ANA METIN ingilizce.17

its of the arbitral clause, the court of enforcement shall dismiss that

part of the request of enforcement of the foreign arbitral award.

Based on the above-mentioned Article, the Turkish Court of

Cassation ruled that the partial enforcement of the foreign arbitral

award is possible in a case where there are three separate agreements

between the parties of an arbitration procedure and two of them have

an arbitration clause:

“In that case, the question of possibility of partial enforcement

of arbitral awards arises. As a rule, there is no legal obstacle

to partial enforcement of arbitral awards. Hence, in the deci-

sion of our chamber dated 3.6.2002 and numbered 9357/4209,

it is decided that in case the arbitral award is made based on

a matter not included in the arbitration agreement or clause or

goes beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement or clause,

the court may reject the enforcement (concerning this part of

the award) and therefore, the partial enforcement is possible.”

(Decision of the 19th civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation

dated 18.12.2003 and numbered 2003/7270 E., 2003/1288 K.)

The decision referred to above has been adopted by the Court of

Cassation pursuant to the International Private and Civil Procedure

Law numbered 2675, which was in force prior to IPCPL. However, the

content of the Article 45/(h)

, which has been referred to corresponds

to the content of Article 62(g) of the IPCPL. Consequently, the deci-

sion above may be taken into consideration in the application of the

IPCPL as well. In addition to the said decision, there are other deci-

sions where the Court of Cassation ruled that the partial enforcement

was admissible

In addition to foreign arbitral awards, there are precedents deci-

sions of the court of Cassation with regard to partial recognition of

foreign court judgments. For instance, the Court of Cassation gives

decisions on the partial recognition of judgments, which entrust the

208

NEWSLETTER 2012

While reference is made to Article 45/4 by mistake, the content of the article referred to indi-

cates that the correct reference should have been made to Article 45/(h).

Decision of the 19th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 3.6.2002 and numbered

2001/9357 E. and 2002/4209 K. may be given as example in the relevant matter.