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  44 the objection to public order was rejected by our argument, whi- ch is very pertinent, that the defendant was able to propose the correct application of Turkish law to the alien Court and exhaus- ting the means provided there 170 . 13.(FOLLOWS) SERVICE OF THE APPLICATION Pursuant to art. 55, the application for recognition of the judgment together with the prescribed date of the trial is served on the defendant. Any failure by the applicant to perform the in- tended service results in the rejection of the request for recogni- tion of the granting of enforceability, as the defendant denies the right of defense 171 . The same precondition applies to cases of vo- luntary jurisdiction (ihtlafsiz kaza kararları), but not to those in which there was no other party (hasımsız ihtlafsız kaza kararları), so that there is no question of service to the defendant 172 . It is worth noting, however, that under the Hague Conven- tion on Civil Procedure of 1954 173 , a decision of another Contrac- ting State is enforceable in respect of the costs of the proceedings without the need for the defendant to be heard, offense against the wrong interpretation of its law. This is perhaps the only case of Turkish exequatur to declare a foreign decision enforceable without summoning the plaintiff 174 . Cases relating to the recognition and enforcement of fo- reign judgments are subject, in accordance with art. 55 par. 1, to a special procedure where the so called “simplified procedural 170 HGK 21.6.2000, in Yeni Hukuk içtihat Dergisi, 2000, pp. 1510ss, but left open the possibility of conside- ring the opposition to Turkish public order if, although the defendant put forward the relevant arguments and objections to the highest Court of the foreign state to which he could have recourse under foreign procedural law, Turkish law was nevertheless applied incorrectly. 171 Y. 2. HD 08.04.2008 E.4203/K.4879 R.G. 07.05.08-26869 172 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 630. Unfounded affairs appear for the first time in the new Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Law, as in the previous 1982 code there was no mention of this, which has the effect of questioning the possibility of recognizing and enforcing such judgments and of issuing negative judgments. 173 “Convention de La Haye relative à la procédure civile” (1954), which has been ratified by the Turkish National Assembly and entered into force on July 11, 1973 as well as by other 39 States, but not Greece and other european States. 174 Ö. GÜNSELİ, Türk Hukukunun Yorumunda Hata Yapılmasına Ilişkin Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Jurulunun 21.06.2001 Tarihi Kararı, in Μilletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, 1999-2000, pp. 767ss.