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  20 pending on the subject matter of the dispute 53 , competent Court may be the commercial Court (ticaret mahkemesi) 54 , the labor Court 55 (iş mahkmemesi), or the family Court (aile mahkemesi) 56 in which areas is located. Local jurisdiction is defined in paragraph 2 of art. 51 whe- reby the Court of the defendant’s domicile is competent to exe- cute and if that person is not domiciled by the Court of his ha- bitual residence. If the defendant is not domiciled or habitually resident in Turkey, recognition and enforcement may be requested by the competent Court of Ankara, Istanbul, or Smyrna. On the other hand, the existence of a defendant’s property in some part of Turkey has not bearing on the definition of territorial jurisdiction 57 . 5.(FOLLOWS) LEGALIZATION, REQUEST AND REQUIRED DOCUMENTS The right to seek enforcement of a foreign judgment has “any person having a legitimate interest in its execution” (art. 52 par. 1) 58 . It is noteworthy that this was a wording introduced in the Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Law of 2007, in order to facilitate persons who were not parties abro- ad but who acquired a legitimate interest in its recognition, as is the case in particular in matters of inheritance, maintenance and custody 59 . The person concerned must apply to the competent Court: a) details of the the applicant and the defendants or their 53 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit, pp. 596ss. 54 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit, pp. 594ss. B. KURU, Hukuk Muhake- meleri Usulü, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 6.baskı, İstanbul 2001, pp. 3927ss. See also contra: C. ŞANLI, Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizi Davalarında Tahsil Olunacak Karar ve İlam Harcına ve Ticaret Mahkemelerinin Bulunduğu Yerlerde Görevli Mahkemeye İlişkin Bazı Sorunlar, in İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, 1993, pp. 768ss. 55 Y. 9. HD 09.12.1991, in İş Hukuku Dergisi, 1992, pp. 151 56 Υ. 2. HD 08.07.2008, E.6987/K.10100, in Yasa Hukuk Dergisi, 2008, 1923 and Υ. 2. HD 25.03.2009 E.18049/K.5516 R.G. 05.06.2009, 27249 57 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 500ss. 58 For the content of the legitimate interest in these cases see. Y. 2. HD 19.12.1994, E.11220/K. 12667 in N. EKŞÍ, Kanunlav Ihtilafi Kurallarina Milletlerarsi Usul Hukuna Vatandaşlik ve Yabanilar Hukukuna Pratik Çalışma Kitabı, Beta, Ístanbul, 2007, pp. 79ss. 59 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 499 and 509ss, with reference to: Υ. 2. HD 21.12.2009 E.9678/K.22090 and Υ. 2. HD 20.01.2010 E.19620/K.1034, in Resmi Kararlar Dergisi, 2010, pp. 802ss. See also: Y. 2. HD 27.03.2008 E.20375/K.4214 and Y. 2. HD 25.06.2008 E.8629/K.9345 (Kazancı Hukuk Oto- masyonu).