BlogTurkish Private International Law PortalImmunity of Foreign States and Diplomats from Jurisdiction and Enforcement under Turkish Law: Lessons from the Turkish Court of Cassation

From sovereign acts to commercial dealings: when can Turkish courts try a foreign state, its embassy or its diplomats — and when can they seize its assets?

A traffic accident involving an embassy car, unpaid rent, a dismissed local employee, or a judgment debt owed by a foreign state… In each of these disputes the first — and often decisive — question is the same: can the Turkish courts hear the case, and can the resulting judgment be enforced?

Turkish law answers this question from two distinct sources. As regards the foreign state itself, Article 49 of Law No. 5718 on International Private and Procedural Law (the “PILA”) adopts the principle of restrictive immunity; as regards diplomatic and consular staff, the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations apply. The settled case law of the Court of Cassation consistently stresses that these two regimes must not be conflated. Below we have compiled, by theme, the key decisions of the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court that define the Turkish approach.

Excerpts are unofficial translations from the Turkish original.

I. The Core Principle: Restrictive, Not Absolute, Immunity

Court of Cassation, Assembly of Civil Chambers

E. 1991/299 · K. 1991/406 · 18 September 1991

(…) As a matter of principle, Turkish courts have jurisdiction over all natural and legal persons, domestic or foreign, within the geographical borders of the Republic of Türkiye. This general rule, however, has certain exceptions. For instance, Turkish courts cannot try another state, and no action may be brought before Turkish courts against persons enjoying diplomatic immunity. While this is the general rule, it cannot be accepted in absolute terms. Since a state’s immunity from being tried before the courts of another state relates to the sovereign rights of the state concerned, the immunity rule must not be applied to disputes arising from private-law relationships falling outside those rights.

In short: The Assembly of Civil Chambers established that jurisdictional immunity covers only acts rooted in sovereign rights, whereas a foreign state is subject to Turkish jurisdiction in disputes arising from private-law relationships.

Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber

E. 2022/159 · K. 2022/1756 · 14 February 2022

(…) As a rule, it must be accepted that states, international organisations and persons enjoying diplomatic immunity have immunity from jurisdiction. However, this rule cannot be accepted in absolute terms. Since the fact that a state cannot be tried before the courts of another state concerns the sovereign rights of the state being tried or sought to be tried, the rule of jurisdictional immunity may not apply to disputes arising from private-law relationships falling outside those (sovereign) rights.

In matters governed by private law, international organisations — and even states — enjoy not full but restricted immunity from jurisdiction. Indeed, Article 49 of the PILA, which provides that “a foreign state shall not be granted immunity from jurisdiction in civil disputes arising from private-law relationships”, likewise indicates that the restrictive immunity system applies.

In short: The Court confirmed that Article 49 of the PILA embodies restrictive immunity and that this approach applies not only to states but also to international organisations.

II. Foreign States and Embassies: A Diplomat’s Immunity Does Not Shield the State

Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber

E. 2009/10643 · K. 2009/10361 · 1 December 2009

Pursuant to Article 33 of Law No. 2675 on International Private and Procedural Law and Article 49 of Law No. 5718 on International Private and Procedural Law, which entered into force during the proceedings, a foreign state shall not be granted immunity from jurisdiction in civil disputes arising from private-law relationships, and in such disputes service may be effected on the foreign state’s diplomatic missions.

In short: In private-law disputes a foreign state cannot rely on jurisdictional immunity, and process may be served directly on its diplomatic mission in Türkiye.

