The Turkish Court of Cassation Decision on the Unification of the Case Law dated in 2012 held that the recognition or enforcement of foreign court judgments, which do not incorporate reasons, are not incompatible with Turkish public policy. The Court of Cassation opined for an absolute outcome suggesting that absence of reasons in a foreign court judgment is irrelevant for the purposes of Turkish public policy in recognition and enforcement procedure. This article examines whether the Court of Cassation's approach is plausible. An analysis of the academic writings, comparative law, as well as judgments of international courts, would suggest otherwise. The right to fair trial, which constitutes a constitutional principle and which is guaranteed under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular, requires that reasons be provided with when courts render their judgments. Notwithstanding that, it would be wrong to suggest that recognition or enforcement of a foreign court judgment without reasons is always and absolutely in breach of Turkish public policy. It seems that the most plausible approach would be to consider that recognition or enforcement of foreign court judgment, which does not involve reasons, is not in breach of public policy only if parties' right to a fair trial is not infringed with such procedure. It is yet required that the Turkish court, as an enforcement authority, could check whether the case between the parties is of a nature that would not infringe parties' right to fair trial when the judgment is rendered without reasons.