MÖHUK Article 53(1) names the documents attached to an exequatur petition in two subparagraphs and asks for a translation of each: the original of the foreign judgment, duly approved by the authorities of that country, or a copy approved by the judicial organ which gave it, together with its approved translation; and the writing or document showing that the judgment has become final, duly approved by the same authorities, with its own approved translation. The list ends there. The remainder of the foreign file is not among the attachments the Code names.
Where finality sits changes the count
For translation purposes the second subparagraph behaves differently according to where finality is recorded. In some countries the record is written into the judgment itself, and the sentence stating it then appears inside the translation of the judgment. In others the court or its registry issues a separate writing, and there is then a second document, a second translation, and an approval annotation on that document which is itself rendered. The Code covers both situations by speaking of a writing or a document.
The petition’s own summary is not part of the translation
Article 52 governs what the petition contains: the State whose court gave the judgment, its date and number, and a summary of the operative part. That summary is drafted by the party seeking exequatur. It is not a portion of the translation of the judgment, and a rendering which quietly absorbs it becomes hard to compare with the source. The court may of course call for a further document to be translated during the proceedings, which is not the same as there being a longer list to translate at the outset.
What the Code leaves out of the list
Interlocutory decisions of the foreign court, hearing minutes, the parties’ pleadings and expert reports are not named among the attachments. A lawyer who sends the whole bundle to be rendered is paying for pages the statute does not ask for, whereas a bundle arriving without the finality document is short of one of the two items the statute does ask for. Fixing the scope is therefore the first question in such a file, before any page is worked on.
Recognition asks for the same two items
There is no separate list for recognition. Article 58(1) makes the acceptance of a foreign judgment as conclusive evidence or as res judicata depend on the court establishing that the conditions for exequatur are satisfied, and says only that the reciprocity condition does not apply. The set of documents is accordingly the same as in exequatur. Article 59 adds that the effect runs from the moment the foreign judgment became final, which is why the finality document is not an afterthought but the second half of the set.
Criminal judgments and arbitral awards
Two variants change the scope. Under Article 50(2), exequatur may also be sought for the provisions on private rights contained in the criminal judgments of foreign courts; where such a judgment reaches Türkiye the subject of the request is those provisions rather than the whole decision, so the translation shows which part of the document was rendered and marks clearly the parts that were not. For foreign arbitral awards the Code writes a separate subparagraph: Article 61(1)(c) asks for translated and duly approved copies of the arbitration agreement or clause and of the award itself, so two documents are covered and the agreement is not left out. Who approves those translations, and how the documents travel to Türkiye, belong to the cross-border matters section. Acte Tercüme translates the judgment and the finality document of an exequatur or recognition file together.