ABD Rekabet Hukukunun Ülke-Dışı Uygulanması: Eski ve Yeni Belirsizlikler

Amerika Birleşik Devletleri yabancı rekabete aykırı eylemlerin sınır-ötesi etkileri ile ilgili olarak harekete geçen ilk devlet olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Amerikan Mahkemeleri bu tür eylemlere yönelik hukuki yetkilerini kurabilmek için ABD ticaretine olan etkiler üzerinden etki doktrinini geliştirmişlerdir. Doktrinin ortaya atılmasından itibaren 75 yıl geçmiştir ve bu süreç dahilinde ABD rekabet hukukunun ülke-dışı uygulanması sürekli bir gelişmeye tabi tutulmuştur. Buna rağmen, içtihat hukuku hala önemli boşluklar ve sorunlarla doludur. Bu boşluk ve sorunlar, özellikle yakın zamanda verilen ve birbiriyle çelişen mahkeme kararlarında açıkça görünmektedir. Global ekonomide gelişen yeni tedarik zincirleri, ABD mahkemelerine yerel piyasaların rekabetçiliğinin sağlanması adına karşılaşacakları yeni zorluklar sunmaktadır. Bu zorlukların üstesinden gelebilmek için ABD Yüksek Mahkemesinin, hem süregelen hukuki belirsizlikleri ortadan kaldırması hem de daha önce benimsediği bazı hukuki yaklaşımları yeniden gözden geçirmesi gerekmektedir.

EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF US ANTITRUST RULES: AMBIGUITIES OLD AND NEW

The US was the first state that reacted the crossborder implications of foreign anticompetitive practices. In order to extend their jurisdiction over these practices, US courts introduced ‘effects doctrine’ which was envisaged to establish judicial jurisdiction on the basis of effects created in US trade and commerce. The extraterritorial application of US antitrust rules has been gradually developed and as of to date, it has been 75 years since the effect doctrine was first adopted by the US courts. Nevertheless, the case law on extraterritoriality of US antitrust rules is far from being complete. This is particularly evident in recent conflicting rulings on component cartels that were concluded and implemented outside the US. Given the advent of new supply chains in global economy, US courts encounter new challenges to ensure competitiveness of domestic markets. In so doing, the Supreme Court must both shed light upon the ambiguities that have been ongoing since the adoption of the effects doctrine and recalibrate its approaches to extraterritoriality to address legal and regulatory challenges ahead.

PDF

___

Primary Sources The Sherman Act of 1890 15 U.S. Code §§ 1-7.
Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982, 15 U.S. Code § 6a. Case Law
American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co. 213 U.S. 347 (1909) Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280 (1911)
S.S. “Lotus” (France v. Turkey), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 United States v. Aluminum Co of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945)
United States v. Imperial Chemicals Industries Ltd. 100 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1951)
United States v. Watchmakers of Switzerland Info. Center, Inc. 168 F. Supp. 904 (S.D.N.Y. 1958)
Sabre Shipping Corp. v. American President Lines Ltd. 285 F. Supp. 949 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)
Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd. (Belgium v. Spain) ICJ. 1970
Timberlane Lumber Co. v Bank of America, 549 F2d 597 (9th Cir 1976) Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977)
Pfizer Inc., et al., Petitioners, v. Government of India et al. 424 U.S. 308 (1978)
Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congloeum Corp., 595 F.2d 1287 (3rd Cir. 1979) Filártiga v. Peña-Irala 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980)
Laker Airways v. Sabena, Belgian Wd. Airlines, 731 F.2d 909, 950 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
Matsushita v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 582 (1986)
O.N.E. Shipping, Ltd. v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S.A., 830 F.2d 449, 451- 54 (2d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 923 (1988)
Transnor (Bermuda) Ltd. v. BP North American Petroleum, 738 F. Supp. 1472, 1477-78 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993)
Appellate Body Report, United States — Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R (Nov. 6, 1998)
Regina v. Bartle, Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate & Commissioner of Police, Ex Parte Pinochet 2 W.L.R. 827, 38 I.L.M 581 (1999)
United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003)
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v Empagran, 542 U.S. 155 (2004)
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 415 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
Mujica v. Airscan Inc., 771 F.3d 580 (9th Cir. 2014)
Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp. 775 D.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2015)
United States v. Hui Hsiung 778 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2015) Secondary Sources
Alford, Roger P. ‘Extraterritorial Application of Antitrust Laws: The United States and European Community Approaches’ (1992) 33/1 Virginia Journal of International Law 1.
Beckler, Richard W. & Kirtland, Matthew H. ‘Extraterritorial Application of US Antitrust Law: What is Direct, Substantial and Reasonably Foreseeable Effect under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act’, (2003) 38/1 Texas International Law Journal 11.
Dam, Kenneth W., ’Extraterritoriality in an Age of Globalization: The Hartford Fire Case’ (1993) The Supreme Court Review 289.
Donald E. Knebel, ‘Extraterritorial Application of US Antitrust Laws: Principles and Responses’ (2017) 8/2 Jindal Global Law Review 181 . Greefield, Leon B., et al., ‘Foreign Component Cartels and the U.S. Antitrust Laws: A First Principle Approach’ (2015) 29 Antitrust 18.
Fox, Eleanor M. ‘National Law Global Markets and Hartford: Eyes Wide Shut’ (2000) 68/1 Antitrust Law Journal 73.
Masingill, M. ‘Extraterritoriality of Antitrust Law: Applying the Supreme Court’s Analysis in RJR Nabisco to Foreign Component Cartels’ (2018) 68 American University Law Review 621.
Meriwether Ellen, ‘Motorola Mobility and the FTAIA: If Not Here, Then Where’ (2015) 29/2 Antitrust 8
Nanto, Dick K. ‘Globalized Supply Chains and U.S. Policy’, (2010), America in the 21st Century: Political and Economic Issues Series: Globalized Supply Chains and Policy (ed. Solomon Mensah) 19-70
Stutz, Randy M. ’The FTAIA in Flux: Foreign Component -Goods Cases Have Tripped, but Have They Fallen?’ (2015) CPI Antitrust Chronicle 2