Arbitration in Turkey is governed by two parallel statutory frameworks that must be distinguished at the outset of any arbitration mandate: the International Arbitration Law (Milletlerarası Tahkim Kanunu, Law No. 4686, MTK), which applies to arbitrations with a foreign element — where at least one party is foreign, the subject matter has international connections, or the parties have expressly opted into the international regime — and the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu, HMK, Law No. 6100), which governs domestic arbitration between Turkish parties without a foreign element. The distinction matters because the two regimes have different rules on arbitrability, arbitrator appointment, challenge procedures, interim measures, and grounds for setting aside awards. Turkey became a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in 1992, which means that arbitral awards made in other New York Convention member states can be enforced in Turkey through an exequatur proceeding, and Turkish-seated awards can similarly be enforced in other member states. The combination of a well-developed domestic arbitration infrastructure — anchored by the Istanbul Arbitration Centre (İstanbul Tahkim Merkezi, İTAM/ISTAC) established in 2015 — and Turkey's New York Convention membership makes Turkey both a viable seat for international arbitration and an effective enforcement jurisdiction for foreign awards. The International Arbitration Law No. 4686 is accessible at Mevzuat. This page sets out how we advise and represent parties across the full range of Turkish arbitration matters.
Domestic versus international arbitration: the legal framework
A lawyer in Turkey advising on the choice between the HMK domestic arbitration framework and the MTK international arbitration framework must explain that the classification is not purely a matter of party autonomy — it depends on objective criteria. An arbitration has a foreign element under MTK where: the parties have their habitual residence or places of business in different states; a substantial part of the contractual obligations is to be performed, or the subject matter of the dispute is most closely connected, outside Turkey; shares or assets of a company whose capital is substantially foreign are involved; a shareholder loan or guarantee is provided by a foreign creditor; the contract underlying the dispute was concluded abroad; or at least one of the parties is a foreign national. Where the dispute clearly falls within MTK, the parties cannot opt into the domestic HMK regime. Where the dispute is purely domestic, the HMK regime applies unless the parties have selected foreign institutional rules that are internationally recognized and the court accepts the opt-out. The practical importance of correct classification is greatest at the award challenge and enforcement stage — because the grounds for setting aside a domestic HMK award and an international MTK award differ, and a challenge filed under the wrong statutory regime will be dismissed on procedural grounds. Practice may vary by authority and year — verify current Turkish court classification criteria for international versus domestic arbitration before selecting the applicable statutory framework.
An Istanbul Law Firm advising on the arbitrability of disputes under Turkish law must explain that not all disputes can be resolved through arbitration in Turkey — arbitrability is a threshold requirement under both HMK and MTK. Under Turkish law, disputes that are not within the free disposal of the parties (tarafların serbest tasarruf edebileceği konular) are non-arbitrable. Non-arbitrable subjects include criminal matters, family law matters (divorce, custody, guardianship), administrative law matters involving public authority, and disputes involving in rem rights in real property (tapu kaydına ilişkin davalar). Commercial contract disputes, shareholder disputes, construction claims, intellectual property licensing disputes, and investment disputes between private parties are generally arbitrable. Employment disputes occupy a more complex position: certain statutory employment rights cannot be waived and are therefore non-arbitrable, but other employment-related claims — particularly those arising from the commercial dimensions of executive employment — may be arbitrable with appropriate drafting. Practice may vary — check current Turkish court decisions on arbitrability for the specific dispute category before including an arbitration clause in a contract involving a disputed subject matter.
Drafting enforceable arbitration clauses
A law firm in Istanbul advising on arbitration clause drafting must explain that an arbitration agreement in Turkey must satisfy three formal requirements to be valid and enforceable: it must be in writing (in yazılı şekle); it must identify the legal relationship from which it arises (the underlying contract or the specific dispute category); and it must express the parties' clear intention to refer disputes to arbitration rather than to court. Beyond these formal requirements, an effective arbitration clause should specify: the institution whose rules will govern the arbitration (ISTAC, ICC, LCIA, UNCITRAL, or other recognized rules); the seat of arbitration (which determines the applicable procedural law and the courts with supervisory jurisdiction); the number of arbitrators (one or three — three is standard for high-value disputes); the language of the arbitration; and the substantive law governing the underlying contract. An arbitration clause that is silent on the seat creates uncertainty about which courts have jurisdiction to support the arbitration (for interim measures, arbitrator appointment challenges) and which law governs the setting aside of the award. Practice may vary by authority and year — verify current Turkish court decisions on the specific formulation required for each element of a valid arbitration clause, as courts have found certain formulations ambiguous in ways that created enforceability questions.
