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

63  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, p. 9-68, Setembro-Dezembro. 2020  Turkish public order as a violation of the principle of arbitrators’ independence 241 . This decision divided scientific world with its supporters arguing that the possibility for the Court to propose amendments to the draft decision, inter alia, as to the applicable law of the reasoning of the decision 242 , is a clear violation of the arbitrator’s independence 243 . However, its critics point to both the fact that the Court does not enter the substance of the case, expres- sing its observations only in legal matters 244 , as well as the fact that the parties are a priori aware of the Court’s participation in the ar- bitration proceedings in accordance with the relevant rules of the ICC lay down and therefore do not doubt the independence of the arbitrators 245 , as this interference by the Court gives more security to the parties and works to the benefit of arbitration 246 ; 3)if the dispute which is the subject of the arbitration judg- ment can not be resolved through arbitration under Turkish law. This case refers to disputes that can not by law be resolved by arbi- tration. It is a mandatory provision restricting the parties’ freedom to make certain disputes in arbitration. Thus, according to Turkish law 247 , disputes concerning real rights in immovable property 248 and the expulsion of the lessee can not be subject to arbitration, disputes arising from the horizontal and vertical co-ownership, as a rule dis- putes of voluntary jurisdiction, affinity issues and divorce 249 , as well as disputes relating to forced execution and bankruptcy 250 ; 241 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 669-670. 242 See article 22 of ICC Rules of Arbitration. 243 S. ÜSTÜNDAG, Medeni Yargılama Hukukunda Kanun Yolları ve Tahkim, Yeniden. Gözden Geçirilmiş ve Genişletilmiş 2. Bası, İstanbul 1971, pp. 4ss. 244 E. NOMER, Yabancı Hakem Kararlarını Bağımsızlığı, in Μilletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, 1984, pp. 26ss. 245 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 676ss. 246 T. KALPSÜZ, Hakem Kararlarının Milliyeti, in Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Dergisi, 1978 , pp. 626ss. 247 See articles 408 of Turkish Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) (former 518 of old Turkish Code of Civil Procedure (HUMK)) and 1 of Turkish Code of Civil Law (MTK) as well as the relevant case law. 248 Υ. 13. HD 25.04.1991, in Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi, 1991, pp. 1222 which also raised a question of public order opposition. 249 See Y. 2 HD, 13.04.1995 E.3612/K.4567 which reject the application for divorce issued by the City of Copenhagen on the ground that it was not a Court decision and which states in its reasoning that even if it wanted to be considered as an arbitration judgment, it can not be recognized again as the divorce may not be subject to arbitration under Turkish law. A.C. RUHİ, Y. KAPLAN, Yabancı Mahkeme ve Hakem Kararlarınn Tenfizi Açısından Kamü Düzeni, in Μilletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, 2002, pp. 121ss. 250 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 528ss.