Security for costs in Türkiye: do U.S. claimants have to post a deposit?

This guide is for U.S. companies, and their U.S. counsel, planning to sue or start enforcement proceedings in Türkiye (Turkey). It explains the Turkish rule on security for costs (teminat, sometimes called cautio judicatum solvi), the reciprocity exemption, how Turkish courts have treated U.S. claimants, and how security for costs differs from the counter-security required for a precautionary attachment.

The rule: IPPL Article 48#

Under Article 48(1) of Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun, "IPPL"), foreign individuals and companies that bring an action, join an action, or start enforcement proceedings in Türkiye must provide the security the court sets, to cover litigation and enforcement costs and the other party's losses. Under IPPL Art. 48(2), the court exempts them on the basis of reciprocity.

The test is the claimant's foreign status; the defendant's nationality does not matter. A separate rule in Article 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) covers Turkish citizens without habitual residence in Türkiye and claimants in documented financial distress.

Where the question comes up#

How it works in court: a precondition to suit#

The court decides on security for costs on its own motion and may hear the parties first (HMK Art. 86). The judge sets the amount and form freely; the parties may agree the form by contract, and the judge may increase, reduce, change or lift the security if circumstances change (HMK Art. 87).

Compliance with a security order is a precondition to suit (HMK Art. 114(1)(ğ)). If security is not posted within the peremptory time limit set by the judge, the action is dismissed on procedural grounds (HMK Art. 88(1)). The time limit is short, so funding must be available when the order is made.

In enforcement proceedings#

IPPL Art. 48(1) expressly covers enforcement proceedings (icra takibi). The Court of Cassation treats security as a precondition of enforcement that the court considers on its own motion; the debtor's request cannot be rejected as late. The court first checks whether reciprocity exempts the creditor. If not, it sets security and a time limit, and if security is not posted the enforcement file is cancelled (Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber, E. 2014/12188, K. 2014/15555, May 29, 2014).

In practice the debtor raises the issue by a complaint to the enforcement court. Because a dispute about security after the payment order can delay the case, it is better to address exemption in the request for enforcement itself.

Exemption through reciprocity#

Reciprocity can arise from a bilateral treaty, a multilateral convention to which both states are parties, the other state's legislation, or its actual practice (12th Civil Chamber, E. 2014/12188, K. 2014/15555).

Treaty-based: the 1954 Hague Convention and why it does not cover U.S. parties#

Article 17 of the 1954 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure prohibits requiring security from nationals of contracting states on the ground that they are foreigners. The Turkish Ministry of Justice's Directorate General for Foreign Relations and EU Affairs lists the states covered by this convention and by bilateral agreements on its website. The United States is not a party to the 1954 Convention and does not appear on those lists (checked October 11, 2026).

The 1931 Turkey-U.S. treaty#

Article I of the Treaty of Establishment and Sojourn between the United States and Turkey, signed in 1931, grants nationals and companies of each country most-favored-nation treatment in the other, including in matters of judicial competence. In 2016 the Court of Cassation relied on this treaty: it reversed a judgment that had dismissed a U.S. creditor's action for annulment of objection for lack of security, holding that the creditor was exempt (19th Civil Chamber, E. 2015/3799, K. 2016/844, January 26, 2016).

De facto reciprocity#

In 2025 the Court of Cassation held that, based on letters from the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice, U.S. courts do not impose a different security or fee obligation on foreigners, so de facto reciprocity exists and security is not required from a U.S. claimant (9th Civil Chamber, E. 2025/6093, K. 2025/7707, October 13, 2025). In 2026 the Izmir Regional Court of Appeal found both legal and de facto reciprocity for a U.S. company and set aside a dismissal for lack of security (11th Civil Chamber, E. 2026/17, K. 2026/739, April 30, 2026).

