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  26 ty located in Turkey 78 can not be enforced, since this Court has the exclusive jurisdiction of the deceased’s last domicile and if he was not in Turkey, then is the Court of the district 79 (articles 576 of the Turkish Civil Code and 43 of the Turkish Code of Pri- vate International and Procedural Law). Similarly, in a divorce lawsuit involving the distribution of common assets, if the pro- perty is located in Turkey, it is not the execution of the decision to change the ownership of the property 80 , whereas, on the other hand, the part of the decision declaring marriage terminated is recognized 81 . On the other hand, the recognition of a decision on the divorce of a foreign Court to which a joint agreement of the spouses for the distribution of common property in Turkey was annexed 82 on the ground that the subject of the proceedings was not a change in any real right which was transferred not after the decision but due to the common agreement 83 . Another issue considered by Turkish case law to be at the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish Courts is the question of the appointment of a legal counsel, as opposed to the declaration of a person in Court, which is deemed not to fall within that exclu- sive jurisdiction. The reason for this crisis is based on art. 10 par. 3 of Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Law, according to which: “all matters relating to underwriting (ve- sayet) or judicial assistance (kısıtlılık), other than the grounds for their declaration or termination, and those of tutelage on the pro- perty of the stranger (kayyımlık) are governed by Turkish law” 84 . 78 See a decision of the Turkish Invalidity Division declaring that the application for recognition of a judgment given by the Court of First Instance in Rhodes concerning a right of inheritance over property in Turkey was rejected, on the ground that Turkish Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over decisions concer- ning property rights in Turkey: Y. 2. HD 10.02.1986 YHD 1987,1328 79 Y. 2. HD 22..06.1990 Ε.6373/ Κ.6410 and Y. 2. HD 16.10.2009, in Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi, 2010, pp. 1023ss. 80 Bodrum Asl. H.M. 12.04.1985 E.267/K.109 with remarks in: C. ŞANLI, Türkiye’de Gayrimenkullerle İlgili Bir Yabancı Boşanma Kararının Tenfizi, in Μilletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, 1986, pp. 40ss. 81 Y. 2. HD 25.01.1996, in Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi, 1996, pp. 845ss. 82 E. ÖRÜCÜ, Turkish family law: Facing the principles of european family law, in E. Örücü, J. Mair, Juxtaposing legal systems and the principles of european family law on divorce and maintenance, ed. Intersentia, 2007, pp. 184ss. 83 Y. 2. HD 06.12.1994 E. 9963/K.12007 (Kazancı Hukuk Otomasyonu) 84 G. TEKINALP, E. NOMER, N. AYSE ODMAN BOZTOSUN, International civil procedure, in B. Vers- chraegen, R. Blanpain, F. Hendrickx, Turkey, IEL Private international law, op. cit.,