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

57  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, p. 9-68, Setembro-Dezembro. 2020  few years later, in 1985, the Turkish Invalidate Service gave an answer to this question, using at the same time both the criterion of procedural law and of territoriality 222 . Today, following the introduction of Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Law, the criterion prevailing in the case law is the nationality of the procedural rules applied to ar- bitration. It has also been argued by the theory that this was also the will of the legislator, who mentions the procedural rules of ar- bitration in several points 223 (cases e, f and h) of art. 63 of Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Law for the execu- tion of foreign arbitration judgments. It is therefore crucial that the process be applied whether it is chosen by the parties or is left to the discretion of the arbitrator 224 . If, therefore, the arbitration is conducted in accordance with Turkish law, then the decision will be classified as Turkish, or if the procedure applied is not that pro- vided for by the Turkish law, it will be considered as a foreign. 18.TERMINATION AND CAPACITY TO EXECUTE THE DE- CISION According to art. 60 par. 1 of Turkish Code of Private In- ternational and Procedural Law: “Foreign arbitration judgments which are either final and enforceable or binding on the parties may be executed”. The second paragraph of the same article sta- tes that “(…) the execution of foreign arbitral judgments is re- quested by an application to the Court of First Instance of the place agreed by the parties in writing. In the absence of such an agreement between the parties, the Court of the place of residen- ce in Turkey shall be responsible for the decision, if not the place where he has his habitual residence, and, failing that, the place where the asset is situated be the subject of enforcement (...)”. 222 Y. 11. HD 19.12.1985 E.7355/K.7099, which was considered to be Turkish the arbitration judgment as the choice of the arbitrator and the secretary was made by the Chamber of Commerce of Paris, however, the old Turkish Code of Civil Procedure (HUMK) procedures have been implemented while the decision was issued on Turkish soil, facts which both refer to the judgment as Turkish. See: E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 298ss. 223 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 521ss. 224 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 655ss.