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  46 The exequatur decision shall have the force of res judicata, such as any decision by a Turkish Court, after the deadline for review has been set aside or if an appeal is made after it has been rejected 179 . This means that no new legal remedy may be ruled in the Turkish Courts, if this is the case, the defendant may propo- se an objection to the existence of a res judicata 180 (kesin hüküm itirazı) which may be raised at each stage of the trial 181 . The execution of the decision is made in accordance with art. 57 par. 1 as any other decision of the Turkish Courts, in accor- dance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct and Bankrup- tcy (İcra ve İflas Kanunu) 182 . However, it is not possible to execute those judgments which do not comply with the provisions of art. 297 of the new Code (art. 389 of the old Turkish Code of Civil Procedure) requiring that the operative part of a decision be clear without giving rise to any doubt or uncertainty (açık, şüphe ve tereddüt uyandırmayacak şekilde) 183 . Also, the decisions on recognition and enforcement is- sued by the Turkish Courts can be appealed in accordance with the grounds for appeals set aside by the new Turkish Code of Civil Procedure, while it is explicitly stated that the appeal will suspend their execution. It is interpretive that these decision are also appealed by a re-enactment if there is any reason for renunciation 184 . 179 A. ÇELİKEL, B.B. ERDEM, Private International Law, op. cit. 180 Y. 14. HD 30.01.1978, E.4822/K.546, in Yasa Hukuk Dergisi, 1978, pp. 473ss. 181 Y. HGK 20.01.1988 E.517/K.37, in Yasa Hukuk Dergisi, 1988, pp. 1629ss. 182 Law 2004 ratified by the Turkish National Assembly on 9.6.1932. For more information on Turkish law enforcement, see: B. KURU, R. ARSLAN, E. YILMAZ, İcra ve İflas Kanunu ile Nizamnamesi ve Yönetmeliği, Yetkin Yayınevi Ankara 2008, and the extensive recent amendments to this code, T. UYAR, G. UYAR, 6352 Sayılı, 2.7.2012 Tarihli Kanun ve 6103 Sayılı, 14.1.2011 Tarihli Kanun ile İcra ve İflas Kanunu’nda Yapılan Değişlikler ve Yenilikler, in İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, 2005, pp. 33ss. 183 In that paragraph, it is possible to present obstacles to the enforcement of those decisions which, without specifying the amount to be paid, simply refer to “payment of legal interest on late payment” or “legal value added tax” without being easily identifiable by based on the decision, see in this: E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 502 with references to case law. 184 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 634ss.