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  24 any case, however, the search for reciprocity is necessary either for acceptance or rejection of the application for a declaration of enforceability, and the Court of Cassation of Turkey has set aside a lower Court decision on the grounds that “(…) as regar- ds the issue of reciprocity, the refusal of the relevant application without the Court making any inquiry into reciprocity with the other State is contrary to the provisions of law (...)” 71 . An issue also arises when the law of the other State permits the execution of Turkish Court decisions, but gives the judge the opportunity to examine the merits of the case in order to verify whether the claim is well founded. In this case, it is argued that there can be no legal reciprocity, as foreign law imposes stricter conditions for execution than the Turkish one, and therefore real reciprocity must be investigated, if in practice applications for recognition of Turkish Court judgments which otherwise fulfill the requirements of the law are admissible 72 . It is also important to note the de facto application of reciproci- ty for countries withwhich Turkey has bilateral or multilateral agre- ements. For Turkey, although it has concluded a total of bilateral agreements with 24 countries, if it is found that in this state despite the existence of the Treaty, Turkish decisions are not executed wi- thout any other legitimate reason, whereas, on the contrary, national decisions with equivalent content is an obstacle to the execution of the decisions of the States in Turkey due to lack of reciprocity 73 . 8.THE PROHIBITION OF THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF TURKISH COURTS AND THE NON-DISCHARGE OF JU- RISDICTION The second condition of art. 54 has two strands regarding two different issues related to the judgment to be enforced: a) not which held that: “(…) if foreign law generally permits the execution of foreign judgments, subject to reciprocity by the other State, it must be accepted that the conditions laid down in article 38 relating to the existence of reciprocity are fulfilled (...)”. Y. HGK 13.06.1990, in Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi, 1990, 1282. 71Y. 11. HD 30.01.2009 E.1284/K.980, in Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Dergisi, 2009, pp. 276 as well as: Υ. 2 HD 22.11.1984 E.8148/K.9647, Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi, 1985, pp. 338 and Υ. 2. HD 14.05.1996 E. 2955/K.5085 (Kazancı Hukuk Otomasyonu) 72 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 602ss. 73 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 606ss.