A judgment issued by an Italian court does not, by itself, authorize execution against assets in Turkey. In most cases, the creditor must first obtain an enforcement order from a Turkish court. The analysis is governed by Turkish Law No. 5718 on International Private and Procedural Law (MÖHUK) together with the bilateral Turkey–Italy Convention.

The treaty framework

The Convention on judicial protection, mutual assistance in civil and criminal matters, and enforcement of judicial decisions was signed on 10 August 1926. Turkey approved it through Law No. 1394 of 16 February 1929. It was published in the Official Gazette on 3 March 1929 and entered into force on 15 May 1931. These are distinct dates: publication in 1929 should not be confused with the Convention’s entry into force.

Articles 19–21 set out rules relevant to recognition and enforcement and related procedural safeguards. For enforcement, Article 54(1)(a) MÖHUK requires reciprocity, which may be treaty-based, statutory, or established in practice. Turkish decisions concerning Italian judgments refer to the bilateral Convention as a treaty basis. Under Article 58 MÖHUK, the reciprocity condition does not apply to recognition alone.

What the Court of Cassation decisions show

In its decision of 6 March 2023 (11th Civil Chamber, E. 2020/5278, K. 2023/1319), the Court of Cassation affirmed enforcement of a commercial judgment of the Court of Udine for USD 105,000. The first-instance court had relied on the Convention and expressly found reciprocity. The Court of Cassation’s affirmance left that finding undisturbed. The point should be stated precisely: reciprocity was not independently litigated as a separate issue before the Chamber.

A similar distinction matters in the 19th Civil Chamber’s decision of 18 November 2019 (E. 2018/2605, K. 2019/5172). The lower court referred to the Convention and treated the Italian judgment as falling within its scope. The Court of Cassation modified and affirmed the judgment on court fees and attorney fees. It did not reject the treaty basis, but the case should not be presented as a contested, standalone ruling on reciprocity.

The separate question of decreto ingiuntivo

The General Assembly of Civil Chambers decision of 15 December 2022 (E. 2022/11-880, K. 2022/1750) addressed whether the particular Italian decreto ingiuntivo before it qualified as a final judgment capable of enforcement under Article 50 MÖHUK. The holding turns on the legal character and finality of that specific order under Italian law; it does not make every decreto ingiuntivo automatically enforceable in Turkey. On 5 July 2023, the 11th Civil Chamber reviewed the remaining appeal grounds and affirmed the judgment (E. 2023/3242, K. 2023/4172; decision text).

Practical points for applicants

The cited cases show Turkish courts relying on the Turkey–Italy Convention as a treaty basis in enforcement proceedings. In the decisions discussed here, reciprocity was generally not the contested appellate issue. Applicants should separately document finality, proper service and the defendant’s opportunity to be heard, the scope of the relief sought, and compatibility with Turkish public policy. Recognition without enforcement follows a different rule because Article 54(1)(a) reciprocity is not required for recognition under Article 58.

Further reading: Nuray Ekşi, Yabancı Mahkeme Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizi, 2nd ed., Beta Yayınları, pp. 462–463.

About the author

Av. Dr. Gökhan Cindemir is an attorney with a PhD in International Trade Law. His practice and writing address cross-border disputes, Turkish private international law, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in Turkey.