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  22 the Tribunal and was either not represented in that Court or was tried in default of the law of that State, and that person did not apply to the Turkish Courts for the enforceability based on one of the above mentioned data 61 . 7.(FOLLOWS) THE PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY In art. 54 par. 1 referring to the principle of reciprocity 62 , either the existence of a contract recognizing the execution of foreign judg- ments or the existence of relevant legislation in the State of origin permitting, or in fact permitting, the recognition of corresponding judgments given by the Turkish Courts. This provision was origi- nally introduced by the first Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Law of 1982 so far the relevant provisions of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure allowed the recognition and en- forcement of only those decisions originating from countries with which Turkey had concluded a contract of which the number was very small. The new provision has rightly said that apart from the policy on this issue in 2009, Turkey was finally condemned unani- mously by the European Court of Human Rights in Fokas v. Turkey, 29 September 2009, in which Turkey finally did not even appeal 63 . For the necessity or not of the principle of reciprocity, two aspects have been supported in Turkish theory. There are the the- oreticians who claim 64 that there should be no requirement for recognition of a foreign decision, as it is a political element that 61 D. DAMAR, European and Turkish private international law: Background and methodology, ed. A. Altunkaş, 2015, pp. 94ss. 62 The principle of reciprocity also applies to other provisions of Turkish law, such as in article 58 of act n. 2644 of 22.12.1934 “On Land Registers” (Tapu Kanunu) according to which (until its last amendment on 3.5.2012) foreign natural persons could acquire real rights in Turkey on the condition of reciprocity. Regarding reciprocity with Greece, the Turkish Court of Cassation had considered that Turkish nationals were able to acquire real estate in Greece, but according to Greek law (as in force until 2011) 55% of the Greek territory was classified as a border regions, and foreigners were deprived of the possibility to acqui- re real rights in these areas either by a living act either due to inheritance (which was, however, unheard of inheritance). It was therefore considered that there was no reciprocity in the acquisition of real estate in Turkey by a Greek citizen due to inheritance (Y.2 HD 27.06.2002 E.7515/K.8605 and Υ.2. HD 04.06.2002 E.6014/K.8387-Kazancı Hukuk Otomasyonu). 63 C. GEIGER, Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015, pp. 135-137. 64 A. SAKMAR, Yabancı İlâmların Türkiye’deki Sonuçları, İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi, Fakül- teler Matbaası, İstanbul 1982, pp. 88ss. R. KORAL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku Hakkında Yeni Kanun ve Karşılıklılık Esası, in Μilletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, 1982, pp. 1ss.