ABSTRACT
In today’s developing and transforming conjuncture, disputes between parties have gained an international dimension and the implementation of judgements made in different legal orders has become an important issue. Under ordinary conditions, disputes between parties are resolved and carried out under the law of the country where the dispute arises. However, due to the increase in interaction between countries, it has become necessary to implement judicial decisions rendered in one countries in other countries. As a result, even if a dispute involving foreign elements is resolved by a national judicial body, that judgement has an effect in the countries where the parties to the dispute are resident. Judgements rendered by foreign judicial bodies have legal consequences in another country only after the recognition and enforcement procedure has been executed by the country’s authorities. How the recognition and enforcement will be carried out, the procedures it will be subject to, and the resulting consequences become understood in accordance with the legal rules of the relevant country. In order for a foreign judicial judgement to take effect in Turkey, the enforcement and recognition of the judgement is necessary. This article discussed the way in which judgements rendered by foreign judicial bodies can be enforced in Turkey and the consequences of that enforcement, and the conditions under which the enforcement process take place.
I. INTRODUCTION
Judgements rendered by judicial bodies and arbitration proceedings are considered to fall within the scope of the sovereign right of the country where the relevant decisions are made1, and normally only have effect within the boundaries of the law to which they are subject or the country where the decision is made. In order for judgements made in a foreign country to have effect in Turkey, the relevant decisions must be subject to a recognition or enforcement procedure in Turkish courts.
Decisions rendered by foreign judicial bodies have to be recognized and/or enforced by a national court in order to form a final judgment in Turkish law. Article 50 of International Private and Procedural Law No. 57182 (IPPL) is regulated that,
“Enforcement of court decrees rendered by foreign courts in the course of civil lawsuits in Turkey which are final pursuant to the law of that foreign state shall be subject to the enforcement decision of the competent Turkish court.”
Again, Article 58 of IPPL provides that “A foreign court decree may serve as a definitive evidence or final judgment, provided that the court decides that the foreign court decree fulfills the conditions of enforcement.”
As a rule, foreign courts and/or referee judgements, unless there is a special international agreement between Turkey and the country concerned, without being subject to any recognition and enforcement procedures do not have effect in Turkey. How recognition and enforcement are carried out and its conditions are basically stipulated in IPPL in Turkish law. Article 1 of IPPL makes the following provision:
(1) This Act regulates the law applicable to private law transactions and relations that contain a foreign element, the international jurisdiction of the Turkish courts, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
(2) Provisions of international conventions to which the Republic of Turkey is a signatory are reserved.
According to clause 2 of Article 1 of IPPL, a Turkish court is obliged to primarily apply the provisions in international agreements to which the Republic of Turkey is a party to through IPPL provisions. While deciding a decision, if the conditions concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgements are more aggravated than those in IPPL, Turkish courts must primarily take account of international agreements to which the Republic of Turkey is a party, as per clause 2 of Article 1 of IPPL3.
The Turkish court is only authorized to decide whether the recognition and enforcement conditions stipulated in international agreements or law are fulfilled. In addition to the recognition and enforcement requirements in the legislation, it is out of question for the Turkish court hearing the case to exercise its own discretionary power and decide according to other criteria4. In the Turkish legal system, it is not possible to examine the accuracy of the foreign court and arbitrator judgements which are the subject of recognition or enforcement in terms of merits. In other words, the judge does not examine whether the law applied to the foreign judgement subject to recognition or enforcement is chosen correctly, whether it is applied correctly, or whether the evidence is properly assessed5. This rule is referred to in the doctrine as the prohibition of revision. Pursuant to the principle of prohibition of revision, once a judgement is rendered in a foreign court due to the nature of the recognition and enforcement decisions, it is not possible to examine whether the judgement was made correctly or incorrectly in Turkish courts6. The judgement rendered by a foreign judicial body is examined by the Turkish court within the framework of the conditions specified in IPPL. In the following sections, this article reviews recognition and enforcement institutions and their prerequisites, issues related to the procedure of recognition and enforcement cases, and, lastly, issues regarding the conditions under which recognition and enforcement cannot be carried out.
II. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT INSTITUTIONS
As previously stated, ın order for a judgement rendered by a foreign judicial body to acquire the effect of final judgement and conclusive evidence in Turkey, the judgement must be recognized or enforced by the Turkish courts. In practice, although a joint request is made for "recognition and enforcement" of foreign judgements, the two concepts have different qualities and consequences.
Recognition means the nationalization of a judgement rendered by a foreign judicial body.
This means that the recognized judgement becomes equivalent to a court verdict given in domestic law7. Enforcement, on the other hand, ensures that the foreign judgement is subject to enforcement action in the country where it is executed; recognition alone does not ensure the execution of the given judgment. Therefore, in cases where the execution of a judgment is required, an enforcement decision is required as well as recognition8.
While the basic content of recognition is the constitutive cases and declaratory actions, the basic content of enforcement is the actions for performance9 . In this respect, it is possible to recognize only the determination part of a court judgement that is a verdict of performance10. In a judgement of the relevant foreign judicial body, there may be provisions of a constitutive nature in addition to the provisions that will be subject to enforcement. In such a case, instead of enforcement, the constitutive part of the judgment may be subject to recognition. However, for this, the person making the request must have a legal benefit. For example, as a result of a divorce case, alimony and custody decisions in the nature of performance given together with the divorce provision constitute the subject of the enforcement, while the constitutive divorce decision constitutes the subject of recognition. Therefore, the beneficiary of the relevant recognition and/or enforcement can only request recognition of the divorce decision11. Thus, the provision regarding the recognition of the judgement rendered by the foreign judicial body has the power of conclusive evidence and final judgment in Turkish law. Enforcement also allows the execution of the provision in the nature of performance in domestic law.
A. Conditions of Recognition and Enforcement
The conditions of recognition and enforcement of foreign judicial decisions regulated in IPPL are divided into two: prerequisites and essential conditions. These conditions are the same for recognition and enforcement, except for in separate cases. This discrete situation is based on reciprocity12. The judge and/or court that makes a decision on recognition and enforcement checks whether the conditions sought in the relevant legislation and IPPL, especially Articles 54 and 58 of IPPL, are fulfilled. Therefore, if they are fulfilled, the relevant court decides on recognition and enforcement. In addition, while examining the conditions of recognition and enforcement, the relevant court does not examine the merits of the decision made by the foreign judicial body whose enforcement is sought, pursuant to the prohibition of "revision", which we emphasized in the previous section. Additionally, the judgement of the foreign judicial body whose recognition and/or enforcement request is rejected by the relevant court due to the failure to fulfill the conditions sought in Articles 54 and 58 of IPPL can always be presented to Turkish courts as discretionary evidence13.
1. Prerequisites for Recognition and Enforcement
The prerequisites for recognition and enforcement are regulated in Article 50 of IPPL. Pursuant to this regulation, in order for a Turkish court to decide on recognition or enforcement, there must first of all be a judgement rendered by foreign judicial bodies regarding a civil case and the judgement must be finalized in accordance with the laws of the foreign state in which the judgement was rendered. Accordingly, the said regulation has the following provision:
(1) Enforcement of court decrees rendered by foreign courts in the course of civil lawsuits in Turkey which are final pursuant to the law of that foreign state shall be subject to the enforcement decision of the competent Turkish court.
(2) An enforcement decision may also be requested with regard to judgments on personal rights stipulated in the court decrees of foreign criminal courts. In this context, the preconditions of recognition and enforcement are examined in the following sections.
a. Existence of a Court Decree in the Course of a Civil Lawsuit
Article 50 of IPPL does not include whether the judgement of the foreign judicial body is a judgement rendered by civil, criminal or administrative courts. What is sought is whether the content and subject of the judgement of foreign origin is a dispute that only concerns private law.
