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

21  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, p. 9-68, Setembro-Dezembro. 2020  representatives; b) the State of origin of the judgment, the name of the Court, the number and date of the judgment with a brief summary; and c) only the operative part, clarification of what part is requested (art. 53 par. 1). The original or the copy of the decision certified by the Court which issued it with a certified translation and an official document of the foreign authorities providing the final judgment and a translation thereof must be attached to the application (art. 53 par. 2). It is worth noting that the corresponding wording of the previous lawwas “the original of the decision certified by the authorities in that country and a certified translation is annexed to the request”, causing proble- ms in many cases as the enforcement requests were rejected on the grounds that most Courts give a formal copy rather than the original of the decision 60 . 6.(FOLLOWS) CONDITIONS TO BE MET BY THE FOREIGN DECISION In addition to the essential requirements of art. 50 for the enforcement of a foreign judgment, art. 54 sets out four further conditions which must be met in order for a decision to be en- forceable. Art. 54 reads as follows: the competent Court adopts a declaration of enforceability if the following conditions are met: a) there is a contract between the Republic of Turkey and the Sta- te which issued the decision based on the principle of reciprocity or a provision of law permitting enforcement judgments handed down by the Turkish Courts or when they are actually carried out in that State; b) the judgment in question concerned an issue which did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish Courts and the judgment was not delivered by a foreign Court which itself recognized as competent, despite the fact that it had no real connection with the subject and the parties provided that the defendant had raised an objection; c) the decision is clearly non contrary to public policy; d) the defendant person was not properly summoned in accordance with the procedural rules of 60 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 595-596 where also references to relevant decision of the Turkish Court of Cassation (Y. 1HD 22.6.1987, Y. 4 HD 18.3.1993, Y. 2 HD 5.7.1994).