The same reasoning applies in recognition and enforcement actions. In an action to enforce a foreign arbitral award, the claimant relied on ministry letters showing de facto reciprocity with the United States. The Court of Cassation reversed the dismissal for failure to post security, holding that the court must examine the evidence of de facto reciprocity before ordering security (19th Civil Chamber, E. 2013/10700, K. 2013/17222, November 5, 2013).

The decision that went the other way#

In 2011 the Court of Cassation required security from a U.S. company, reasoning that there was no legal assistance treaty with the United States and that it was not a party to the 1954 Convention (19th Civil Chamber, E. 2010/8123, K. 2011/3601, March 21, 2011). The later decisions above go the other way, but first-instance courts sometimes write to the Ministry of Justice before deciding, which lengthens the proceedings. Some defendants also point to U.S. state rules on security from non-resident plaintiffs to argue that reciprocity is incomplete.

Asking for exemption at the outset: what to file#

A request for exemption is stronger if it includes:

1. The legal basis: IPPL Art. 48(2) and the type of reciprocity relied on.
2. Article I of the 1931 treaty, with a Turkish translation.
3. Citations of the Court of Cassation and regional appeal court decisions granting exemption.
4. A summary of the ministry letters as quoted in those decisions.
5. An alternative request that any security be proportionate to the amount in dispute.

How much, and in what form#

Neither the IPPL nor the HMK sets a percentage. The judge decides the amount and form (HMK Art. 87). Security is meant to cover the defendant's likely costs and losses; the Izmir Regional Court of Appeal found a large amount ordered in a small partial claim excessive and said security must match the value in dispute (E. 2026/17, K. 2026/739). In practice security is posted in cash or by a bank letter of guarantee acceptable to the court, as stated in the order.

Precautionary attachment: a different security#

A creditor who obtains a precautionary attachment is liable for the debtor's and third parties' losses if the attachment proves wrongful and must give security, unless the claim rests on a court judgment; if it rests on a document equivalent to a judgment, the court decides (Article 259 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu, "EBL")). This counter-security has nothing to do with foreign status.

In 2026 the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal ordered a Texas company seeking an attachment based on a foreign arbitral award to post security. It noted that the United States is not a party to the 1954 Convention and that no known bilateral agreement exempts U.S. nationals from security in attachment proceedings (13th Civil Chamber, E. 2026/548, K. 2026/670, April 2, 2026). If you plan an attachment, budget for this security separately. See our guide on precautionary attachment in Türkiye.

If the court refuses the exemption#

If the request for exemption fails, the court sets the amount, the form and a peremptory time limit. Three practical points follow:

1. The time limit is strict. If security is not posted in time, a lawsuit is dismissed (HMK Art. 88(1)) and an enforcement file is cancelled. Do not plan on an extension.
2. Have funds ready before filing. An international transfer, a bank letter of guarantee and the deposit with the court can take several business days.
3. The amount can be revisited. If the amount is out of proportion to the claim, the claimant can ask the judge to reduce it when circumstances change (HMK Art. 87(2)). Challenges to the order usually go up with the final decision.

Getting the deposit back#

Security for costs protects the defendant's costs and possible losses. When the case or enforcement file ends and that purpose falls away, the claimant asks the court or enforcement office to release it. Before release, the court checks whether the other side has a pending claim for losses.

Bottom line#

Security for costs is a threshold question for every foreign claimant in Türkiye. For U.S. companies, recent decisions based on the 1931 treaty and de facto reciprocity favor exemption, but the outcome depends on the court. Ask for exemption at the outset with supporting documents, keep funds available in case it is refused, and treat attachment security as a separate budget item.

Frequently asked questions

Law stated as at: October 11, 2026. Leyla Başkaya Şentürk is a lawyer (avukat) admitted to the Istanbul Bar Association, Türkiye (Reg. No. 67063). She advises on Turkish law only, is not admitted to practise law in any U.S. jurisdiction and does not advise on U.S. law. Content on this website is general information, not legal advice, and no outcome is promised. Using this website or submitting the contact form does not create an attorney-client relationship.