a fresh trial. The court does not decide again who was right — it only checks whether enforcement itself would cross a fundamental line. This guide explains where that line sits, where it gets tested, and how both a creditor and a debtor can prepare.
What does public policy (kamu düzeni) actually mean in a Turkish enforcement case?
Public policy (kamu düzeni) is the small set of principles Turkish law treats as untouchable: basic fairness, fundamental rights, and the essential legal and moral order of the country. A foreign judgment is refused on this ground only when enforcing it would manifestly conflict with those principles. It is not enough that the foreign court applied a different rule, reached a result a Turkish court would not, or followed a procedure that looks unfamiliar.
This distinction is the heart of the matter. Türkiye does not ask your foreign judgment to match Turkish law. It refuses only the ones that would offend something fundamental if a Turkish court gave them force. A mere difference from Turkish law is not a public-policy violation — a head-on collision with its core is.
Which of these is your situation?
Why is public policy the most-litigated reason a foreign judgment is refused?
Because it is the most flexible ground, it is the one debtors reach for most. The other conditions are relatively concrete — was there reciprocity, was the matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts, was the defendant properly served. Public policy, by contrast, is a standard rather than a checklist, so a party resisting enforcement will almost always try to frame their objection as a public-policy point.
That frequency can be misleading. Being raised often is not the same as succeeding often. Turkish practice treats public policy as a narrow exception, not a general licence to re-argue the case. Understanding how the whole set of conditions fits together — public policy alongside reciprocity, exclusive jurisdiction and due service — is the best way to see where a real risk lies and where an objection is just noise. Our overview of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Türkiye and the guide to the difference between recognition (tanıma) and enforcement (tenfiz) put public policy in that wider frame.
Will the Turkish court re-open and re-decide my case?
No. This is the single most important thing to hold onto. A Turkish enforcement court does not re-try the merits — it does not weigh the evidence again, reconsider the contract, or ask whether it would have reached the same result. Lawyers call this the ban on révision au fond (review of the merits).
What the court does instead is check the conditions for enforcement, and public policy is a gate within that check: could this judgment be given force in Türkiye without offending fundamental principles? So when a debtor argues that the foreign court "got it wrong" on the facts or the law, that argument does not belong in a Turkish enforcement case at all. The full checklist of what the court actually reviews is set out in our guide to the conditions to enforce a foreign judgment.
What specific things tend to trigger a public-policy objection?
Answer first: the strongest public-policy points are about how the foreign decision was reached and what it would do, not about whether it applied the "right" law. A few flashpoints come up repeatedly, and they are best understood generally rather than as fixed rules.
- The right to be heard. If the losing party never received proper notice or a genuine opportunity to defend, that strikes at basic fairness. This overlaps with a separate condition — proper service and defence rights are their own requirement under MÖHUK Article 54 — but a serious failure here also touches public policy.
- Reasoning. A decision whose basis cannot be understood at all can be argued to conflict with fundamental procedural fairness. A judgment that is simply brief, or reasoned differently from a Turkish one, is another matter.
- Damages that look penal or excessive. Whether awards that punish rather than compensate (for example, certain punitive or multiplied damages) offend Turkish public policy is a recurring debate. It is genuinely arguable — but the amount being large, on its own, is not the test.
- Matters within exclusive Turkish jurisdiction. Some subjects, such as rights over immovable property located in Türkiye, are reserved to the Turkish courts. Strictly this is its own refusal ground (a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts), separate from public policy, but it is often discussed in the same breath.
| Usually treated as a public-policy problem | Usually NOT a public-policy problem |
|---|---|
| The losing party was never properly notified or given a real chance to defend | The foreign law differed from Turkish law |
| A decision with no ascertainable reasoning at all | A Turkish court might have reached a different result |
| Enforcement that would violate fundamental rights or basic fairness | The foreign procedure was unfamiliar but fair |
| An element that is genuinely penal in nature (debated, fact-specific) | A high but compensatory award |
Is public policy handled differently for foreign arbitral awards?
