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

39  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, p. 9-68, Setembro-Dezembro. 2020  defendant 148 . If one of the above cases occurs, then this fact may actually prevent the execution of this decision in Turkey because of public order opposition 149 . A question has also been raised in Turkish theory and case law on the execution of a foreign judgment when a judgment has been handed down by the Turkish Courts on the same sub- ject matter and between the same parties. Although the law does not contain any relevant rules, it is consistently stated in the case law 150 that if a foreign judgment whose enforcement is sought is contrary to a decision of a Turkish Court on the same matter, it can not be enforced irrespective of whether the foreign decision was issued before or after the corresponding Turkish 151 . If, the- refore, despite the existence of a contrary Turkish decision, the competent Turkish Court has declared the foreign judgment en- forceable, this fact gives rise to both a ground of appeal (temyiz sebebi) as well as a reason for rejoicing (yargılamanın yenilmesi sebebi) of the enforceability judgment 152 . On the other hand, it has been rightly assumed that the en- forcement of a foreign Court judgment awarding compensation for a road accident can not be considered contrary to public or- der, but the defendant was found to be unsubstantiated by a de- cision of a Turkish criminal Court 153 . Moreover, the judgment of the criminal Court on the defendant’s fault is consistently accep- ted by the case law that it does not bind the civil Court hearing the claim for damages 154 . 148 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 616ss. 149 See also the reasoning in a Yargitay judgment which dealt with the fact that, following the extradition of the foreign judgment, enforcement of the document on the basis of the documentary evidence (other previous judgment) on which the foreign Court was based for the admissibility of the action. Y. 2DH 15.11.1984, in Μilletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, 1986, pp. 200ss. 150 Y. 2. HD 08.12.1993 E. 9648/K.11903, Y. 2. HD 15.12.1998 E.11732/K.13640 (Kazancı Hukuk Otomasyonu) 151 A. SAKMAR, Yabancı İlâmların Türkiye’deki Sonuçları, op. cit., pp. 80ss., referring to the lis pendens that had been created since the filing of the claim in the Turkish Courts, stating in particular that the invo- cation of any “international lawsuit” would be contrary to the Turkish public order. 152 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 497ss. With reference to Y. 2. HD 15.11.1984, ho- wever, if the content of those two decisions is the opposite, albeit in part, the appeal is dismissed for lack of interest in bringing proceedings: N. İNAL, Örnek Kararlarla-Açıklamalı Nüfus-Babalık-Evlat Edinme Yabancı Kararların Tenfizi Velayet, Adalet Yayınevi, op. cit., 360-361 153 A. SAKMAR, Yabancı İlâmların Türkiye’deki Sonuçları, op. cit., pp. 80ss. 154 Υ. 11. HD 23.02.2004, E. 2003/7126 K. 2004/1571 (Kazancı Hukuk Otomasyonu).