In short
The question of what a public-policy objection means in enforcement of a foreign judgment looks at a narrow ground of refusal put forward against a foreign court judgment being treated as enforceable in Turkey. It is not built because the result was not liked. The whole of the enforcement petition is not written here. Manifest contrariety is read from the result that would arise if the judgment were enforced.
The ground is not disliking the result
The court does not rebuild the ruling of the foreign judgment. Public policy looks at whether the result that would arise in Turkey if it were enforced is manifestly unbearable. That a different law was chosen does not by itself fill this ground. The objection sticks to the operative part of the judgment. Disliking a sentence in the reasoning does not drop the result from enforcement. A claim of manifest contrariety is built with a sentence that shows which clause struck which value. A general unease does not stand in for this sentence. That another law was applied is not by itself a ground of refusal.
The other doors of refusal are not opened here
Other headings of refusal, such as jurisdiction, the right of defence, and reciprocity, are the subject of the enforcement procedure. This text does not tell those headings one by one. It only separates what the public-policy objection asks. Melting two headings in the same paragraph inflates the ground of refusal. Recognition and enforcement are not the same door either. Recognition is acceptance of the res judicata effect of the judgment. Enforcement looks at enforceability. The public-policy objection is read on the ground of refusal of enforcement. The document list of recognition is not repeated here, and a foreign arbitral award is not taken for a copy of this judgment.
Neighbouring routes are not the same objection
The procedure for enforcement of a foreign court judgment sits under enforcement. The separation of recognition and enforcement sits under recognition and enforcement. Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, under arbitral award, and recognition of a foreign divorce judgment, under recognition of a divorce, are separate questions. These records do not build the public-policy objection as dislike, and they do not rewrite the enforcement petition here. The result is not treated as contrary by itself before the operative part of the judgment is seen.
How the objection is read
The foreign judgment, the finality annotation, and the objection sentence in the enforcement petition stand together. The three are not taken for a single document. An Ankara lawyer does not write the Çankaya address in place of the enforcement court. The authority is read from the action's own record. Disliking the reasoning of the decision does not drop the operative part by itself. If service is missing, that lack is written separately and is not put in place of the public-policy sentence.
The objection is built over the operative part
The sentence that builds the objection sticks to the operative part of the foreign judgment. Disliking an assessment in the reasoning does not drop the result of enforcement by itself. The public-policy ground is not treated as filled before it is written which clause struck which value. That a different law was applied is not by itself a manifest contrariety. Recognition looks at the res judicata effect. Enforcement looks at enforceability, and these two doors are not melted in the same petition. The whole of the document list is not repeated here.
The finality annotation is one of the records that show whether the judgment has become suitable for enforcement. While there is no annotation, a result is not assumed. If service is missing, that lack is written separately and is not put in place of the public-policy sentence. The decision does not rebuild the ruling of the judgment. A foreign arbitral award and a divorce judgment are not a copy of this ground of refusal. If the petition is content with a sentence of general unease, the ground has not been built. If the judgment has more than one clause, the objection shows which clause it is directed at. Treating the whole judgment as contrary in bulk inflates the ground. A lack relating to the right of defence is not hidden inside the public-policy sentence, and that lack is read under its own heading. Reciprocity is not turned into a list of refusal here either. A claim of manifest contrariety is not built without writing the concrete clause and the value it struck. A general sense of justice does not stand in for this sentence. Disliking the foreign court's assessment is not a sufficient document sentence for refusal of enforcement.
Conclusion
Public policy is a narrow ground of refusal against enforcement of a foreign judgment. Disliking the decision does not build this ground. The rest of the enforcement procedure sits under separate headings. The frame is on the international law page. The basis is the text of Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and Procedural Law.