Yes — and this catches people out. A foreign arbitral award is not enforced under the court-judgment rules (MÖHUKMÖHUKTurkish Private International Law Act No. 5718The Turkish statute that decides which country's law applies to a cross-border matter, and how foreign judgments are recognised and enforced here.Glossary → Articles 50–59). It runs on a different regime, and the grounds for refusing it are narrower.
The primary route is the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, to which Türkiye is a party, with MÖHUK Articles 60–63 also governing enforcement of foreign awards. Public policy is still a ground for refusal — but it sits inside a closed, limited list, essentially mirroring the New York Convention. It is not a doorway to a broad re-argument.
| Foreign court judgment | Foreign arbitral award | |
|---|---|---|
| Governing regime | MÖHUK Arts 50–59 | New York Convention + MÖHUK Arts 60–63 |
| Reciprocity required? | Yes to enforce (Art. 54); not for recognition (Art. 58) | No — the Convention route applies |
| Public-policy ground | Art. 54 (manifestly contrary) | MÖHUK Art. 62/1-b + New York Convention Art. V |
| Re-trial of the merits? | No (Art. 55) | No |
| Range of refusal grounds | Broader set of conditions | Narrower, closed list |
If your win came out of arbitration rather than a court, read this alongside our guide to enforcing a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention, which walks through those Article V grounds in order.
The Turkish court will look at my case again, so I get a second chance to argue the merits.
It will not. Under MÖHUK Article 55 the enforcement action is heard under the simplified procedure and the court does not re-examine the merits of the foreign judgment. It does not weigh the evidence again or ask whether it would have reached the same result. Arguing that the foreign court "got it wrong" does not belong in a Turkish enforcement case at all.
If Turkish law would have handled this differently, the judgment will be refused.
A mere difference between the foreign law and Turkish law is not a public-policy problem. Türkiye does not ask your judgment to match Turkish law; it refuses only judgments whose enforcement would manifestly clash with fundamental Turkish legal and moral order. An unfamiliar but fair foreign procedure is not a violation either.
The award is very large, so a Turkish court will strike it down as excessive.
Size alone is not the test. A high but compensatory award is not a public-policy violation. Whether an element that is genuinely penal — meant to punish rather than compensate — offends Turkish public policy is arguable and fact-specific, but the question is whether something fundamental would be offended, not whether the number is uncomfortable.
Public policy works the same way for an arbitral award as for a court judgment.
It does not. Foreign arbitral awards run on a separate regime — the 1958 New York Convention together with MÖHUK Articles 60–63 — where public policy appears under MÖHUK Article 62/1-b as one item in a closed, narrower list of refusal grounds. Reciprocity is not required on that route.
Does public policy apply to recognising a foreign divorce?
It can, but the path is usually lighter. A foreign divorce or personal-status judgment is normally recognised (tanıma) rather than enforced, and public policy still applies as one of the conditions under MÖHUK Article 58. Since reciprocity is not needed for recognition, the practical focus tends to be on fairness and finality rather than a heavy public-policy fight.
Since 2017, many foreign divorces can also be registered directly in the Turkish population register through the civil registry or a consulate, under the administrative route in the Population Services Act (Law No. 5490), Article 27/A — without a court case at all, when the conditions are met. Which path fits depends on your documents and circumstances; our divorce and family law service covers this in detail, so we keep it brief here.
If you hold the judgment, how do you pre-empt a public-policy attack?
Answer first: build the file so there is nothing fundamental to object to. Most public-policy challenges fail not because a clever argument was defeated, but because the underlying case gave the debtor no real opening. If you are the creditor, you can do a lot in advance.
- Document proper service and defence abroad. Keep clear proof that the other side was notified and had a genuine chance to be heard. This closes the most common line of attack.
- Prefer a reasoned decision. A judgment whose basis is clear is far harder to paint as offending fundamental fairness.
- Get finality and clean formalities. The judgment should be final (kesinleşmiş, with a finality annotation), apostilled under the 1961 Hague ApostilleApostilApostilleA certificate added to a public document in its own country so that it is accepted as genuine in Türkiye, without consular legalisation.Glossary → Convention (or consular-legalised), and accompanied by a sworn Turkish translation.
