Legal remedies against arbitral awards in Turkish civil procedure law

Arbitral proceedings, which are recognized as an alternative dispute resolution method to state adjudication and emphasize party autonomy, produce arbitral awards that possess the same value, res judicata effect, and enforceability as court judgments. This equivalence has necessitated a certain degree of judicial oversight over arbitral awards by state courts. While the now-repealed Code of Civil Procedure (HUMK) previously regulated the legal remedy of appeal against arbitral awards, the subsequent enactment of the International Arbitration Law introduced the legal remedy of annulment action through its Article 15. Later, with the adoption of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) No. 6100, annulment actions were regulated under Article 439, thereby embracing the annulment action as a legal remedy—an approach widely accepted in many jurisdictions. This study, which centers on the annulment action as the principal legal remedy against arbitral awards, initially addresses the concept of the arbitral award, the status of the annulment action as a legal remedy, the historical development of legal remedies against arbitral awards, and the comparative legal framework, with particular focus on its application within the Turkish legal system. It further examines the grounds for annulment enumerated exhaustively in the legislation, procedural issues concerning the annulment of arbitral awards, disputes reflected in the case law of the Court of Cassation, doctrinal perspectives, the possibility of appealing the judgment rendered in an annulment action, and its consequences. Moreover, the study elaborates on the institution of retrial as an extraordinary legal remedy that allows for the annulment of arbitral awards under exceptional circumstances. Keywords: Arbitration, Arbitral awards, setting aside action, legal remedies