Securing a favourable arbitral award alone is not sufficient. What ultimately matters is the ability to effectively recover the amount awarded.

In Türkiye, enforcement proceedings generally take 2–3 years, during which there is a real risk that the debtor may dissipate assets, significantly undermining recovery prospects.

Against this backdrop, preliminary injunction is not merely an ancillary remedy but lies at the centre of the recovery strategy. In practice, applying for injunction before, or at the latest in conjunction with, the enforcement action often proves decisive.

Through an injunction order, it is possible to promptly freeze the debtor’s movable and immovable assets, receivables from third parties, and most importantly bank accounts.

That said, injunction orders are operationally demanding in practice.

At YılmazÜlker, we regularly assist our clients in pursuing injunction orders in parallel with enforcement proceedings and in securing their claims effectively.

Key Considerations for Injunction Orders

The Claim Must Be Due and Payable: Under Art. 257 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (“EBL”), preliminary injunction is available for unsecured and due monetary claims. In practice, the prevailing view is that a final and binding arbitral award constitutes a matured monetary claim, even if it has not yet been enforced in Türkiye.

Prima Facie Evidence: Pursuant to Art. 258/1 of the EBL, it is sufficient to demonstrate, on a prima facie basis, the existence and maturity of the claim. Established case law indicates that arbitral awards generally satisfy this evidentiary threshold, even prior to enforcement.

Security Requirement: Under Art. 259 of the EBL, courts typically require the claimant to provide security as a condition for the execution of an injunction order. While the amount is at the court’s discretion, in practice it is often set between 15% and 20% of the award amount.

Common Risks in Practice

Stamp Duty: The arbitral award, together with its Turkish translation, must be submitted to the court. Whether the translation must be notarised remains a matter of debate in practice. If notarisation is required, a stamp duty of 0.948% of the awarded amount may arise. Given the typically high value of arbitral awards, this may result in a significant and often unexpected cost. It also remains debated whether the absence of notarisation constitutes a procedural deficiency. While many courts require notarisation to be completed, there are also cases where sworn translations without notarisation have been accepted.

Timing of Bank Guarantees: Injunction orders must be executed within 10 days from the date of the decision; otherwise, the injunction order is lifted automatically. As the required security is often provided in the form of a bank guarantee, obtaining such guarantees within this timeframe, particularly for foreign entities, may present practical challenges. Early coordination with banks is therefore essential.

Security for Foreign Claimants (cautio judicatum solvi): Foreign claimants may be required to provide security when initiating proceedings before Turkish courts or enforcement offices. This requirement may be waived pursuant to an applicable multilateral or bilateral treaty, or on the basis of de facto reciprocity between Türkiye and the claimant’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the existence of de facto reciprocity should be carefully assessed prior to initiating proceedings, as it tends to vary depending on the approach adopted by the courts.

Conclusion

In enforcing foreign arbitral awards, injunctions are often not ancillary but decisive, directly shaping recoverability from the outset.

However, the ability to execute injunction orders, effectively, and comprehensively requires experience and close familiarity with current practice and case law.

For any questions on this topic, please feel free to get in touch with our team.