Facts
A Dutch healthcare consultancy had signed a contract in 2015 with a Turkish hospital company to advise on an eye clinic that the company was to open in the Netherlands. By a judgment of 12 December 2018 the Amsterdam court ordered the hospital company to pay EUR 150,936 in principal (excluding VAT) and a contractual penalty of EUR 15,093.60 for each month of delay from 1 April 2017; the Amsterdam Court of Appeal upheld it on 25 August 2020. The consultancy sought recognition and enforcement of that judgment in Türkiye. The defendant argued that reciprocity was lacking, that the judgment was contrary to public policy and that the penalty was excessive. In checking the Dutch decisions relied on by the claimant and translating Dutch texts, the court used AI tools.
Question
On the merits, the question was whether the conditions for enforcement in Articles 50 to 54 of the Turkish Code on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK), notably reciprocity and the absence of any manifest conflict with public policy, were met. As regards AI, the case raised the question of the conditions under which a judge may use AI tools to access foreign legal sources, confirm that foreign judgments exist and check translations, and how that use should be disclosed in the reasoning.
Decision
On 30 April 2026 the court allowed the claim and ordered enforcement, including the principal and, by majority, the contractual penalty. The reasoning states that AI was used as a technical tool to verify the Dutch decisions and help with translation, in line with decision 2024/108 of 10 September 2024 of the Public Officials Ethics Board. The court likened this to using a calculator, recorded that all sources were logged for appellate review and no personal data was shared, and said that legal interpretation and the final decision remained with the judge. It noted that the translations had not been certified by a sworn translator and that translation errors could be raised on appeal.
Why it matters
The judgment is a rare example of a Turkish court expressly disclosing its use of AI in its reasoning and tying that use to the Public Officials Ethics Board's principles of transparency, accountability and verification. The reasoning separates the tasks performed with AI from those reserved to the judge. By stating the translation risk openly, it allows the parties to challenge that point on appeal.
Related stages
In the same enforcement case (filed on 27 December 2023) the same court had earlier given judgment E. 2023/856, K. 2025/415 of 15 May 2025, which contained the same AI disclosure but refused to enforce the penalty clause. On appeals by both parties, the 17th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal set that judgment aside on procedural grounds under Article 353(1)(a)(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, without examining the merits, and remitted the case (4 December 2025, E. 2025/1256, K. 2025/1607); the 2026 judgment followed. The 2026 judgment is open to appeal; whether it has become final could not be verified.