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

25  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, p. 9-68, Setembro-Dezembro. 2020  to have been delivered on a question falling within the exclusi- ve jurisdiction of a Turkish Court; b) not to have been issued in excess of jurisdiction of the Court which issued it, that is to say, that there is an adequate link with the case or the parties and that the defendant has challenged the jurisdiction of the Court before it is issued. Regarding the issue of “exclusive jurisdiction” (münhasir yetkisi) 74 , it is clearly stipulated that a foreign decision can not be executed if its subject matter was exclusively under the jurisdic- tion of a Turkish Court 75 . The assistance of the exclusive compe- tence element is judged in accordance with Turkish law. Of course, the foreign judge could hardly have been aware of these provi- sions of Turkish law in the course of the case, but that limitation is imposed by the Turkish legal order in order to ensure that certain rights which are reserved for a Turkish Court 76 . It is therefore irre- levant whether, under the law of the Court of the Tribunal, it was responsible for the disputed disagreements 77 . The determination of the jurisdiction of the Turkish Courts in made both by articles of the Turkish Code of Private International Law and Procedural Law and by reference (see art. 40 of Turkish Code of Private Inter- national and Procedural Law) to the provisions of the jurisdiction of Turkish Courts which are found in particular in the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure as well as to other specific legislation. Thus, art. 12 of the new Turkish Code of Civil Procedure is primarily a matter of jurisdiction for proceedings concerning rights in rem or changes in ownership of immovable property in Turkey for which the district Court has jurisdiction. In this cate- gory is included the legal treatment when it concerns real estate (miras sebebi ile istihkak davası). It has therefore been ruled that a foreign decision concerning an inheritance immovable proper- 74 A. ÇELIKEL, B. ERDEM, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, op. cit., 75 Z. DERYA TARMAN, Turkey: The treatment of foreign law in Turkey, in Y. Nishitani, Treatment of foreign law: Dynamics towards convergence?, Ius comparatum-Global studies in comparative law, ed. Springer, 2017, pp. 592ss. 76 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 606ss. 77 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 488ss.