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  58 According to the first paragraph of art. 60, the basic re- quirement is that the foreign arbitration judgment must be final (kesinlesmiş) and enforceable (icra kabiliyeti kazanmış) or, alter- natively, be binding on the parties (taraflar için bağlayıcı). In prin- ciple, it is investigated if this decision is judged to be final under the procedural rules followed in arbitration and if it is enforcea- ble under the same procedural law, in other words whether that decision can be enforced in the State of origin 225 . From this wording of the law, we find that if foreign arbi- tration law requires the Court to ratify the arbitration decision in order to obtain enforceability or final judgment, such rati- fication must in any case be preceded. It can not therefore be filed directly with the Turkish Court to be declared enforceable in Turkey without first being declared enforceable in the State of origin. Thus, the double exequatur phenomenon is spoken, but this can not be avoided since the law explicitly requires the decision to have already been enforceable under the law of the State of origin 226 . However, if, for some reason, the judgment has not become final or enforceable, the law goes a step further by stipulating that it is sufficient to implement the decision in Turkey, and only the parties agree that it will bind them 227 . This condition, which was set apart from the first, was introduced for the first time with the new Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Law in the attempt of the legislator to facilitate the recognition of foreign arbitration decision, in particular to overcome the obs- tacle of double recognition for which it has just there was talk. It is worth noting that Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Law does not refer to the term of reciprocity as re- 225 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 522ss. However, attention should be paid to the definition of the country of origin of the decision, which, as we have seen above, is not necessarily the country where the arbitral Tribunal met. 226 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 667ss. This finding is fully in line with the law on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in which, as we have seen, the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment which ratifies an enforceable third party judgment is not permissible. 227 Which alone is sufficient for the execution of the foreign arbitration judgment in Turkey even if it has not become final and enforceable. In this respect see Y. HGK 09.06.1999 E.467/K.489, in Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi, 2000, pp. 185 with reference to the corresponding New York Convention of 1958.