176 NEWSLETTER 2021 The Decision of the General Assembly broadly defines public policy and also provides that the issue to be examined relates to whether the enforcement of the award constitutes a violation of public policy. Violation of public policy by the law applied to the merits does not suffice as grounds for refusal. Additionally, the General Assembly makes the following observations: • The fact that the law applied to the merits is different from Turkish Law does not constitute a violation of public policy; • An award without reasoning does not constitute a violation; • Violation of every mandatory norm by an arbitral award cannot be considered as a violation of public policy. These issues have also been raised under other decisions of the Court of Cassation and are discussed in more detail, below. Some other decisions of the Court of Cassation referred to the Decision of the General Assembly and constituted the framework of public policy in line therewith. 4 Circumstances Alleged to Violate Public Policy In the early practice of the Court of Cassation, the court had a liberal approach for the concept of public policy and refused to recognize many arbitral awards as being part of public policy.5 As arbitration became more popular over the years, the Court of Cassation altered its position and changed its liberal approach to a narrower one.6 the Decisions of the Court of Cassation,” Erdem & Erdem Newsletter, January, 2017, http://www.erdem-erdem.av.tr/en/insights/relationship-between-arbitrability-and-public-policy-in-light-of-the-decisions-of-the-court-of-cassation. 4 The 15th CC of the Court of Cassation, No. 2183/3226, 12.05.2014 (www.kazanci.com). Please also see. Ekşi, Nuray: “Yargıtay Kararları ışığında Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tenfizinde Kamu Düzeni,” Public and Private International Law Bulletin, İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınevi, No: 40 (1), 2020, p. 164-165, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ppil/issue/52638/734340. 5 Ekşi, p. 167. 6 Ekşi, p. 169.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUzNjE=