Is Türkiye Solidifying Its Status as a Competitive Seat and Enforcement-Friendly Jurisdiction? Recent Trends from the High Courts

As global commercial centers compete for the title of “arbitration-friendly”, the competition is no longer just about geography, but about judicial consistency. In recent years, Türkiye has significantly leveled the playing field, with both the Turkish Court of Cassation (“the Court of Cassation”) and regional courts of appeal issuing a series of decisions that underscore the country’s increasingly sophisticated and arbitration-friendly judicial stance in which arbitration is properly understood, courts’ decisions on arbitration-related matters are consistent with the nature of international arbitration and the intervention of public policy is not abused (see Emre Esen, Milletlerarası Tahkim [International Arbitration] p. 3). These rulings align with contemporary international standards and provide much-needed clarity for cross-border practitioners.

This post explores six key areas where recent case law (all cases are accessible in Turkish here) has refined the arbitration landscape, building upon the dialogue of evolving certainty previously discussed on this blog regarding language requirements and provisional attachments.

1. Removing Financial Friction: Fixed vs. Proportional Court Fees

While strictly speaking the cost of enforcement pertains to a jurisdiction's role as a place of enforcement rather than the arbitral seat itself, in practice, parties often evaluate a jurisdiction’s overall arbitration-friendliness by considering the entire lifecycle of the dispute. This is especially true when the relevant assets are located in the same jurisdiction, making the financial burden associated with post-award proceedings a critical practical benchmark. Historically, there was ambiguity over whether enforcement proceedings should attract “proportional fees” (a percentage of the award amount) or “fixed fees”. When a party finally secures a favorable award, incurring a second heavy financial burden to recover a debt that has not yet been collected can be devastating. Consequently, proportional fees in high-value disputes act as more than just a significant administrative hurdle; they can create a tangible barrier to accessing justice.

In a pivotal decision dated 24 February 2022 (11th Civil Chamber, File no. 2020/2115), the Court of Cassation upheld a Regional Court of Appeal ruling that enforcement proceedings entail fixed (nominal) fees. The shift is profound: a fee that might have reached approximately USD 94,000 under a proportional model was reduced to a fixed fee of roughly USD 9 (as of March 2026). This ruling effectively implements the 2016 amendment to the Law on Fees (Law No. 492), signaling that Türkiye is committed to ensuring that the cost of accessing the courts is not a deterrent for award-creditors. Moreover, this was not a singular occurrence. The Court of Cassation has consistently reinforced this position in its most recent jurisprudence, as seen in its rulings dated 8 July 2024 (11th Civil Chamber, File no. 2022/6833) and 6 October 2025 (11th Civil Chamber File no. 2025/1684), effectively cementing the fixed-fee regime as the settled standard for enforcement proceedings.

2. Procedural Estoppel: Ensuring Good Faith and Finality

Competitive arbitration regimes prioritize the finality of awards by preventing malicious tactical objections after an award was rendered. The Turkish High Courts have increasingly applied the good faith principle to ensure that parties raise objections during the arbitral process or lose them.

• Arbitrator Qualifications: In a decision dated 11 July 2023 (Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, File no. 2023/3347), the court ruled that if a party fails to object to an arbitrator’s background within the timeframe set by institutional rules, they are estopped from raising this as an annulment ground later.

• Signatory Authority: On 3 October 2023 (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, File no. 2023/2930), the Court similarly ruled that challenges to a signatory’s authority must first be raised during the arbitration itself to be assessed in subsequent annulment proceedings.

These decisions demonstrate a shift toward procedural estoppel, reinforcing the idea that arbitration is not a rehearsal for state court litigation.

3. Narrowing Public Policy: The Threshold for Criminal Allegations

In a landmark decision finalized on 22 April 2025 (Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, File no. 2024/2560), the Turkish judiciary decisively limited the ability of parties to use pending criminal investigations as a stalling tactic against arbitration awards.

The case involved an ICC award where the losing party alleged that a key expert report was forged and a witness had committed perjury. While the lower court initially stalled enforcement based on these criminal claims, the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (43rd Civil Chamber) overturned that refusal – a stance later fully affirmed by the Court of Cassation. The high court allowed enforcement based on three critical findings:

• Independence of the Award’s Reasoning: The court noted that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not solely based on the contested expert witness’s report. The tribunal had relied on a broad range of evidence and contractual grounds, meaning the alleged criminal act did not fundamentally jeopardize the final award.

