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  36 “obviously” contrary to art. 54. It should be noted that many in- ternational Conventions to which Turkey is party have as their basic principle the best possible protection of the interests of the child and as such can be considered the joint exercise of parental responsibility after the marriage has been resolved, starting with the thought that although the marriage failed, there was no chan- ge in the love and interest of the parents towards the child 132 . It has also been ruled out that the application for the enfor- cement of a foreign decision which has held that a child’s paren- tal responsibility has been examined by the parents and the wi- shes of their parents, but without taking into account the interest of the child. Such an omission in the judge’s judgment inevitably leads, in view of both the provisions of the Turkish Constitu- tion for the Protection of Children and the relevant International Conventions ratified by Turkey, to reject the enforcement request because of its apparent opposition to Turkish public order 133 . As regards the issue of kinship, it has recently been ruled that a foreign decision is not incompatible with the Turkish pu- blic order, according to which the child is not individually recog- nized as having the right to prejudice paternity, although this right is provided by Turkish Civil Code 134 . Indeed, this decision refers to the fact that, until the introduction of the new TCC in 2001, Turkish family law did not include the child as a legitimate person for insulting paternity. On the contrary, to these persons are included only the spouse, his heirs and the prosecutor, sin- ce in the ratio of the relevant provision of the old Turkish Civil Code of 1926, as interpreted during its term of office, the institu- tion of paternity violation “mainly concerned the father and was set up in his own interest in order to get rid of a foreign child and the financial burden it entails!” 135 . 132 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 620ss. B. ERDEM, Yabancı Aile Hukuku Mahkeme Kararlarının Tanıma ve Tenfizi ile Avrupa Birliği Brüksel II Tüzüğü, in Uygulamalı Aile Hukuku Sertifika Programı, Medenî Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ile İlişkili Güncel Aile Hukuku Meseleleri, ΙΤÜ Yayınarı, İstanbul 2006, pp. 145ss. 133 Y. 2. HD 28.02.1991 E.2108/K.3555 (Kazancı Hukuk Otomasyonu). 134 Y. 2. HD 04.05.2009 E.6063/K.8609 (Kazancı Hukuk Otomasyonu). 135 G. PASKOY, Soybağının Reddi, in Türk Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 2011, pp. 355ss.