Fatma Ece ASLAN

2115

Geleceğe yönelik bilgi paylasımının rekabet hukuku kapsamında değerlendirilmesi ve rekabet kurumunun bilgi paylasımı konusuna yaklasımı

Rakipler arasında geleceğe yönelik bilgi paylasımının rekabet hukuku kapsamında değerlendirilmesi oldukça tartısmalı bir konudur. Doktrinde ve uygulamada konuya iliskin farklı görüsler olduğu anlasılmaktadır. Tartısmalar bu tip bilgi değisiminin amacı itibarı ile rekabeti sınırlandırıcı olup olmadığı ya da paylasımın per se yasaklanmasının gerekip gerekmediği noktasında düğümlenmektedir. Çalısmamız neticesinde konuyla ilgili farklı görüsler incelenerek, geleceğe yönelik bilgi paylasımının per se yasak ya da amaç yönünden rekabete aykırı sayılmaması gerektiği sonucuna ulasılmıstır. Kanımızca, diğer tip bilgi paylasımlarında olduğu gibi, geleceğe yönelik bilgi paylasımları da rekabet otoritelerince rekabet üzerindeki sınırlandırıcı etkileri çerçevesinde değerlendirilmelidir.

Evaluation of information sharing about future plans within the scope of competition law and the approach of the Turkish competition authority on information exchanges

The assessment of the exchange of information regarding future prices and commercial strategies between competitors is a very controversial subject within the scope of the competition law. The literature and the practice involve different opinions about the matter. The focal point of the discussions is whether this type of information sharing restricts the competition by its object or shall it be determined as per se illegal. After examining the distinct views on the subject, our study concludes that, the information sharing on future plans doesn’t restrict the competition by its object and the effects of such an exchange on the competition shall be considered by the competition authorities like other types of information exchanges.
PDF