An English speaking lawyer in Turkey advising on pathological arbitration clauses must explain that a "pathological" arbitration clause — one that is internally inconsistent, designates a non-existent institution, or contains conditions that make arbitration impossible to commence — creates a dispute resolution vacuum in which neither the court nor an arbitral tribunal has clear jurisdiction. Common pathological clause problems in Turkish contracts include: designating "ICC arbitration in Istanbul" with Turkish law as the procedural law (creating a conflict between ICC rules and Turkish procedural requirements); specifying both arbitration and the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts in the same dispute resolution clause (an internally contradictory clause); designating an institutional seat that has changed name or merged with another institution since the contract was signed; and specifying a three-arbitrator tribunal with a designating authority that only appoints sole arbitrators under its rules. We review arbitration clauses in all commercial contracts for potential pathology before the contracts are signed — because the cost of remedying a pathological clause after a dispute arises is orders of magnitude higher than reviewing and correcting it at the drafting stage. Practice may vary — verify current Turkish court interpretations of ambiguous arbitration clause formulations before finalizing contract language.
ISTAC arbitration
A Turkish Law Firm advising on ISTAC arbitration must explain that the Istanbul Arbitration Centre (İTAM, operating under the brand ISTAC) was established in 2015 as Turkey's primary institutional arbitration provider, offering administered arbitration services under its own Rules of Arbitration with a seat in Istanbul. ISTAC arbitration is available for both domestic and international disputes, and the ISTAC Rules have been designed to align with international arbitration best practices while accommodating Turkish procedural requirements. ISTAC offers both standard procedure arbitration and an expedited procedure for lower-value or time-sensitive disputes, with the expedited procedure providing a final award within six months of the constitution of the tribunal in most cases. ISTAC's filing fees and arbitrator fees are set according to a schedule that is generally competitive with comparable institutional providers. Practice may vary — verify current ISTAC Rules, fee schedules, and expedited procedure eligibility criteria directly at ISTAC's official website before commencing or drafting a clause for ISTAC arbitration, as institutional rules are periodically revised.
A lawyer in Turkey advising on the practical advantages of ISTAC for Turkey-seated disputes must explain that ISTAC offers specific procedural advantages for disputes that will ultimately require enforcement or court support in Turkey: the ISTAC Secretariat is located in Istanbul and can coordinate directly with Turkish courts for interim measure applications; ISTAC arbitrators who are experienced in Turkish commercial law reduce the risk of procedural misunderstandings that can arise when an internationally-seated tribunal applies unfamiliar Turkish legal concepts; and a Turkish court asked to enforce an ISTAC award is applying the HMK or MTK domestic enforcement framework to an award it is structurally familiar with, rather than the exequatur framework for foreign awards under the New York Convention. For disputes where one party is Turkish and the other is foreign, ISTAC's bilingual (Turkish and English) administration capacity removes a practical barrier that can slow proceedings when pure international institutions are used. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current ISTAC procedural practice and Turkish court treatment of ISTAC awards before selecting ISTAC for a specific dispute type.
ICC and other international arbitration institutions
An Istanbul Law Firm advising on ICC arbitration with a Turkish party or seat must explain that the International Chamber of Commerce Court of Arbitration (ICC) is the most frequently selected international arbitration institution for high-value commercial disputes involving Turkish parties — particularly in energy, infrastructure, construction, and M&A-related disputes where one or more parties are non-Turkish. ICC arbitration can be seated in Turkey (making Turkish courts the supervisory courts) or seated outside Turkey (most commonly in Paris, Geneva, or London) with Turkish substantive law applicable to the merits. A Turkish-law-governed dispute seated in Paris under ICC Rules is a common structure for Turkey-related contracts: the international seat gives the non-Turkish party comfort about the neutrality of the supervisory courts, while Turkish substantive law applies to the merits of the dispute as agreed by the parties. Practice may vary — verify current ICC Rules (2021 version as of this writing) and the specific Turkish law provisions on recognition of ICC awards before selecting ICC for a new contract or a pending dispute.
An English speaking lawyer in Turkey advising on LCIA, UNCITRAL, and ad hoc arbitration options must explain that the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) is also used for Turkey-related disputes, particularly in the financial services sector and in disputes with UK-based counterparties. UNCITRAL arbitration rules — which do not involve an administering institution but use an appointing authority to constitute the tribunal — are frequently used in investment treaty arbitration and in state-to-state dispute contexts, and may also be selected by sophisticated commercial parties who prefer a less administered framework. Ad hoc arbitration — where the parties agree on procedural rules directly without institutional administration — is less common in Turkish practice due to the coordination challenges that arise without an institutional secretariat, but remains available for parties who want maximum flexibility in structuring the proceeding. For each institutional option, we provide a comparative analysis of cost structure, procedural timeline, arbitrator selection mechanism, and enforcement profile before advising on the appropriate choice. Practice may vary — check current rules, fee schedules, and appointing authority procedures for each institution before drafting an institutional arbitration clause.
