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  52 petent authorities of a Contracting State “refuse to recognize an adoption if it is manifestly contrary to public order, taking into account the interest of the child” 205 . Therefore, the refusal to re- cognize a transnational adoption by a Contracting State is not sufficient to prevent the adoption of a manifest public opposition in its national public order, provided that it is in the interest of the adopted child. In the Hague Convention on “Recognition and Enforce- ment of Decisions on Maintenance Obligations” of 1973 206 , art. 4 and 5 lay down the more specific conditions for the recognition and enforcement of such judgments given by Courts of the Con- tracting Parties. Among these is the second paragraph of art. 4, which states that: “(…) interim enforceable judgments and inte- rim measures, even if they are subject to regular legal remedies, are recognized or declared enforceable in the State of enforce- ment if such decisions are issued and enforced to this”. These are few cases in which enforcement of provisional enforcement or- der or precautionary measures of foreign Courts are accepted 207 . Special provisions also include art. 1 of the 1967 Luxem- bourg Convention on “the Recognition of Marriage Related Ma- trimonial Matters” 208 , which provides as conditions for the re- cognition of judgments relating to marital affairs: a) not to be the foreign judgment contrary to another final judgment given or re- cognized in that State; b) the parties have had an opportunity to appear in the case; and c) the decision is not manifestly contrary to the public order of the host State. Art. 2 refers to the so-called 205 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 504ss. 206 “Convention du 2 octobre 1973 sur la loi applicable aux obligations alimentaires” which was ratified by the Turkish National Assembly and came into force on 1.11.1983 and has been ratified by Greece with Law 3171/2003. It should also be noted that both Greece and Turkey have expressed a reservation on the recognition of decisions and compromises in food affairs between relatives in a line of law and between relatives of marriage, while Turkey has also expresses a reservation regarding the recognition of decision and compromises that do not provide for periodic maintenance payments. 207 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 505ss. 208 “Convention de Luxembourg du 8 septembre 1967 sur la reconnaissance des décisions relatives au lien conjugal”. This Convention was signed in 1990 by seven States, including Greece, but only three of them, namely Germany (with effect from 10.12.1977), the Netherlands (with effect from 30.7.1981) and Turkey (which entered into force on 14.7.1975), therefore applies only to cases of recognition and enforcement be- tween them which fall within the scope of the Treaty (see, E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 506). As already mentioned, Greece has not yet ratified it.