ANA METIN ingilizce.17

against him which was contrary to the laws of that country, and (d) it

shouldn’t explicitly violate Turkish ordre public (art. 54 of IPPL).

Jurisprudential Difference

Court of Cassation 2. Civil Chamber has amended its jurispru-

dence

declaring foreign judgments not including any justification

being in violation of the Turkish public order. In its decision in the year

2006

, it declared that the court shall disregard the accuracy of a judg-

ment, the applied provisions and the legal or procedural determinations

thereunder whilst considering enforcement, and therefore that the lack

of justification shall not constitute a violation of public order. The deci-

sion also underlines that explicit violation of public order is limited to

events such as violation of fundamental rights and freedoms regulated

under the Constitution, fundamental legal principles accepted by

international law, right to fair trial and right to defense.

Court of Cassation 13. Civil Chamber, on the other hand, states in

its decisions

that the lack of justification in foreign court judgments

shall constitute violation of the Constitution and of the public order.

Therefore, it accepts that lack of justification of foreign court judg-

ments constitutes obstacles in recognition and enforcement of such

awards. The Court of Cassation Assembly of Civil Chambers has not

adopted a decision governing the enforcement of judgments not

including any justification.

The jurisprudential difference between the Civil Chambers of the

Court of Cassation arises from whether the lack of justification of for-

eign court judgments constitutes an explicit violation of the public

order or not.

234

NEWSLETTER 2012

Decision dated 30.06.1999 with Case numbered 1999/5858 and Decision numbered 1999/

7609.

Decision dated 08.06.2006 with Case numbered 2006/2612 and Decision numbered 2006/9147.

Decision dated 05.12.2001 with Case numbered 2001/9007 and Decision numbered

2001/11406 and decision dated 02.10.2003 with Case numbered 2003/6226 and Decision

numbered 2001/11095.