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  60 performance and procedural proceedings), 56 (on the adoption of the decision) and 57 (on how to enforce and revoke the deci- sion) apply mutatis mutandis. If, as we will see below, one of the grounds for refusal of the application for a declaration of enfor- ceability referred to in article 62 is not met, the Court will issue a judgment which is enforced within the country and is subject to legal remedies like any other decision of Turkish Court. 20.(FOLLOWS) POSSIBLE COMPLAINTS As with the recognition and enforcement of foreign judg- ments, the Turkish Court of recognition or enforceability, respec- tively, does not have the right to investigate the substance of the judgment 232 . On the other hand, the only specific reasons why the competent Court of first instance can reject the request are li- mited to article 62 par. 1 of Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Law. The first three of them are dealt with by the Court of its own motion, for the other six the burden of proof is borne by the applicant (par. 2). The nine reasons for refusal referred to in article 62 are the following: 1)if an arbitration agreement has not been established or an arbitration clause has not been entered into the main contract. This provision refers to the self-evident condition of the existence of either a special arbitration agreement, ie a written agreement whereby the parties agree to make one or more disputes between each other at the discretion of an arbitral Tribunal or a clause in a contract which defines a way of resolving of the dispute to an arbitral Tribunal. This plea is an expression of the provision of ar- ticle 37 of the Turkish Constitution, according to which no one is unwittingly denied access to the natural judge 233 . This provision includes not only the absence of an arbitration agreement from the outset but also the cases where the contract was concluded, but this is invalid and therefore does not have any legal consequences. 232 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 524ss. 233 Concerning article 71 of the Turkish Constitution, see: A. YÜRÜK, Tülin-Anayasa Hukuku, Anadolu Universitesi, 2003, pp. 71ss.