• Prior Adjudication: Crucially, the allegations of forgery and perjury had already been raised, discussed, and dismissed by both the arbitral tribunal and the Paris court (the court of the seat). The Turkish high court respected these prior findings, refusing to allow a second attempt through the Turkish criminal system.

• The “HAGB” Limitation: The court clarified that the expert in question had not actually been convicted in a way that impacts public policy. He received a HAGB (Hükmün Açıklanmasının Geri Bırakılması), that is a suspension of the announcement of the judgment. Under Turkish law, a HAGB is not a final conviction; if the individual meets certain conditions during a probation period, the case is completely dropped. Therefore, it cannot serve as a conclusive ground to deny enforcement on public policy grounds.

4. Corporate Succession: Continuity of the Arbitration Agreement

As Türkiye strives to become a more active hub for mergers and acquisitions (M&A), the question of whether an arbitration clause survives a merger is vital. On 12 December 2023 (6th Civil Chamber, File no. 2023/3007), the Court of Cassation affirmed that a surviving company in a merger retains the standing to seek enforcement of an award. By recognizing corporate successors as the “legal continuation” of the original party, the court provided essential continuity for international entities engaged in complex corporate restructuring. Ultimately, this underscores the increasing quality as an arbitral seat by ensuring legal certainty in the event of corporate changes, which can be interpreted as the signal of a sophisticated, pro-arbitration environment that especially answers the needs of foreign investment law.

5. Governing Law: Judicial Deference to Arbitral Tribunals’ Determinations

The question of which law governs the arbitration agreement, the law of the seat or the law of the contract, is a perennial issue. In a decision dated 23 November 2022 (11th Civil Chamber, File no. 2022/5454), the Court of Cassation showed deference to an arbitral tribunal’s findings of “implied choice” by the parties.^[i]

The tribunal applied German law to the validity of the arbitration agreement. The choice-of-law clause in the main contract was also in favour of German law. This parallels the English Supreme Court’s approach in Enka v. Chubb (see here, here and here for some of the extensive discussions on the Blog). The respondent argued in the annulment proceedings that this was contrary to Article 4 of the Turkish International Arbitration Law, stipulating that “The arbitration agreement shall be valid according to the law agreed by the parties, failing such agreement, to Turkish Law.” The Regional Court of Appeal had rejected the argument, noting that an arbitral tribunal’s decision to apply German law did not, in itself, constitute a ground for annulment. It further emphasized that even under Turkish law, the arbitration agreement would not have been invalid.

The Court of Cassation endorsed this reasoning, confirming that there was no violation under Article 15 of the Turkish International Arbitration Law, which exhaustively lists the grounds for annulment. By doing so, the court also allowed a different interpretation of the choice-of-law governing the arbitration agreement (see also Candan Yasan Tepetaş, Tahkim Anlaşmasının Esasına Uygulanacak Hukukun Tayinindeki Yaklaşımlar ve Türk Hukukuna Etkileri, [Approaches to the Determination of the Governing Law of the Arbitration Agreement and Its Implications for Turkish Law], BATIDER 2024).

6. Digital Adaptability: Modern interpretation of “in writing”

Reflecting its commitment to upholding valid international arbitration agreements, the Turkish judiciary has proven its alignment to modernizing the “in writing” requirement. In a dispute involving an online ride-hailing platform, the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (12th Civil Chamber, 23 October 2023, File no. 2023/1049) upheld an arbitration clause incorporated via standardized online terms. The court confirmed that digital acceptance of terms and conditions is sufficient to establish a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, provided the clause is accessible.

Conclusion: A Competitive Future

The cumulative effect of these decisions is clear: the Turkish judiciary is actively refining the country’s status as a competitive and reliable seat and enforcement jurisdiction for international arbitration. We are seeing a shift from formalistic hurdles to a substantive, pro-validity approach that prioritizes good faith, procedural efficiency, and cost-effectiveness.

While practitioners should always remain mindful of the nuances of local public policy, the recent jurisprudence from the Court of Cassation and the Regional Courts of Appeal offers a robust framework of certainty. For international parties, these developments, such as the 2025 affirmation on narrowing public policy interventions, signify that Türkiye is not just a hub for commerce, but a jurisdiction where the rule of arbitration is being upheld with increasing vigor and sophistication.