NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

428 NEWSLETTER 2020 The defendant responded that the decision rendered by the Turk- ish criminal court was, in fact, contrary to international public order due to the apparent bias of the bench. The Paris Court of Appeal agreed with the defendant. The Court of Appeal held that to grant exequatur , a French judge must ensure that three conditions are always met; (i) the foreign judge is the competent judge to hear the dispute, (ii) international public order is complied with, and (iii) the rights recognized by the European Convention on Human Rights (“Convention”) are respected. Pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Convention 3 , everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an indepen- dent and impartial tribunal established by law. The Court of Appeal provided that the matrimonial bond which united the prosecutor and the presiding judge is likely to give rise to a legitimate doubt about the impartiality of the tribunal, even when the decision was rendered collegially, because the opinion of a single magistrate may in fact, change the course of the entire decision rendered. The Court of Ap- peal rendered that the prosecutor’s role is also material in this criminal litigation since it is he who sent the defendant before the criminal tribunal. Also, the fact that the indictment was reviewed and approved by another judge does not mitigate the major involvement of the pre- siding judge upon the verdict. The Court of Appeal also noted that the defendant requested the recusal of the presiding judge, but his motion was not granted. Even though the Court of Cassation in Ankara dismissed the causes for ap- peal, the Paris Court of Appeal found it noteworthy to mention one of the dissenting opinions of the justices at the Court of Cassation, who provided that there was legitimate doubt of bias, given the marital 3 Article 6 (1) of the ECRH: “ In the determination of his civil rights and obliga- tions or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribu- nal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the ex - tent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice .”