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

45  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, p. 9-68, Setembro-Dezembro. 2020  rules”(basit yargılama usulü hükümleri) 175 are applied. The in- clusion of these cases in this process was preferred by the legisla- to r 176 for two main reasons: a) the desire not to delay the comple- tion of recognition and enforcement; and b) the choice of carrying out the whole process in writing and with facts and figures they are notified from the outset to the other party as all the facts are known and by definition the evidence is documents 177 . The objections to the enforcement or recognition of the de- fendant are referred to in the second paragraph of art. 55. The defendant is therefore entitled to plead before the Court either that one of the conditions laid down in paragraphs 50 to 55 of Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Law is not fulfilled or that all or part of the operative part of the decision has already been executed in Turkey or anywhere else (eg in the country where the decision was made). These reasons are restric- tive and not indicative and therefore, as we have seen above, are not legitimate the defendant’s objection concerning the legal or substantive correctness of the foreign decision. Under art. 56, the Court accepts totally (tamamen) or some (kısmen) the application for a declaration of enforceability or rejects the request in its entirety. The decision issued subsequent to the test of the foreign decision, bearing at the end the stamp and the signature of the issuing judge 178 . 175 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 509ss, Akıncı/Gökyayla, 57, Eyüp Asl. H.M. E.766/K.6 in N. EKŞİ, Kanunlar İhtilafı Kurallarına Milletlerarası Usul Hukukuna Vatandaşlık ve Yabanılar Hukukuna Pratik Çalışma Kitabı, Beta, op. cit., pp. 86ss. 176 See also articles 316-322 of the new Turkish Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), which entered into force on 12.1.2011 and replaced the previous (old) Turkish Code of Civil Procedure of 1926, which governed this special procedure in articles 507-511. The main differences identified in this “simplified procedure” are: a) the extension of the time limit which the defendant may require for his first reply to the application and the exclusion of the rejoinder or the second response of the applicant and the defendant respectively, b) the mandatory reporting of all the facts and evidence relied on or will be provided by the applicant subse- quently, without being able to be invoked or referred for the first time in the trial, while it is forbidden any change or extension of the claimant’s and defendant’s claims after the applicant’s filing of the application and the first reply of the defendant respectively, c) the possibility for the Court to take a decision without the parties being summoned to the proceedings and only with the information contained in the file, while d) a particular feature of this procedure is the possibility of initiating the decision without explanation in the form of a report in the reasoned judgment of the Court is also published at the latest within one month of the publication of the minutes. For more information, see B. KURU, Hukuk Muhakemeleri Usulü, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 6.baskı, op. cit., pp. 576ss. 177 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 632ss. 178 A. ÇELİKEL, B.B. ERDEM, Private International Law, op. cit.