In short
A foreign arbitral award is not a judgment of a state court. A decision of exequatur is required before it can be enforced in Turkey. The frame is the New York Convention and Turkish private international procedure. Exequatur of a court judgment is in a separate place, and it is not rewritten here. The reading starts by separating whether the document in hand is an arbitral award.
Is an arbitral award a judgment?
The names of the arbitrators, the date, and the operative part are read in the decision. A state court's seal does not take the place of the arbitral tribunal's minute. Which document is in hand is separated at the outset. A judgment is the decision given by the court. An arbitral award is the decision given by the arbitral tribunal. Even if the covers look alike, the body is not treated as the same. Who gave the decision is read from the first line and from the signature block.
Before a decision of exequatur is given, a foreign arbitral award is not treated as the basis of enforcement with a judgment. The exequatur decision is not the arbitral award itself. The two stand side by side. One is not put in the file like a photocopy of the other. The request for exequatur is also not described as a lawsuit that retries the arbitral award. The request is that the arbitral award in hand become enforceable in Turkey.
Grounds for refusal are not listed in this text
Grounds for refusal are not built here as a list. A concrete obstacle is discussed from the document in the exequatur file. A missing page, an untranslated operative part, or a copy on which the arbitrators' names do not appear does not take the place of a refusal list. Which gap is tied to which result is read separately from the papers in hand. That distinction does not put every missing paper through the same door.
The New York Convention is for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Exequatur of a state-court decision is not this door of the Convention. A list of conditions that belongs to a court judgment is not carried here. After seeing that the decision in hand is an arbitral award, the reader does not look for that list. A request opened with the wrong document is not treated as exequatur of the right document.
Does an apostille take the place of exequatur?
An apostille is a certification. It does not cause the arbitral award to be treated as having been granted exequatur, and it does not by itself build the basis of enforcement with a judgment. A certified copy serves to show that the decision is an arbitral award. The certification is not pasted in place of the exequatur decision. If an apostille endorsement and the exequatur judgment stand side by side, each is read from its own text. One is not treated as having completed the other's date or result.
Even if the original of the decision, a certified copy, and the translation carry the same claim, exequatur is requested separately. The operative sentence in the translation is compared with the operative part in the original. If the translation drops the arbitrators' names or the date, the incomplete copy is not taken as the basis. The set of documents stands as an annex to the request for exequatur. The set looking complete does not mean that a decision of exequatur has been given.
Which copy is put into the exequatur file
The copy put into the exequatur file should show together the arbitrators' names, the date, and the operative part. A missing page is not put in place of the full decision. If the original and the translation conflict, the operative sentence is read from the original. If the translation drops the tribunal or the date, that copy is not taken as the sole basis. If the certification endorsement does not say that the text is complete, a missing page is not treated as completed. Which pages are in hand is checked from the list of annexes in the petition.
If a judgment carrying a state court's cover stands like an annex to the arbitral minute, the two documents are separated. The judgment is the subject of exequatur of a court decision, and it is not rewritten here. Exequatur of an arbitral award is not treated as opened with a photocopy of the judgment. If the two are in the same folder, the reader separates the body first. If the body is the arbitral tribunal, the request for exequatur looks at this decision. If the body is a court, that paper is not the subject of this text. An apostille endorsement does not close that distinction either.
Which document is looked at
An arbitral award is not the same paper as a state court's judgment. Counsel in Ankara separates from the file that the office being in Çankaya does not change the court with jurisdiction over exequatur. The competent place is not built from the district of the office address. Which document is the subject of exequatur is read from the annexes in the petition. The frame that separates exequatur of an arbitral award from the difference between recognition and exequatur and from the apostille stands on the international law page.
Conclusion
A foreign arbitral award is not a court judgment, and its exequatur is requested separately. Exequatur of a court judgment is in a separate place. An apostille does not take the place of the exequatur judgment. Grounds for refusal are not frozen in this text. The basis is the Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and Procedure.