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  40 However, it was argued that it was not always possible to exclude the execution of such a decision as contrary to the Turkish public order, since in the case that the lawsuit in the Turkish Courts took place after the foreign decision was taken, the action should be considered of bad faith and therefore the enforcement of the former should not be prevented, as the objection to public order would be abused 155 . If, after the application for a declara- tion of enforceability has been submitted to the competent Court of First Instance, an action is brought before a Turkish Court for the settlement of the same dispute, it is reasonable to raise the issue of lis pendents once the first application has been lodged. However, the answer given by Turkish theory is negative as no identity is identified in the lawsuits of each trial: in one we have a solution to the dispute in which its substance is exami- ned, while in the other a request for exequatur to examine the conditions of Turkish Code of Private International and Proce- dural Law and not the substance of the case. In this case, the most appropriate solution is to abstain from the Turkish Court of substance from the examination of the case until the Court takes a decision on the execution of the foreign decision, and if the latter is accepted then the former will be rejected because of res judicata. In any case, however, if the recognition of the foreign decision alone is sought, it may be requested incidentally by the party concerned in the action pending in Turkey, in order to rein- force his allegations with evidence that procedures full proof 156 . Evidently opposed to Turkish public order are also those decisions which are devoid of reasoning, that is to say, those whi- ch, after the facts are quoted, end up in the operative part 157 . It has also been ruled that when an application for recognition of a 155 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 617ss. In addition, according to the supporters of that view, the adoption of a second decision on the same parties and subject is forbidden and is the reason for the resumption of proceedings for the second decision under article 445 of the new Turkish Code of Civil Procedure. See in this regard B. KURU, Baki-Hukuk Muhakemeleri Usulü, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 6.baskı, İstanbul 2001, pp. 5164. 156 A. ÇELIKEL, E. NOMERE, E. ESEN, Devletler Hususi Hukuku (Çözümlenmiş Örnek Olaylar-Seçilmiş Mahkeme Kararları), op. cit., pp. 199ss. 157 Y. 2. HD 30.06.1999 E.5858/K.7609 in which it was held that the recognition of a divorce decree issued by the Sydney family Court, but without any such justification, is contrary to the Turkish public order.