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

23  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, p. 9-68, Setembro-Dezembro. 2020  should not affect law as well. Furthermore, the requirement of reciprocity and the difficulty of its finding often cause an obsta- cle which is considered unjustified, since the remaining (b, c, ç) conditions of that article are sufficient to protect the interests of Turkey and Turkish citizens in particular, who on the contrary, they end up being affected when they themselves are able to pass a positive decision to a foreign Court, then they are unable to execute it in Turkey 65 . On the other hand, there are those who defend the princi- ple of reciprocity as an element of the sovereignty of the Turkish State and as a means of pressing for the recognition of judgments handed down by Turkish judicial authorities from other States. The de jure or de facto refusal to execute them constitutes, ac- cording to these writers, a legitimate reason for the respective exclusion from the execution of the decisions of those States in Turkish territory 66 . Proponents of reciprocity point out that after the addition of legal or real reciprocity to the law as a disjunctive condition, the recognition and enforcement of the decisions of most of the world’s states is achieved 67 . In relation to the verification of de iure of de facto recipro- city in the law of the other State, the following problem often arises: the law of both States requires reciprocity from the other, with the result that one State expects the other to apply a first the principle of reciprocity 68 . However, it has been judged by juris- prudence that a judgment of a State whose law states that: “(…) it is not possible to recognize and execute a foreign judgment if the State in which the judgment is delivered does not recognize the principle of reciprocity (...)” 69 , as that provision permits de jure the execution of Turkish judicial decisions in that State 70 . In 65 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 484ss. 66 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 601 and M.S. ERDOĞAN, Boşanma Kararlarının Tenfizi, in Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 1977, pp. 84. 67 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 598ss. 68 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 484ss. 69 Y. OĞURLU, B. GÜRPINAR, Introduction to Turkish law, ed. On Iki Levha Yayincilik, 2010, pp. 95ss. 70 The present case concerned the execution of a judgment given in Zurich, Switzerland, and for the purpose of establishing reciprocity the law of the relevant canton, which was considered compatible with article 38 of the previous Code (and already article 54 of the new Code), was examined. Y. 1 HD 06.11.1985, see against Y. HD 13 13.06.1990, but which was subsequently annulled by the Plenary Civil Divisions of the Court of Cassation,