IPPL states that a judicial decisions of foreign origin should be a direct court decision. In this context, recognition and enforcement of decisions made by the administrative authorities within the scope of IPPL are, in principle, not possible. Although the concept of the court will be determined according to the law of the country where the enforcement decision is requested, this authority is also required to be a court in the country of enforcement14. In addition, non-judicial decisions in a foreign country may be subject to determination15. As a result, according to this law, it may not be possible to recognize and enforce decisions made by administrative authorities.
b. Finalization of the Relevant Judgement of the Judicial Body
Another prerequisite for a decision of recognition and enforcement by a Turkish court is that the relevant judgement is final according to the law of the country where the judgement was rendered. As a matter of fact, it is not appropriate to request enforcement of a judgement that has not been finalized in the country where the judgement was rendered, and the said request will be rejected in accordance with Article 50 of IPPL16.
The finalization of a judicial decision of foreign origin should be evaluated from two angles. The first is material certainty, the other is formal certainty. Material certainty means that the relevant dispute is resolved definitively and can no longer be subjected to another case with the same parties, subject, and cause. Formal certainty, on the other hand, is that an objection can no longer be submitted because all the usual legal remedies have been exhausted. Therefore, formal certainty should be considered the settlement of the case not the dispute. In the doctrine, it is a matter of debate whether the meaning of finalization of the relevant foreign origin decision should be understood as material certainty or formal certainty, and it is considered that formal certainty is sufficient17.
2. Essential Conditions of Recognition and Enforcement
The essential conditions regarding recognition and enforcement of a foreign jugdement are stipulated in Article 54 of IPPL. Article 58 regulates recognition. In this Article, reference is made to Article 54 of IPPL, and only the reciprocity requirement in subclause 54/1-a, which is one of the essential conditions of the enforcement institution, is not sought in the recognition process. In this context, Articles 54 and 58 of IPPL provide for the following:
ARTICLE 54-(1) The competent court shall render enforcement subject to the following conditions:
a) Existence of an agreement, on a reciprocal basis between the Republic of Turkey and the state where the court decision is given or a de facto practice or a provision of law enabling the authorization of the execution of final decisions given by a Turkish court in that state,
b) The judgment must have been given on matters not falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts or, in condition of being contested by the defendant, the judgment must not have been given by a state court which has accepted himself competent even if there is not a real relation between the court and the subject or the parties of the lawsuit,
c) The court decree shall not openly be contrary to public order,
d) The person against whom enforcement is requested was not duly summoned pursuant to the laws of that foreign state or to the court that has given the judgment, or was not represented before that court, or the court decree was not pronounced in his/her absence or by a default judgment in a manner contrary to these laws, and the person has not objected to the exequatur based on the foregoing grounds before the Turkish court.
ARTICLE 58-(1) A foreign court decree may serve as a definitive evidence or final judgment, provided that the court decides that the foreign court decree fulfills the conditions of enforcement. Subparagraph (a) of Article 54 shall not apply to recognition.
(2) The same article shall apply to the recognition of undisputed court decrees.
(3) The same procedure shall apply in concluding an administrative transaction based on a foreign court decree.
The essential conditions of recognition and enforcement are reviewed in the following sections.
a. Repicrocity (Mutuality)
By being regulating widely, the reciprocity principle, foreseen only for enforcement of a judgement rendered by foreign judicial bodies, accepts contractual, legal, and de facto reciprocity. In addition, although there is a contract or legal reciprocity, if the decision for enforcement does not have a de facto application in the country where the judgement was rendered, it cannot be enforced since the principle of reciprocity is not fulfilled18. In addition, although there is a legal or contractual reciprocity in the relevant country, the absence of any application may not constitute an obstacle to enforcement since there is as yet no such request. The principle of reciprocity is examined ex officio by the court. While examining the principle of reciprocity, the court compares the conditions in the country where the decision is requested with the conditions sought in Turkish law and if it determines that a heavier enforcement requirement than Turkish law is required, it may decide to reject the request for enforcement since the principle of reciprocity has not been fulfilled.