- Be clear about damages. Where an award mixes compensatory and other elements, presenting them clearly helps separate a legitimate claim from anything that could be argued to be penal.
Done well, this turns public policy from a live threat into a formality. For the surrounding requirements — reciprocity, jurisdiction, service — see the full conditions to enforce a foreign judgment, and if you want a case reviewed before filing you can tell us about your matter.
If you are the debtor, when is public policy a real defence — and when is it not?
Public policy is a genuine defence, but a narrow one, and using it well means being honest about which category you are in. It is not a way to re-litigate the outcome, complain that Turkish law would have been kinder, or argue that the sum is too high in the abstract.
Where it can bite is on fundamentals: you were never properly notified or given a real chance to defend; the decision would violate basic fairness or fundamental rights if enforced; or an element of the award is genuinely penal rather than compensatory. Even then, the court is checking against a high bar — manifest conflict with the core of Turkish legal order — and it will not re-open the merits to get there. Raising weak public-policy points can also cost time and money without moving the result.
For a structured look at every ground a debtor can properly raise — and the ones that only waste a hearing — see our guide to defending against enforcement from the debtor's side.
This article is general information about Turkish law and is not legal advice; for advice on your specific situation, consult a qualified lawyer.
Governs enforcement (tenfiz) and recognition (tanıma) of foreign court judgments: the conditions including "not manifestly contrary to public policy" in Article 54, no review of the merits under Article 55, and recognition under Article 58.
Governs enforcement of foreign arbitral awards alongside the New York Convention, with public policy appearing as a limited refusal ground under Article 62/1-b.
The primary route for a foreign arbitral award in Türkiye, which is a party to it, setting a closed and narrower list of refusal grounds than applies to court judgments.
Since 2017, allows many foreign divorces to be registered directly in the Turkish population register through the civil registry or a consulate, without a court case, when the conditions are met.
What to put together before you speak to a lawyer
Most public-policy challenges fail because the underlying file gave the other side no real opening, not because a clever argument was defeated. Gather these before anyone assesses your position.
Frequently asked questions
Does public policy mean a Turkish court checks whether the foreign decision was fair or correct?
Not in the way people expect. The court does not re-try the merits or ask whether the result was right — that is barred under MÖHUK Article 55. It only checks whether enforcing the judgment would manifestly conflict with the core principles of Turkish law and morality. Fairness matters, but only at the level of fundamentals such as proper notice and the right to be heard.
Is a large or punitive damages award automatically refused in Türkiye?
No. A high figure, on its own, is not a public-policy violation, and compensatory awards are routinely enforced. Whether a genuinely penal element — damages meant to punish rather than compensate — offends Turkish public policy is arguable and fact-specific. The test is whether something fundamental would be offended, not whether the number is large.
Can I lose enforcement just because Turkish law is different from the foreign law?
No. A mere difference between the foreign law and Turkish law is not a public-policy problem. Türkiye does not require your judgment to match Turkish law; it refuses only judgments whose enforcement would manifestly clash with fundamental Turkish legal and moral order. Public policy is a narrow exception, not a comparison of legal systems.
Does public policy apply to foreign arbitral awards as well as court judgments?
Yes, but through a different and narrower regime. Foreign awards are enforced mainly under the 1958 New York Convention, with MÖHUK Articles 60–63, and public policy appears as a limited ground (MÖHUK Article 62/1-b, mirroring Convention Article V). The list of refusal grounds for awards is closed and narrower than for court judgments.
Who has to prove a public-policy violation?
In practice, the party resisting enforcement raises and argues the public-policy objection, and it faces a high bar — a manifest conflict with the core of Turkish legal order. The court will not re-open the merits to find one. Because outcomes turn on the specific file, the strength of any objection should be assessed on the actual documents.
Can a foreign divorce be refused on public-policy grounds?
It is possible but uncommon where the decision is final and properly served. A foreign divorce is usually recognised under MÖHUK Article 58, and since 2017 many can be registered administratively under Population Services Act Article 27/A without a court case. A clean, final, properly translated decision removes most ordinary public-policy concerns.