Interim measures and court support for arbitration
A law firm in Istanbul advising on interim measures in Turkish arbitration must explain that both HMK and MTK permit parties to seek interim relief (ihtiyati tedbir) either from the arbitral tribunal (once constituted) or from the competent Turkish court — and the court's jurisdiction to grant interim measures in support of arbitration proceedings survives the existence of the arbitration agreement. A party that needs urgent asset preservation, an injunction against transfer of property, or an order preventing destruction of evidence cannot always wait for the tribunal to be constituted, which can take weeks or months after the arbitration is commenced. In these situations, an emergency application to the competent Turkish court — supported by evidence of urgency and the existence of a valid arbitration agreement — can produce an interim protection order within days. The court's interim order remains in effect until the arbitral tribunal is constituted and can assume jurisdiction over interim measures. Practice may vary by authority and year — verify current Turkish court procedures for interim relief in support of pending arbitration and the specific evidence requirements applicable to emergency applications before filing.
A Turkish Law Firm advising on Turkish court support for arbitration proceedings must explain that Turkish courts play a supporting role in arbitration proceedings beyond interim measures — including appointing arbitrators where the contractually agreed appointment mechanism has failed, ruling on challenges to arbitrator appointments where the institutional challenge procedure has not resolved the challenge, and issuing subpoenas or evidence collection orders to support the tribunal's fact-finding process. For international arbitrations seated outside Turkey, Turkish courts can assist in collecting evidence located in Turkey through the international judicial assistance framework under the Hague Evidence Convention and applicable bilateral treaties. The scope and reliability of Turkish court support for international arbitration has improved materially since the MTK was enacted, and Turkish courts have generally shown a pro-arbitration orientation in their approach to jurisdictional questions and arbitration support applications. Practice may vary — check current Turkish court practice in the relevant commercial court district before relying on court support for a specific procedural step in a pending arbitration.
Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards
A lawyer in Turkey advising on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Turkey must explain that Turkey is a party to the 1958 New York Convention, which means that arbitral awards made in other New York Convention member states are recognizable and enforceable in Turkish courts through an exequatur proceeding (tenfiz davası) — subject only to the limited grounds for refusal specified in Article V of the Convention. The Article V grounds for refusal include: incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement; lack of proper notice or inability to present the party's case; the award exceeds the scope of the arbitration agreement; the tribunal or procedure was not in conformity with the parties' agreement; the award has not yet become binding or has been set aside at the seat; the subject matter of the dispute is non-arbitrable under Turkish law; and enforcement would be contrary to Turkish public policy. Turkish courts apply these grounds in a pro-enforcement manner consistent with the Convention's object and purpose — they do not review the merits of the award and do not require the award to be correct under Turkish substantive law. The enforcing foreign awards Turkey framework — covering the practical steps for exequatur proceedings in Turkish commercial courts — is analyzed in the resource on enforcing foreign awards Turkey. Practice may vary by authority and year — verify current Turkish commercial court practice on exequatur proceedings and the current interpretation of the public policy exception before filing an enforcement application.
An Istanbul Law Firm advising on the public policy defense against enforcement in Turkey must explain that the public policy (kamu düzeni) ground is the most frequently invoked defense in Turkish exequatur proceedings, and it is also the ground that Turkish courts have most actively developed through case law. Turkish courts have found public policy violations in arbitral awards that: ordered payment of interest at rates deemed excessive under Turkish standards; applied a foreign law that produced an outcome fundamentally inconsistent with Turkish mandatory rules; or were rendered in proceedings where one party was not given a genuine opportunity to be heard. At the same time, Turkish courts have rejected public policy defenses that amounted to arguments about the correctness of the award's substantive reasoning rather than genuine fundamental violations — consistent with the Convention's narrow interpretation of the public policy ground. A respondent seeking to block enforcement on public policy grounds must demonstrate a genuine violation of fundamental principles, not merely an outcome that differs from what a Turkish court would have decided on the merits. Practice may vary — verify current Turkish court decisions on the public policy exception in arbitral award enforcement proceedings before assessing the viability of a public policy defense.