b. The Judgment Must have been Given on matters not Falling Within the Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Turkish Courts
The definite jurisdiction concept regulated in domestic law and the exclusive jurisdiction concept regulated in IPPL are of a different nature. While exclusive jurisdiction stated in IPPL should be understood as the related dispute is necessarily to be resolved by Turkish judiciary, some of the rules of jurisdiction accepted as definitive jurisdiction regulate that the related dispute has to be resolved in Turkey. Therefore, while evaluating the scope of the exclusive jurisdiction stipulated in IPPL as the recognition and enforcement barrier, this issue should be taken into consideration. The court is obliged to examine ex officio whether the condition reviewed under this heading is fulfilled or not19. In this context, it also falls under exclusive jurisdiction in terms of international procedural law due to it having to be heard in Turkey because of the jurisdiction rule regarding the court of the place where the property is located in actions in rem and the public nature of the jurisdiction rule in bankruptcy cases20.
c. The Foreign Judgment Must not be Rendered by a Court Using Excessive Jurisdiction
In principle, each state determines the international jurisdiction of its court. In this respect, there is no internationally valid jurisdiction rule. However, while regulating this authority in the relevant state law, there are some drawbacks to the subjective rules that it imposes just to authorize its own court. However, as is known, a dispute involving a foreign element may result in more than one country authorizing itself. On the other hand, when regulating the international jurisdiction of their courts, states must determine this jurisdiction according to objective criteria. Otherwise, the jurisdiction rules will cause the defendant to move away from the natural judge. As a matter of fact, this situation may constitute a violation of the principle of fairness21.
IPPL does not allow this matter and stipulates that a foreign court authorizing itself without an objective connection with the subject of the dispute as an enforcement obstacle. Accordingly, in the cases where the decision of foreign origin requested for enforcement that was rendered without a substantial connection with the subject and parties of the dispute is applied for enforcement in Turkey and the objection of excessive jurisdiction is submitted by the defendant, the Turkish court will be able to examine this issue. Here, contrary to other enforcement obstacles, the judge will examine this issue if the defendant has an objection in this direction, not ex officio22.
d. The Judgement Shall not Openly be Contrary to Public Order
A judgement is a decision that ends a dispute between parties as a result of a lawsuit23. While IPPL looks for the judgement not to contradict the Turkish public order as a barrier to recognition and enforcement, it has kept this in a narrower scope than the public order regulated in Article 5 of IPPL, which is regulated in the conflict of laws. While here, in the event that the judgement whose recognition and enforcement is requested is accepted, the effects of the relevant judgement on Turkish public order are considered in relation to inconveniences that may occur in Turkish public order, if a foreign law is applied to a dispute in a lawsuit lodged in Turkey.
Although there is no clear definition of the concept of public order, what should be understood from the public order is that it should not be contrary to the basic principles and guidelines of Turkish law, the fundamental rights and freedoms regulated by the Constitution, and the general morality of Turkish society24. In some cases, the execution of a judgement rendered by a foreign judiciary may constitute a violation of Turkish public order. It is possible to consider such situation in the case of export-import prohibitions valid in Turkish law. In Turkish law, non-compliance with directly applied rules of Turkish law in the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgements is not regulated as a barrier to enforcement. According to an opinion in the doctrine, if the decision requested for enforcement is contrary to the directly applied rule of Turkish law, this situation will also violate Turkish public order, and, in this case, there may be a situation that prevents enforcement25. However, the concepts of public order and directly applied rules differ, and whether the violation of the directly applied rule of Turkish law in a foreign court judgement will be included in the concept of public order will need to be determined by the court according to each concrete case26.
As can be understood, the nature of the concept of public order can change. In time, new issues may come into the scope of this concept, and an issue that had previously been seen as contrary to public order may not currently constitute a contradiction27. Therefore, when examining the issue of public order, the court hearing the enforcement action will have to consider the moment of recognition and enforcement, not the moment when the foreign court judgement was rendered.
The issue that the court hearing the enforcement action should pay attention to while examining this requirement is whether the provision will openly constitute a violation of public order in the case of recognition and enforcement. As a matter of fact, in accordance with the revision prohibition, a Turkish judge cannot examine the merits of the foreign judgement requested for enforcement. That is why, although the application of a different provision from Turkish law or even the application of Turkish law is decided in the judgement to be enforced, the incorrect or incomplete application of the relevant law does not constitute a reason for refusal of enforcement28.
