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

33  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, p. 9-68, Setembro-Dezembro. 2020  that the provisions of applicable foreign law that are obviously contrary to public order are not applicable 116 . However, in rela- tion to art. 5 on the applicable law, it should be made clear that the provision of art. 54 on public order does not refer to any op- position to the law applicable to the Turkish public order, but only to the legal effects which have the execution of the decision in Turkey 117 . The definition of public order, as it has been provided by the case law, is not far from the definition in most European laws. Thus, in order to reject a request for execution of a foreign deci- sion due to its opposition to public order, it should contain a set of provisions opposing the fundamental legal, moral and cons- cious rules necessary to maintain a peaceful and harmonious co- existence in the society 118 . Of course, because these results are directly dependent on both the substantive law (maddi hukuku) and the procedural rules (usul hukuku), it is not possible to execute the decision in the course of which important procedural rights of the defendant have been violated, with the prohibition of witnesses being exa- mined only against the defendant 119 . Regarding the recognition of foreign Court decisions on a marriage solution by divorce, much debate has arisen in the legal science on the recognition of consensual divorce judgments. Many decisions of the Turkish Court of Cassation 120 , have been issued in connection with this issue, according to which such decisions can not be recognized in Turkey because of the contradiction of the institution of the consensual Court in public order! The reasoning behind those judgments was focused on the lack of consensual divorce in Turkish law and the corresponding violation of public 116 C.D. GÖYAYLA, Yabancı mahkeme kararlarının tanınması ve tenfizinde kamu düzeni, Seçkin Yayınleri, Ankara 2001 117 C.D. GÖYAYLA, Yabancı mahkeme kararlarının tanınması ve tenfizinde kamu düzeni, Seçkin Yayınleri, op. cit., pp. 190ss. 118 Υ. 2. HD 17.2.1997, E:675 K:1633, in Yasa Hukuk Dergisi, 1997, pp. 739. 119 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 497ss. 120 See in particular: Y. 2 HD 28.01.1982 RG 1982, 17604, Y. 2 HD 12.04.1983 RG 1983,18042, Y. 2HD 15.05.1984 MHB 1984, 94, YHD 1984, 1356 with remarks in: E.ΝOMER, Υ. 2 HD 26.05.1986, in İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, 1987, pp. 139ss.