Setting aside domestic and international awards
A law firm in Istanbul advising on setting aside arbitral awards in Turkey must explain that the grounds for setting aside a Turkish-seated award differ depending on whether the HMK or MTK framework applies. Under HMK Article 439, a domestic arbitral award can be set aside for: lack of a valid arbitration agreement; improper composition of the tribunal; the award exceeding the scope of the arbitration agreement; non-compliance with procedural rules mandatory under HMK; violation of Turkish public policy; non-arbitrability of the subject matter; and failure to comply with formal award requirements. Under MTK Article 15, the grounds for setting aside an international award are closely modeled on the UNCITRAL Model Law and track the New York Convention Article V grounds. The most important limitation in both regimes is that neither permits the setting aside court to review the merits of the award — the court cannot substitute its own assessment of the facts or the law for the tribunal's, and a wrong decision on the merits is not a ground for setting aside. Practice may vary by authority and year — verify current Turkish appellate court decisions on the scope of each setting aside ground before filing or defending a challenge, as the case law continues to develop.
An English speaking lawyer in Turkey advising on the strategic response to a setting aside application must explain that a party defending against a setting aside application must demonstrate that none of the statutory grounds are satisfied — and the most effective defense typically involves showing that the procedural objections raised in the setting aside application were not raised during the arbitration (waiving the objection), that the alleged irregularity had no material effect on the outcome of the award, or that the setting aside ground advanced is in substance a merits challenge dressed in procedural language. Turkish courts have become more sophisticated in identifying disguised merits challenges and dismissing them as outside the permitted scope of the setting aside review. For awards that have already been enforced or partially executed, a stay of enforcement pending the setting aside application may be available — but the court has discretion to require security as a condition of the stay. The commercial litigation Turkey framework — covering the procedural steps in Turkish court challenges to arbitral awards — is analyzed in the resource on commercial litigation Turkey. Practice may vary — verify current Turkish court procedural requirements for setting aside applications, including filing deadlines, before initiating or responding to a challenge.
Construction and investment arbitration
A Turkish Law Firm advising on construction arbitration must explain that the construction sector generates the largest volume of arbitration in Turkey — driven by the scale of public infrastructure projects, the complexity of EPC and turnkey contracts, the frequency of delay and disruption claims, and the significant participation of international contractors in Turkish construction markets. Construction disputes in Turkey typically involve claims for delay damages (extension of time and prolongation costs), variations and change orders, force majeure events, defective work, and final account disagreements. The expert evidence dimension of construction arbitration is substantial — quantum experts, delay analysts, and technical experts are typically required, and the quality of expert evidence is often the decisive factor in the outcome. We manage the full expert evidence process, from selection and instruction through cross-examination strategy. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current ISTAC and ICC practice on construction dispute procedures and expert evidence protocols before commencing a construction arbitration.
A lawyer in Turkey advising on investment arbitration involving Turkey must explain that disputes between foreign investors and the Turkish State may be subject to investor-state arbitration under bilateral investment treaties (BITs) that Turkey has concluded with numerous countries, or under the investment protection provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty. Investor-state arbitration under BITs is typically administered under ICSID Rules (for ICSID-registered disputes) or UNCITRAL Rules (for non-ICSID arbitrations), with the arbitral tribunal applying the substantive protections in the applicable BIT — including fair and equitable treatment, full protection and security, protection against expropriation without compensation, and most-favored-nation treatment. Turkish investment law disputes have arisen in the energy, telecommunications, construction, and financial sectors. The threshold issues of treaty coverage, investor qualification, and investment definition require careful analysis before a BIT claim is filed. Practice may vary — verify the current status of the applicable BIT, including any subsequent amendments or the treaty's termination, before commencing an investor-state arbitration against Turkey.
Post-award enforcement in Turkey
An Istanbul Law Firm advising on post-award enforcement in Turkey must explain that once a Turkish-seated arbitral award has become final — either because the setting aside deadline has passed without a challenge being filed, or because a setting aside challenge has been dismissed — the award can be enforced as a court judgment through the Turkish enforcement and execution system (icra takibi). A domestic arbitral award that has been granted enforcement by a Turkish court (ilamlı icra) is treated as an enforcement title equivalent to a court judgment, and the enforcement creditor can immediately initiate asset seizure, bank account attachment, and real property mortgage annotation procedures through the enforcement office. For foreign awards that have been granted exequatur in Turkey, the same enforcement procedures apply once the exequatur decision becomes final. The enforcement proceedings Turkey framework — covering the practical mechanics of asset seizure, account attachment, and judgment enforcement — is analyzed in the resource on enforcement proceedings Turkey. Practice may vary by authority and year — verify current enforcement office procedures and asset attachment rules before commencing post-award enforcement steps.
