Revista da EMERJ - V. 22 - N.3 - Setembro/Dezembro - 2020

 R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, p. 9-68, Setembro-Dezembro. 2020  16 mination in this way, it is possible to recognize it, since, of cour- se, the rules of the Turkish public order are not violated 31 . The fact that such a decision was issued by a Court called “administrative” does not preclude recognition for that reason alone, since, the nature of the case, which in this case is purely private, is being investigated 32 . Thus, according to Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Law the decision of a disciplinary body of a foreign sports federation imposing on an athlete a disciplinary punishment for exclusion or a fine, as the nature of that decision is more of an administrative rather than a private law 33 . 3.FINAL JUDGMENT Art. 50 par. 1 stipulates that the foreign decision which is sought recognition and enforcement must be final (kesinleşmi). The classification of a judgment as final or not, always, is in accordance with the law of the State in which it was issued 34 . In any event, the fact that, under the law of the issuing State, the judgment is enforceable but not final (for example, provisional enforceable judgments), it is not sufficient to recognize and re- fuse recognition of a French inheritance certificate issued by a notary as it was not a Court decision 35 . A question arises as to those decisions that produce the so-called “typical” (maddi) but not “substantive” (şekli) res judicata 36 . These are primarily volun- 31 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 587ss. E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 506ss with reference to a judgment of the Chalcedon Court of First Instance: Kadiköy 2.Asl. H.M. 07.02.1991, in İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, 1991, pp. 501ss. 32 Y. E. 1974/105, K. 1974/297 (Kazancı Hukuk Otomasyonu). 33 R. ERTEN, Milletlerarası Özel Hukukta Spor, Adalet Yayinevi, Ankara 2007, pp. 229-230. 34 Y. 14. HD 30.09.1985 E.5537/K.7505, in Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi, 1986, pp. 39-40 and Ankara Asl. H.M. 19.09.1991. A. SAKMAR, N. EKŞİ, Í. YILMAZ, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Ka- nun mahkeme Kararları, Bası Beta Yayınevi İstanbul 2001, pp. 316ss which states that it is necessary to investigate when a decision becomes final under foreign procedural law, and proof is the relevant stamp on the decision given by the foreign judicial authorities. 35 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 589ss. E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 477ss, with an contrary opinion from A.C. RUHÍ, Milletleraresi Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkinda Knun, Seçkin Yayinleri, Ístanbul, 2009, pp. 129ss, criticizing this issue, observing the unfair effects of excluding the execution of interim judgments, for example, in maintenance cases awarded by provisional decision in divorce proceedings or in paternity recognition when they are issued in coun- tries which are not parties to the relevant Hague Conventions. 36 On this distinction, which is identical to that in Greek procedural theory, see. Y. 16. HD 15.07.1991