Court of Cassation, 4th Civil Chamber

E. 2010/6451 · K. 2010/7394 · 17 June 2010

(…) Under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961 on immunity from jurisdiction, since diplomatic agents enjoy immunity from the criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving State, the decision concerning the defendant Narbert M. Kapitza is in accordance with procedure and law. However, the other defendant, the German Embassy, is not a diplomatic agent but the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany in Türkiye; as it represents the Federal Republic of Germany in Türkiye, its liability in Türkiye is equivalent to that of the Federal Republic of Germany. Under Article 33 of Law No. 2675, in force when the action was filed, “a foreign state shall not be granted immunity from jurisdiction in civil disputes arising from private-law relationships”. The immunity under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention relates to diplomatic agents and does not extend to actions brought against the State they represent. Accordingly, the proceedings must continue against the defendant German Embassy; it must be established whether it is the registered keeper of the vehicle alleged to have caused the accident, and the parties’ claims and defences must be collected before a decision is rendered on that basis.

In short: Although the diplomatic agent enjoys personal immunity under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, the damages claim arising from the same incident must proceed against the embassy representing the state.

Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber

E. 2012/16731 · K. 2013/9605 · 30 May 2013

(…) An action against a foreign state arising from private-law relationships it has entered into as a private person must not be confused with the jurisdictional immunity of diplomatic agents. Indeed, all legal systems today exempt foreign states from local jurisdiction in respect of their sovereign acts. Accordingly, the immunity recognised both in the Vienna Convention, to which Türkiye is a party, and in the bilateral and multilateral agreements on the matter relates to diplomatic agents, and not to actions brought against the State they represent.

The embassy of a foreign state in Türkiye is the representative of that state. A foreign state is represented in Türkiye by its embassy. Apart from their personal dealings, foreign ambassadors in Türkiye also enter into private transactions and contracts on behalf of the State they represent, and that State is directly liable under those contracts. An action arising from such private-law contracts may therefore be brought against the embassy, on behalf of the foreign State it represents.

In short: An embassy may be sued, on behalf of the sending state, over private-law contracts concluded in that state’s name, since diplomatic immunity is personal and does not extend to the state.

Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber

E. 2022/17913 · K. 2023/1499 · 26 January 2023

(…) the claimant is not a diplomatic agent within the meaning of the Vienna Convention but is in the position of a […] representative of the European Union; the diplomatic immunity afforded to missions and their members under the Vienna Convention does not extend to disputes and actions arising from private-law relationships brought against the institution, organisation or union they represent; for these reasons, the assertion that they fall within the scope of jurisdictional immunity is unfounded (…)

In short: The diplomatic immunity granted by the Vienna Convention to missions and their members does not cover private-law actions brought against the entity they represent — here, the European Union delegation.

III. Immunity of Diplomatic Staff from Criminal Jurisdiction

Court of Cassation, 9th Criminal Chamber

E. 2009/8823 · K. 2009/8685 · 15 July 2009

(…) members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission enjoy privileges and immunities provided that they are not nationals of, or permanently resident in, the receiving State, and such persons may be prosecuted by the State of which they are nationals. In the case at hand, without regard to the fact that Jean Marie, a French national serving on the administrative and technical staff of the Embassy of France, enjoyed immunity and was immune from Turkish criminal jurisdiction, the continuation of the proceedings — brought on the allegation that he negligently caused bodily injury in a traffic accident while driving his vehicle — and the rendering of a conviction, although the precondition for prosecution was not met, was contrary to law; the request for reversal in the interest of the law must therefore be granted.

In short: Because foreign administrative and technical embassy staff are immune from Turkish criminal jurisdiction, a conviction arising from a traffic accident was quashed in the interest of the law.

Court of Cassation, 12th Criminal Chamber

E. 2025/1403 · K. 2025/8126 · 24 November 2025

(…) considering that members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission enjoy privileges and immunities provided that they are not nationals of, or permanently resident in, the receiving State, that such persons may be prosecuted by the State of which they are nationals, that they are entirely immune from criminal jurisdiction, and that they are likewise immune from administrative and civil jurisdiction save for the exhaustively listed exceptions — the trial court, disregarding that […], a Russian national serving on the administrative and technical staff of the Embassy of Russia at the time of the accident, enjoyed immunity and was immune from Turkish criminal jurisdiction, erroneously held that the defendant was not immune and, although the precondition for prosecution was not met, continued the proceedings brought on the allegation of negligently causing bodily injury in a traffic accident and rendered a conviction; this was found to be incorrect.

