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  64 4)if one of the parties was not lawfully represented before the arbitrator and the actions takenwere not expressly approved ex post; 5) if the party against whom enforcement is sought has not been legally informed of the choice of the arbitrator or has been deprived of the possibility of submitting allegations and defen- se. In such a case, the person against whom enforcement of the foreign judgment is to be served should not have been deprived of the right to participate in the trial, showing his claims and de- fense. The Court must therefore examine whether the defendant had been informed in good time of the arbitration and whether he had the time to prepare for it, to collect and produce eviden- ce 251 and to examine the documents in the case so that he could respond to them. The law according to which the degree of vio- lation of one party’s rights of defense is judged is the one agreed to govern the arbitration procedure 252 . It is also worth noting that in particular the violation of the obligation to inform the other party in due time and the defendant’s impediment to the sub- mission of allegations (savunma hakkı) may also be regarded as constituting an opposition to the Turkish public order in case b) of article 62 253 ; 6) if the arbitration judgment is invalid under the law cho- sen by the parties to govern the arbitration agreement or the ar- bitration clause or if there has been no agreement on this mat- ter under the law of the State in which the decision was taken. The foreign arbitration judgment to be enforced should be not invalid (hükümsüz) in accordance with the applicable law spe- cifically chosen by the parties for the contract or the arbitration clause. Where the text of the arbitration agreement or the main contract to which the clause has been issued states that the laws or the relevant provisions of the law are applicable, it has been held in the case law that this provision includes the provisions 251 It has been held, however, that a decision rejecting a written testimony following its assessment that it is not an admissible means of proof does not constitute a breach of the party’s right to a fair hearing. Y. 19. HD 09.11.2000, E.7171/K.7602, in Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi, 2001, pp. 1057ss. 252 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 527 253 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 532