In addition, it may not be enough to look at the provision clause in determining a violation of public order. Besides, as an exception to the prohibition of revision, there may be cases where the merit and justification of the decree should be considered. Examples include the documents taken as a basis in the issuance of the verdict being fake, the non-existence of a causal link between the material facts and the verdict, or the court being a ban reason according to that law. As a matter of fact, since it is not possible to determine whether the decree clause violates public order in these cases, it may be required to get into the merit of the judgement exceptionally. This issue should not be considered within the scope of the revision prohibition29.
Since these cannot acquire the effect of final judgement and conclusive evidence in Turkish law as long as the recognition and enforcement decision is not given in Turkey, a case can be opened due to the same dispute. If a lawsuit in Turkey has been filed concerning the same dispute as a recognition and enforcement action, ,the court handling the dispute will have to consider the recognition and enforcement action as a preliminary or a prejudicial issue. If the relevant court does not consider the enforcement action filed as a prejudicial issue and both cases are heard at the same time the first finalized judgement will constitute an obstacle to a judgement being taken in the other court due to the effect of final judgment. However, despite the finalized judgement, if the other case is continued and this judgement is finalized, this matter will constitute the result of the restoration of the trial under Article 375/1-ğ of Civil Procedure Law (CPL) dated 12 January 2011 and numbered 6100 published in the Official Gazette dated February 4, 2011 and numbered 27836. In such a case, the second judgement will be annuled in accordance with Article 380 of the CPL30. The Turkish court will examine ex officio whether the judgement of foreign origin is clearly contrary to public order or not. In addition, if a certain part of the relevant judgement constitutes a violation of public order, the court may also give a partial enforcement decision31.
e. Compliance with Defense Rights
Failure to comply with the right to defence constitutes an obstacle to the enforcement of the decision. However, IPPL examined this condition dependent on the objection of the person (defendant) against whom enforcement was requested. The determination of whether the defendant's right to defence has been violated is determined by the laws of the country where the judgement was rendered32.
In case of an objection by the defendant, if the court hearing the enforcement action determines that the defendant was not duly summoned according to the laws of the place where the judgement was rendered or was not represented in that court or the judgement about the defendant was rendered in their absence contrary to the laws of that place, it will reject the request for recognition and enforcement. Therefore, the failure of a defendant who does not respond to a duly notified lawsuit petition to use this right originates from themself. This situation does not constitute a violation of the right. However, although these conditions, which are enumerated in clause ç of Article 54 of IPPL, have not been duly done, if the defendant has been able to use his right to defence in court, it will no longer mean that the right to defence has been violated. Another point that should be considered here is that since the violation of the right to defence is only examined in accordance with the procedural law of the court that rendered the judgement, if there is a serious violation of the right to defence within the scope of Turkish procedural law, the court can reject the enforcement request on the grounds of violation of Turkish public order, ex officio without the need for any objection33.
In the event that the defendant objects to the violation of his right to defence, the obligation to prove the contrary will be with the plaintiff requesting enforcement. As a matter of fact, the defendant cannot be expected to prove a negative situation and it is also the plaintiff who has a legal interest in the acceptance of the enforcement request. Therefore, it must be the plaintiff who proves that the right of defence has been complied with.
III. PROCEDURE IN RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT CASES,
The conditions sought in recognition and enforcement are the same, except for the reciprocity condition, as explained in detail in the above sections. Therefore, in a request for enforcement, the judge will also seek fulfilment of the reciprocity requirement. Again, considering the conditions that IPPL seeks for recognition and enforcement, the judge will examine the conditions ex officio, except in cases of excessive jurisdiction and where the right to defence is violated. Therefore, the objections that a defendant can make are failure to fulfil these conditions and the fulfilment of the foreign court verdict partially or completely, or the occurrence of a reason that prevents it from being fulfilled. Recognition and enforcement cases are subject to the simple procedure of trial. Therefore, the parties state their demands and objections in their petition and response. In addition, every related person with legal benefit will be able to file a recognition and enforcement action.
