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

49  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, p. 9-68, Setembro-Dezembro. 2020  (art. 174 of Turkish Civil Code). It has also been ruled that it is possible to convert (ıslah) divorce proceedings 192 which has been brought before the Turkish Courts in a claim for recognition of a foreign divorce decree when there is a final foreign divorce judg- ment between the same parties 193 . In any case, it has been judged by jurisprudence that a fo- reign decision can be freely assessed as evidence in a trial in the Turkish Courts and assessed together with the other means of evidence for the formation of the judge’s judgment even if not explicitly requested by a party its recognition 194 . The second case is that of the recognition of a trial speci- fically raised for that purpose by the person concerned, when required, as is typically stated in art. 58 par. 3, “to carry out any administrative action in Turkey” (Türkiye’de idarî bir işlemin yapılmasında). In this case, it is clearly a matter of identifying treatment (tesbit davası) 195 . The provision of art. 62 par. 3 con- cerns in particular family law decisions such as divorce, adop- tion, paternity recognition which, although not amenable to enforcement, must be recognized by the Turkish authorities in order to be registered in the registry. It is also characteristic that the Turkish “Registry Service Act” for the registration of changes resulting from foreign Court rulings requires a decision to re- cognize them from the Turkish Courts. This law was apparently taken into account by the legislator by referring to “administra- tive actions”, thus defining the procedure for the required recog- nition of the foreign decision 196 . With regard to the issue of recognition in particular, two questions have been raised in theory and case law: a) whether the procedural provisions laid down for enforceability cases and no relevant provisions in the foreign decision or if they can not be enforced in Turkey, see in particular: Z. AKICI, G.D. GÖYAYLA, Milletlerarası Aile Hukuku, Vedat Kitapçılık, op. cit., pp. 59-60 192 C.ŞANLI, E. ESEN, İ. ATAMAN-FIGANMEŞE, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, op. cit. 193 Y. 2. HD 05.06.1998 E.5745/K.7116 194 Y. ΗGK 24.10.2001 E: 13-1003, K: 763 (Kazancı Hukuk Otomasyonu) 195 A. SAKMAR, Yabancı İlâmların Türkiye’deki Sonuçları, op. cit., pp. 80. 196 P.B. BURCU YUKSEL, Turkish and EU private international law. A comparison, ed. On Iki Levha Yayincilik, 2014.