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  32 executed in Turkey as contrary to Turkish law 110 . In any case, a failure by the defendant to propose that the Court is not com- petent in the course of the proceedings will remedy the impedi- ment of the law on recognition of the decision, and the objection must necessarily indicate which Court actually has jurisdiction in the judgment under appeal 111 . However, even in this case, the possibility of refusing the Turkish Court to declare the judgment enforceable should not be ruled out on the ground that execution of the judgment could at the same time be described as contrary to Turkish public order 112 . Also as opposed to the Turkish public order, could be the enforcement of a judgment given by a foreign Court which did not have any particular link with the subject-matter of the dispu- te, which was even subject to the express agreement of the two parties to arbitration by a particular arbitration body 113 . 10.THE PROHIBITION OF OPPOSITION TO PUBLIC ORDER The third condition set out in art. 54 of Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Law it has been perhaps the most debated and for which the more extensive case law has been formulated, despite the fact that the law devotes a very short provision. In particular, the third condition under art. 54 for the enforcement of foreign judgments is to state that: “the decision is clearly not contrary to public order” 114 . The basic but unique element which is clear from this wording is that the op- position to public order must be obvious and not marginal or even simple 115 . This is the second reference to public order in Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Law, as art. 5 also states 110 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 490ss. 111 N. İNAL, Örnek Kararlarla-Açıklamalı| Nüfus-Babalık-Evlat Edinme Yabancı Kararların Tenfizi Ve- layet, Adalet Yayınevi, İstanbul 2002, 384-385. 112 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 490ss. 113 A. ÇELIKEL, E. NOMER, E. ESEN, Devletler Hususi Hukuku (Çözümlenmiş Örnek Olaylar-Seçilmiş Mahkeme Kararları), Vedat Kitapçılık, 2010, pp. 198ss. 114 C.ŞANLI, E. ESEN, İ. ATAMAN-FIGANMEŞE, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, op. cit. 115 T. TURHAN, Milletlerarası Sözeşmelerde Yabanı Para Kayıtları, Ankara 1996, pp. 198ss.