A. Competent and Authorized Court
According to Article 51 of IPPL, the competent court for recognition and enforcement cases is the first instance courts. In matters pertaining to family law, the recognition and enforcement case will be filed in family courts in accordance with clause 2 of Article 4 of Establishment, Duties and Trial Procedures of Family Courts Law No. 4787. Again according to Article 51 of IPPL, The competent court is the court in the place of the defendant's domicile residence if he/she does not have a habitual residence in Turkey, or from one of the courts in Istanbul, Ankara, or Izmir if he/she does not have a domicile residence in Turkey. Therefore, if there is no objection in this regard in the defendant's reply petition, the court of the place where the case was filed in a place other than the counted places will also become competent.
B. Judgement
The Turkish court can make three types of decisions after examining the recognition and enforcement conditions. First, it can reject the request. Secondly, it can accept the request for recognition and enforcement, and, finally, it can partially decide on recognition and enforcement34. In the event that the request is accepted partially or completely, it shall have the quality of final judgment and conclusive evidence in Turkish law from the moment the foreign court judgement is finalized. In other words, the moment of the effect of the judgement is not the moment when the judgement of recognition and enforcement is made but the moment when the judgement rendered by a foreign judicial body becomes final in its country. Therefore, the recognized judgement will bear legal consequences from the date of its establishment. It should be noted that recognition and enforcement of a divorce decision can be requested as the secondary of the divorce; lim - itation periods in terms of alimony and material and moral compensation start from the moment of recognition35.
IV. CONCLUSION
The issue of recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered by foreign state courts is a matters considered within the scope of procedural law. Therefore, as in other mat - ters related to procedural law, the law of the country where recognition and enforce - ment will take place will be exercised in this field. The Turkish court to which the request for the recognition and enforcement of the judgments rendered by foreign courts is di - rected has to apply the procedures and con - ditions in its own law and reach a result.
Recognition and enforcement procedures, which are directed toward attributing legal effect to foreign court judgements in Tur - key, are, as a rule, an issue that is resolved within the scope of the provisions of IPPL. However, if there are bilateral or multilateral international agreement provisions to which Turkey is a party and regarding the recog - nition and enforcement requests brought before the judge who has the enforcement action, he/she must first apply the provisions of the relevant agreement. As a matter of fact, this is required by the fifth clause of Ar - ticle 90 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the provisions of international agree - ments will be applied with priority in cases of contradiction between the provisions of the international agreement regarding the fundamental rights and freedoms and to which Turkey is a party and the provisions of the law and the second clause of Article 1 of IPPL, which regulates that the matters that are in the scope of the provisions of the international agreements that our country is a party to, are reserved.
The common essential conditions sought in IPPL for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements can be listed as: the judgement not being given on a matter, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts, not being rendered by an authorized state court, not having a real rela - tion with the subject and parties of the case and respect to defence rights. In order for the last two conditions to be taken into account by the court hearing the enforcement action, the objection of the person against whom the recognition and enforcement is requested is required. IPPL also seeks the condition of reciprocity for the enforcement of foreign court verdicts. The conditions in question will only apply to enforcement requests. Accordingly, there should be contractual, legal or de facto reci - procity between the state in which the court verdict subject to the request for enforce - ment is established and Turkey regarding the enforcement of court decisions. It is pos - sible for judgements rendered by foreign judicial authorities under these conditions to be executed in Turkey, and in order to for relevant judgement to be executable, it has to be subject to recognition and/or enforce - ment procedures. Thus, it is possible to im - plement many different international legal judgements in Turkey.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AYSEL ÇELIKEL, B. BAHADIR ERDEM, International Private Law, 15th Edition, Istanbul 2017
CEMAL ŞANLI/EMRE ESEN/İNCI ATAMAN FIGANMEŞE, International Private Law, 6. Edition, Istanbul 2018
CEM ILE DEM IRGOKYAYLA, Public Order İn The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgements, Seckin Publishing House, Ankara 2001.
