Davada hukukî yarar, usul hukukunun temel prensiplerinden biridir. Bu prensip, tanıma ve tenfiz davaları açısından da geçerlidir. Nitekim 6100 sayılı HMK'nın 114/1-h maddesinde hukukî yarar, dava şartları arasında sayılmıştır. Türk milletlerarası özel hukukunda ilk defa 5718 sayılı MÖHUK'un 52(1). maddesi ile tanıma ya da tenfiz davalarını, hukukî yararı olan herkesin açabileceği öngörülmüştür. Yargıtay, muhtelif kararlarında MÖHUK'un 52(1). maddesini yorumlamıştır. Sözkonusu Yargıtay kararları, MÖHUK'un 52(1). maddesinin kapsamı ve kimlerin tanıma ya da tenfiz davası açmada hukukî yarar sahibi olduğunun saptanması açısından oldukça önem taşımaktadır. Bu öneminden dolayı, çalışmamızda, yabancı mahkemece karara bağlanan boşanma davasına taraf olmayan mirasçıların tanıma davası açmada hukukî yararlarının varlığını kabul eden Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi'nin 3.4.2012 tarihli kararı incelenmiştir. İncelememizin esasını, yeni olması itibariyle 2. Hukuk Dairesi'nin 3.4.2012 tarihli kararı oluşturmakla birlikte, 5718 sayılı MÖHUK'un yürürlüğe girdiği 2007 yılından beri mirasçıların tanıma ya da tenfiz davası açabileceklerine ilişkin olarak verilen diğer Yargıtay kararlarına da değinilmiştir.Anahtar Kelimeler: Tanıma, tenfiz, davada hukukî yarar, yabancı mahkeme kararının tenfizinde hukukî yarar.AbstractIt is a basic principle of procedural law that a party must have a legal interest to file a case. This principle also applies in terms of litigation for the recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments. Indeed legal interest is one of the conditions of the case in Article 114/1-h of the Turkish Civil Procedural Law No. 6100. In addition, for the first time in Turkish private international law, it is stated in Article 52(1) of the PILA that any person who has a legal interest in the enforcement or recognition of a foreign judgment may file a suit for either recognition or enforcement. The Court of Appeal has interpreted Article 52(1) of the PILA in its various decisions. Such decisions of the Court of Appeal are highly important for the determination of the content of Article 52(1) of the PILA as well as clarifying the persons who have a legal interest for filing a case for the recognition or enforcement of a judgment granted by a foreign court. In order to emphasize the importance of the comments of the Court of Appeal on Article 52(1), in this study the decision of 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal dated 3.4.2012 which established that heirs who are not parties to the divorce proceeding before a foreign court can file a case asking for recognition of the foreign divorce judgment in Turkey is evaluated. Although the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal dated 3.4.2012 forms the basis of our evaluation, this study also considers the other decisions of the Court of Appeal granted since entry into force of the PILA in 2007 and relating to lodging recognition or enforcement actions by the heirs.Keywords: Recognition, enforcement, legal interest, legal interest in enforcement of a foreign judgment.

It is a basic principle of procedural law that a party must have a legal interest to file a case. This principle also applies in terms of litigation for the recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments. Indeed legal interest is one of the conditions of the case in Article 114/1-h of the Turkish Civil Procedural Law No. 6100. In addition, for the first time in Turkish private international law, it is stated in Article 52(1) of the PILA that any person who has a legal interest in the enforcement or recognition of a foreign judgment may file a suit for either recognition or enforcement. The Court of Appeal has interpreted Article 52(1) of the PILA in its various decisions. Such decisions of the Court of Appeal are highly important for the determination of the content of Article 52(1) of the PILA as well as clarifying the persons who have a legal interest for filing a case for the recognition or enforcement of a judgment granted by a foreign court. In order to emphasize the importance of the comments of the Court of Appeal on Article 52(1), in this study the decision of 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal dated 3.4.2012 which established that heirs who are not parties to the divorce proceeding before a foreign court can file a case asking for recognition of the foreign divorce judgment in Turkey is evaluated. Although the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal dated 3.4.2012 forms the basis of our evaluation, this study also considers the other decisions of the Court of Appeal granted since entry into force of the PILA in 2007 and relating to lodging recognition or enforcement actions by the heirs.