In short: Sixteen years later, the Court of Cassation reaffirmed the same principle for Russian Embassy staff, stressing that administrative and technical staff enjoy full immunity from criminal jurisdiction and, save for limited exceptions, from civil and administrative jurisdiction.

Constitutional Court (Individual Application)

App. No. 2016/24562 · 12 September 2019

(…) Persons holding the status of judge within the UN International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals shall, as a rule, enjoy the privileges, immunities, exemptions and facilities accorded to diplomatic agents under international law. However, in light of the provisions set out above (see §§ 36-40), these exemptions and immunities are understood to be afforded vis-à-vis the authorities of the receiving State where the person serves. Since these exemptions and immunities cannot be invoked against the authorities of the sending State — in other words, the State of which the person is a national and which he represents — the investigation shall be conducted under the general rules, and the criminal judgeships of peace, as the judicial bodies of general competence, may order detention in that investigation. Moreover, the charge against the applicant giving rise to the detention bears no relation to his judicial functions, and the alleged acts constitute personal offences linked to terrorism.

In short: The Constitutional Court held that immunity deriving from diplomatic status can be invoked only against the receiving state, not against the authorities of the state of which the person is a national.

IV. Immunity from Enforcement: The Nature of the Asset Is Decisive

Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber

E. 2004/6469 · K. 2004/13007 · 24 May 2004

(…) Immunity from jurisdiction and immunity from enforcement are distinct. Whereas the nature or purpose of the disputed legal relationship or transaction is considered in determining immunity from jurisdiction, in determining immunity from enforcement it is the nature and manner of use of the property to be enforced against — rather than the disputed relationship — that must be considered. In the practice of European states, the view that property used in connection with a commercial activity of a foreign state does not enjoy immunity from enforcement is widely accepted.

In short: Jurisdictional immunity turns on the nature of the disputed transaction, whereas immunity from enforcement turns on the nature and use of the asset to be attached; assets used for commercial purposes are not immune.

Practical Takeaways

Read together, these decisions show that Turkish case law rests on three fundamental distinctions.

State versus diplomat. A diplomatic agent’s immunity under the Vienna Convention is personal and does not extend to actions against the sending state. In claims arising from a foreign state’s private-law dealings — leases, service contracts, employment, damages from a traffic accident — the correct defendant is therefore the foreign state, represented by its embassy; under Article 49 of the PILA, service may be effected on the diplomatic mission.

Sovereign act versus private-law transaction. Under the restrictive immunity regime adopted by Article 49 of the PILA, what matters is not that the act emanates from a state, but its nature. Where a foreign state is party to a legal relationship like any private person, the Turkish courts have jurisdiction.

Immunity from jurisdiction versus immunity from enforcement. This is the distinction most often overlooked in practice: winning a case against a foreign state does not in itself mean recovery. At the attachment stage, what counts is not the nature of the dispute but the nature and use of the asset targeted. Under Article 22(3) of the Vienna Convention, mission premises, their furnishings and the mission’s means of transport are immune from attachment and execution, and under Article 32(4) a waiver of jurisdictional immunity does not imply a waiver of immunity from execution. Identifying, at the litigation stage, state-owned assets demonstrably used for commercial purposes is therefore an integral part of the strategy.

The picture differs in criminal matters. Administrative and technical staff of a mission who are neither nationals nor permanent residents of the receiving state are fully immune from Turkish criminal jurisdiction. Victims’ rights must then be pursued through a request for waiver of immunity, prosecution in the sending state, and a civil action against the foreign state. Consular officers, by contrast, generally enjoy immunity under the 1963 Vienna Convention only for acts performed in the exercise of consular functions.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Emphasis in the quoted excerpts is the author’s.