ERGIN NOMER, International Procedure Law, Beta Publishing House, 2. Edition, Istanbul 2018
HATICE OZDEMIR-KOCASAKAL, Directly Applied Rules and Their Impact on Agreements, Galatasaray University Publications, Istanbul 2001.
NURAY EKŞI , Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgements, Beta Publishing Houe, 1. Edition, Istanbul 2013
UGUR TUTUNCUBASI, Recognition of Foreign Ex Parte Proceeding Judgements in Turkish Law, 1st Edition, Adalet Publising House, Ankara 2014
UGUR TUTUNCUBASI, “Innovations Regulated by DecreeLaw No. 690 on the Recognition of Foreign Decisions in Turkish Law”, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Law Journal, Vol: 19, Number: 2, 2017, p. 103-127.
VAHIT DOGAN, International Private Law, Savaş Publishing House, 5. Edition, January 2019
ZEYNEP DERYA TARMAN, Some Findings Regarding the Problems Encountered in Enforcement of Foreign Courts and Arbitral Awards in Turkey, MHB, Year 37, Issue 2, 2017, p.987-1012
FOOTNOTE
1 Aysel Çelikel, B. Bahadır Erdem, International Private Law, 15th Edition, Istanbul 2017, p. 649
2 Official Gazette numbered 26728 and dated 12/12/2007.
3 Nuray Ekşi, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgements, 1. Edition, Istanbul 2013, p. 482-483.
4 Aysel Çelikel, B. Bahadır Erdem, International Private law, 14th Edition, Istanbul 2016, p. 660
5 Çelikel/Erdem, p. 693
6 YIBGK, E.2010/1, K. 2012/1, T. 10.02.2012, www.kazanci.com, (Date Accessed: 15.02.2021)
7 Eksi, p.1.
8 Ergin Nomer, International Procedure Law, Second Edition, Istanbul 2018, p. 174.
9 Zeynep Derya Tarman, Some Findings Regarding the Problems Encountered in Enforcement of Foreign Courts and Arbitral Awards in Turkey, MHB, Year 37, Issue 2, 2017, p.987- 1012
10 Tarman, p.997
11 Cemal Şanlı/Emre Esen/Inci Ataman Figanmese, International Private Law, 6th Edition, Istanbul 2018, p. 507-509
12 Çelikel/Erdem, p. 702
13 Sanlı/Esen/Ataman-Figanmeşe, p. 512, Isıl Ozkan/ Uğur Tutuncubası, International Procedure Law, First Edition, Ankara 2017 p. 176.
14 Ugur Tutuncubası, Recognition of Foreign Uncontentious Proceedings in Turkish Law, 1st Edition, Ankara 2014, p. 27-31; 135-137
15 Celikel/Erdem, p. 686.
16 Vahit Dogan, International Private Law, 5. Edition, January 2019, p. 124.
17 Sanli/Esen/Figanmese, p. 520-522.
18 Nomer, p. 189-191.
19 Sanli/Esen/Ataman-Figanmese, p. 534-540.
20 Sanli/Esen/Ataman-Figanmese, p.536.
21 Doğan, p. 132-133.
22 Sanli/Esen/Ataman-Figanmese, p. 536.
23 Nomer, p. 200-201.
24 Celikel/Erdem, p.727-728.
25 Cemile Demir Gokyayla, Public Order in The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgements, 1. Edition, Ankara 2001, p. 278-280.
26 Hatice Özdemir Kocasakal, Directly Applied Rules and Their İmpacts on Agreements, 1. Edition, Istanbul 2001, p. 18-21; 50-52.
27 Eksi, p. 280
28 Sanli/Esen/Ataman-Figanmese, p. 547.
29 Sanlı/Esen-Figanmese, p. 547.
30 Celikel/Erdem, p. 731.
31 Nomer, p. 215.
32 Nomer, p. 210.
33 Sanli/Esen/Ataman-Figanmese, p. 557
34 Nomer, p. 217
35 Nomer, p.217.