How we work
A best lawyer in Turkey structuring an arbitration mandate begins with three threshold assessments: whether the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable as drafted; whether the dispute falls within the agreement's scope; and which statutory framework (HMK or MTK) applies. These threshold questions determine the procedural strategy for every subsequent step — from commencement through to enforcement. For new contract mandates, we review and redraft arbitration clauses to ensure enforceability and alignment with the parties' actual risk allocation preferences before the contract is signed. For pending disputes, we assess the strength of the arbitration agreement, the applicable procedural law, the likely tribunal composition, and the interim measure options before advising on the tactical approach to commencement or defense. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance from the applicable institution and Turkish courts before acting on any general arbitration law analysis, as procedural rules and enforcement practice evolve.
ER&GUN&ER represents Turkish and foreign clients across the full range of arbitration matters in Turkey — ISTAC proceedings, ICC and LCIA arbitrations with Turkish parties or Turkish-seated proceedings, investment treaty arbitrations, domestic HMK arbitrations, and exequatur proceedings for foreign awards. We work in English throughout all international mandates and coordinate with leading expert witnesses, forensic accountants, and foreign co-counsel as required by each matter. The Istanbul Bar Association at istanbulbarosu.org.tr provides resources for identifying qualified practitioners. Practice may vary — check current guidance before acting on any information on this page.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What laws govern arbitration in Turkey? International arbitration with a foreign element is governed by the International Arbitration Law No. 4686 (MTK). Domestic arbitration between Turkish parties is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) Articles 407–444. Turkey is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on recognition and enforcement of foreign awards.
- What is ISTAC and how does it work? ISTAC (Istanbul Arbitration Centre / İTAM) is Turkey's primary institutional arbitration provider, established in 2015. It offers standard and expedited arbitration procedures for both domestic and international disputes, with a secretariat in Istanbul and a bilingual (Turkish/English) administration structure.
- Can I enforce a foreign arbitral award in Turkey? Yes — through an exequatur (tenfiz) proceeding in the competent Turkish commercial court. Enforcement can be refused only on the limited grounds in Article V of the New York Convention, including public policy violations and procedural defects.
- What makes an arbitration clause valid in Turkey? It must be in writing, arise from an identified legal relationship, and express a clear intention to arbitrate. It should also specify the institution, seat, number of arbitrators, language, and governing substantive law to avoid ambiguity.
- On what grounds can a Turkish arbitral award be set aside? Under HMK Article 439: invalid arbitration agreement, improper tribunal composition, excess of scope, mandatory procedural violation, public policy violation, non-arbitrability, and formal defects. The court cannot review the merits of the award.
- Can Turkish courts assist arbitration proceedings? Yes — Turkish courts can appoint arbitrators where the agreed mechanism fails, rule on arbitrator challenges, issue interim protection orders, and provide evidence collection assistance for proceedings seated in Turkey or abroad.
- How long does arbitration typically take in Turkey? ISTAC expedited procedure: approximately six months to final award. ISTAC standard procedure: twelve to eighteen months for most disputes. ICC proceedings with a Turkish seat: eighteen to thirty months for complex commercial disputes.
- Is investor-state arbitration available against Turkey? Yes — disputes between foreign investors and the Turkish State may be subject to arbitration under bilateral investment treaties or the Energy Charter Treaty, typically under ICSID or UNCITRAL rules.
- What happens if the arbitration clause is ambiguous? Turkish courts will attempt to give effect to the parties' evident intention to arbitrate (pro-arbitration interpretation), but a genuinely ambiguous clause may result in jurisdictional challenges and delay. Clause review before dispute arises is substantially cheaper than jurisdictional litigation.
- Can you represent both Turkish and foreign parties? Yes — we represent both Turkish companies in international arbitrations and foreign companies in Turkey-seated proceedings and exequatur applications, working in English throughout all international mandates.
Author: Mirkan Topcu is an attorney registered with the Istanbul Bar Association (Istanbul 1st Bar), Bar Registration No: 67874. His practice focuses on cross-border and high-stakes matters where evidence discipline, procedural accuracy, and risk control are decisive.
He advises companies and investors across International Arbitration, Commercial Litigation, Corporate Law, and cross-border enforcement matters where procedural precision and jurisdictional strategy are decisive.
Education: Istanbul University Faculty of Law (2018); Galatasaray University, LL.M. (2022). LinkedIn: Profile. Istanbul Bar Association: Official website.
