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

47  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, p. 9-68, Setembro-Dezembro. 2020  14. REQUEST FOR THE RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN JUDG- MENTS A part form the request for execution of a foreign decision within Turkey, a request can only be made for the recognition of a decision. This is the case either when the applicant has no voting rights (eda hükümleri) or when the applicant wishes for his/her own purposes only the recognition and not his/her exe- cution 185 or, finally, when the condition a) of art. 54 required for the execution but not for recognition. Recognition of the foreign decision may be made either by way of interruption in an action already brought before the Turkish Courts or by a separate application specifically requesting its recognition. These two possibilities are expressly referred to in art. 58 of Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Law, which reads as follows: 1. In order for a foreign judgment to be admissible as a complete proof (kesin delil) or as a res judicata (kesin hüküm), the Court must investigate if the conditions for the execution of foreign judgments are met. The first paragraph a) of art. 54 shall not apply to recognition. 2. Voluntary cases are subject to the same provisions. 3. The same procedure applies to any ad- ministrative action in Turkey based on a foreign judgment. Thus, as regards the conditions for recognition of foreign judgments, art. 58 par. 1 refers to the general provisions of arti- cles 50 to 54 which must be fulfilled for their enforcement, with the exception of the case referred to in a) art. 54 which is not ap- plicable 186 . It is not necessary, therefore, to establish the principle of reciprocity in order to (only) recognize in Turkey a judgment of a foreign Court. This exception has been perceived by Turkish theory as corresponding to the provision of paragraph 5 of the 185 In this case, however, it is argued that the legitimate interest of the applicant for recognition should be investigated, see, A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 636, footnote 146. See also Y. 13.HD 30.06.1983 in Yasa Hukuk Dergisi, 1990, pp. 1029 in which it was held that the application for recognition of a foreign decision concerning a debt claim was properly rejected since the applicant had no legal interest in recognizing it but instead had to demand her declaration as an executor. In Contrast: İstanbul Asl. H.M. 03.05.1997 E.1278/K.374 in N. EKŞI, Kanunlar İhtilafı, op. cit., pp. 95ss, in which it was held that the applicant for recognition of a foreign judgment has a legitimate interest in seeking only its recognition as the claimant’s claim is not the recovery of the claim but also the recognition by Turkey of a final judgment so that the other party can not raise future action on the same subject matter in the Turkish Courts. 186 M. ŞİMŞEK, Aile Mahkemele-rinin Görevine Giren Davalar Ve Yargılama Usulü, op. cit.,