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

65  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, p. 9-68, Setembro-Dezembro. 2020  of both substantive and procedural law 254 . Conversely, if the con- tract or arbitration clause does not explicitly state the applicable law, then the validity of the judgment should be judged in accor- dance with the law of the place where the arbitration judgment was made; 7) if the choice of arbitrators or the arbitration rules ap- plied by the arbitrators are contrary to the parties’ agreement, in the absence of such an agreement if they are contrary to the law of the State in which the judgment was given. This con- dition concerns the legality of the choice of the arbitrator or the rules of arbitration that have been applied and which must have been made within the parties’ agreement to bring the dis- pute to arbitration, in the absence of such agreement and the choice must be taken in accordance with the law of the country where the decision was made. With regard to the selection of arbitrators, it has been judged by jurisprudence that the choice of the arbitrator by one party, despite the fact that it was expres- sly agreed that this would be by common agreement between the parties, is valid if a reasonable period has elapsed after the invitation of one party to the other for the selection of the ar- bitrators and the latter did not respond 255 . With regard to the rules of procedure, it was right in our opinion the position of the Turkish Court of Cassation that the choice of the parties to define the law of a State as applicable, without further speci- fying, includes both the substantive and the procedural law of arbitration. It follows that the foreign decision which applied the arbitration rules of the State in which it was issued, despite the fact that the parties had generally opted for Turkish law, constitutes a breach of the agreement as regards the procedural rules applied and thus hinders its execution 256 ; 254 See: Plenary Civil Divisions of Cassation Court (Υ. HGK) 05.05.1993 E.235/K. 273 and Y. 15. HD 25.12.1997, E.4213/K.5603 (Kazancı Hukuk Otomasyonu), see also: E. NOMER, Yargıtay Kararlarinda De- vletler Özel Hukuku Kanunu in Dr. Oğuz İmregün’e Armağan, İstanbul, 1998, pp. 727ss. 255 Plenary Civil Divisions of Cassation Court (Y. HGK) 19.03.2003 E.42/K.182 (Kazancı Hukuk Oto- masyonu). 256 Plenary Civil Divisions of Cassation Court (Y. HGK) 05.05.1999 E.235/K.273 in N. EKŞİ, Kanunlar İhtilafı Kurallarına Milletlerarası Usul Hukukuna Vatandaşlık ve Yabanılar Hukukuna Pratik Çalışma Kitabı, op. cit., pp. 112ss.