Implementation of cautionary judgement decisions in Turkish law

In the first part of the study, the characteristics of the cautionary judgment decisions given by the court were examined in general terms. In this context, the conditions and types of cautionary judgment decisions have been addressed, and the legal nature of cautionary judgment decisions has been discussed by including the opinions in the doctrine. The requirement to request the implementation of the cautionary judgment decisions regulated in Article 393 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which constitutes an important part of the study, has been evaluated within the framework of the type of measure and the recording of the cautionary judgment decisions in the official registry. In addition, the study has determined the compulsory bodies authorized and tasked with implementing the cautionary judgment decisions depending on the degree of the court that issued the cautionary judgment decisions, and the characteristics of the complaint remedy arising from the implementation of the cautionary judgment decisions decision and the compensation lawsuit arising from unjust cautionary judgment decisions have been included. In the second part of the study, the cautionary judgment decisions that can be given by the arbitrator or arbitration board in arbitration proceedings subject to the Code of Civil Procedure are emphasized and the limits of the authority of the courts to give cautionary judgment decisions during arbitration proceedings are drawn. As in the first part, an attempt is made to determine the compulsory enforcement body responsible for implementing the cautionary judgment decisions, depending on the authority that gives the cautionary judgment decisions.