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

61  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, p. 9-68, Setembro-Dezembro. 2020  Such a case is e.g. The conclusion of a contract for arbitration by a person who is not provided with the power of attorney, and it is assumed that in the absence of a valid declaration of will (explicit or implied) for the approval of the contract, it does not bind the principal and the dealer also 234 . Another issue that has been raised repeatedly with regard to the validity of the arbitration agreement is the language that has been formulated, whether it is a void the relative contract drawn up in the Turkish language. The answer to the case law was that because of the specificity of the arbitration agreement, the language in which it was drafted has no bearing on its validity, even if the place where it was drawn was Turkey 235 ; 2)whether the arbitration judgment is contrary to public order or morality. As we have seen with the execution of foreign judgments, the basic condition for the issue of the relevant Court decision by the Turkish Court of First Instance is the enforcement of the decision in Turkey not to contradict the Turkish public order. This condition also applies to the execution of foreign arbitration decision, while to public order (kamu düzeni) morality is added (genel ahlak), while it is worth noting that article 62 does not refer to “obvious opposition” to public order. The fact that this article does not explicitly mention “obvious” (açıkça) opposition to public order should rather be attributed to the inadvertent omission of the legislator which is probably due to the fact that the provisions of the New York Convention have been transposed into the law. In our opinion, therefore, in the case of arbitration decisions, it would also be necessary to support the element of obvious contradiction in public order. Any other interpretation that would give the judge the discretion to dismiss requests for enforcement simply because of a simple opposition to public order would be excessive and un- der no circumstances would a rigorous treatment of arbitrators be 234 Plenary Civil Divisions of Cassation Court (Y. HGK) 11.10.2000 E.1122/K.1256, in İlmi Ve Kazai İçtihatlar Dergisi, 2009, pp. 1079 with remarks E. ESEN, Hakem Kararının Tenfizi veya İptali Davalarında Tahkim Anlaşmasının Yetkisiz Temsilci Vasıtasıyla Yapıldığı İtirazı ve Konuya İlişkin 11.10. 2000 Tarihli Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu Kararı, Prof. Dr. Gülören Tekinalp’e Armağan, in Μilletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, 2003, pp. 404ss. As well as Υ. 19. HD 11.03.2004 Ε.2654/Κ.2603 (Kazancı Hukuk Otomasyonu) 235 See, Υ. 11. HD 07.10.1986, in Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi, 1987, pp. 66 in particular, because of its speci- ficity as a “procedural contract” (usul kukuku sözleşmesi), the arbitration agreement does not fall within the scope of the Law on the Compulsory Use of the Turkish Language in Commercial Enterprises of 1926.