NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

427 MISCELLANEOUS A Family Affair On 3 November 2020, the Paris Court of Appeal refused exequa - tur to the decision rendered by the 8th Criminal Court of First Instance of Istanbul on the grounds that the criminal court lacked impartial- ity 2 . Below is a summary of the proceedings that eventually came before the Paris Court of Appeal. On 29 March 2013, the 8th Criminal Court of First Instance of Istanbul sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for aggravated em- bezzlement and decided, inter alia , on compensation of the damages suffered by the bank in question. On 22 August 2017, the liquidator, assigned as the representative of the bank, requested partial exequatur of this judgment before the Court of First Instance of Paris. How- ever, the local court denied exequatur and dismissed the claim on the grounds that the judgment rendered by that court did not conform to international public order as the Turkish criminal court lacked impar- tiality. The local court reasoned that the prosecutor in the case, hav- ing drafted the indictment, was married to the presiding judge of the criminal court which, at the end, decided that the defendant was guilty as charged. This marital relationship between the prosecutor and the presiding judge damaged the impartiality of the panel of judges and the judicial process they conducted. The liquidator of the bank appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Paris on 4 April 2019. The appellant bank argued that (i) the request for exequatur was made for enforcement of the com- pensation of civil damages, as well as for the recovery of the principal debt owed by the defendant, (ii) there is no Turkish law prohibiting a marital relationship between a prosecutor and a judge, (iii ) there is no extrinsic evidence supporting the impartiality of the court other than the marital bond, (iv) the indictment prepared by the prosecutor was reviewed and approved initially by another judge prior to the forma- tion of the criminal tribunal, and (v) the impartiality of the majority of the panel had never come into question. Thus, the appellant asked the Paris Court of Appeal to reverse the decision of the local court. 2 To review CA Paris, Pôle 1 - Ch. 1, 3 Nov. 2020, n° 19/07329, Please refer to https://www.doctrine.fr/d/CA/Paris/2020/CE68D8FD5BCBFDA8F9D11.