___

  • ALLEN&OVERY (2010), Response To The European Commission, Draft revised rules for the assessment of horizontal co-operation agreements, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_horizontals/allen_overy_en. pdf, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • ASLAN, E. F. (2009), “Rekabet Hukuku Uygulamasında Bilgi Değisimi”, Rekabet Dergisi, 10 (3), s.7-66.
  • ASLAN, İ. Y. (2007), Rekabet Hukuku, Ekin Kitabevi, Bursa.
  • ASSOCIATION DES AVOCATS PRATIQUANT LE DROIT DE LA CONCURRENCE (2010), Response to the European Commission’s Consultation on the Current Regime for the Assessment of Horizontal Cooperation Agreements, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_horizontals/ABADc_en.pdf, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • BELLAMY, C. ve G. CHILD (2008), European Community Law of Competition, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, US.
  • BENNETT, M. ve P. COLLİNS (2010), “The Law and Economics of Information Sharing”, European Competition Journal, Volume 6, No:2.
  • CAMESASCA, P. D., A. K. SCHMİDT ve M. J. CLANCY (2010), “The EC Commission’s Draft Horizontal Guidelines: Presumed Guilty when Having a Chat”, Journal of European Commission Law&Practice, Oxford University Press, 2010, http://jeclap.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/5/405.abstract, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • CAPOBIANCO, A. (2010), “Background Paper”, OECD Policy Roundtables: Information Exchanges Between Competitors under Competition Law, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/52/48379006.pdf, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012, s.1-59.
  • CONGEDO, P. ve M, MESSINE (2009), “European "Class" Action: British and Italian Points of View in Evolving Scenarios”, Munich Personal RePEC Archive, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15900/2/MPRA_paper_15900.pdf, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • EUROPEAN COMPETITION LAWYERS FORUM (ECLF) (2010), Comments on the Draft Guidelines on the Applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to Horizontal Co-operation Agreements,http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_horizontals/eclf_en.pdf, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • GILES, M. (2006), “The OFT finds that an exchange of information on independent school fees violates national competition provisions but accepts a “structured settlement” (Independent Schools)”, e-Competitions, No 12743, http://www.concurrences.com/revue_bib_rdr.php3?id_article=12743&lang=en, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • JONES, A. (2005), “The OFT proposes for the first time a settlement in order to cease information exchanges and price-fixing (Independent Schools)”, e-Competitions, No 684., http://www.concurrences.com/abstract_bulletin_web.php3?id_article=684&lang =fr, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • JONES, A. ve B. SUFRĐN (2008), EC Competition Law, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, US.
  • KEKEVİ, G., B. CAN ve Z. SENGÖREN (2011), “Uyumlu Eylem Karineleri: Mitler ve Gerçekler”, Rekabet Hukukunda Güncel Gelismeler Sempozyumu IX.
  • KESİM, H. (2011) “Rekabet Hukukunda Kolaylastırıcı Eylemler ve Mukayeseli Uygulama”, Rekabet Hukukunda Güncel Gelismeler Sempozyumu IX, s.63-110.
  • KHUN, K. U. (2010), “Designing Competition Policy towards Information Exchanges - Looking Beyond the Possibility Results”, OECD Policy Roundtables: Information Exchanges Between Competitors under Competition Law, s. 416- 432.
  • OECD (2007), Policy Roundtables: Facilitating Practices in Oligopolies, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/44/41472165.pdf, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • OECD (2010), Policy Roundtables: Information Exchanges Between Competitors under Competition Law, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/52/48379006.pdf, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • OĞUZMAN, K. ve N. BARLAS (2002), Medeni Hukuk, Beta Basım, İstanbul, s.45 vd.
  • PADILLA, J. (2010), “The elusive challenge of assessing information sharing among competitors under the competition laws”, OECD Policy Roundtables: Information Exchanges Between Competitors under Competition Law, s.434 vd.
  • THE CITY OF LONDON LAW SOCIETY COMPETITION LAW COMMITTE (2010), Comments on the Draft EU Guidelines on Horizontal Cooperation Agreements and Related Block Exemptions http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_horizontals/clls_en.pdf, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • VAN BAEL, I. ve J. F. BELLIS (2010a), “Draft R&D Block Exemption Regulation, Draft Specialisation Block Exemption Regulation, Draft Horizontal Guidelines; Observations of Van Bael& Bellis”, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_horizontals/vanbaelbellis_e n.pdf, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • VAN BAEL, I. ve J. F. BELLIS (2010b), Competition Law of the European Community, Fifth Edition, Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands, 2010.
  • WHISH, R. (2006), “Information Agreements”, Swedish Competition Authority (der.), Pros and Cons of Information Sharing içinde, s.19-42.
  • WHISH, R. (2009), Competition Law, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, US.
  • ABD Yüksek Mahkeme Kararları
  • American Column and Lumber Co v. US, 257 US 377 (1921).
  • US v American Linseed Oil Co, 262 US 371 (1923).
  • http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._American_Linseed_Oil_Compa ny/Opinion_of_the_Court Erisim Tarihi: 11.05.2012
  • Cement Mfrs. Protective Ass’n v. United States, 268 U.S. 588 (1925). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=268&invol=588 Erisim Tarihi: 11.05.2012.
  • Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association v. US, 268 US 563 (1925).
  • US v. Container Corporation of America et al, 393 US 333 (1969).
  • US v. United States Gypsum Co. et al., 438 US 422 (1978).
  • ABD Federal Ticaret Komisyonu Kararları
  • In re Valassis Communications, Inc., FTC No.C-4160 (April 19, 2006) (consent order), http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0510008/0510008c4160ValassisDecisionand Order.pdf, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • In re Stone Container Corporation, FTC No. C-3806. http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/06/9510006.do.htm, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • ABD Adalet Bakanlığı Kararları
  • United States v. Airline Tariff Publishing Co., 1994-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,687 (D.D.C. Aug. 10, 1994), http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/dir23.htm, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • Fransa Rekabet Otoritesi Kararları
  • Esso, Total, BP and Shell v Minister of the Economy, Finanace and Industry, judgment of 9 December 2003, BOCCRF no.2 of 12 March 2004, [2005] ECC 51, further appeal to the Cour de Cassation dismissed as inadmissible: judgment of 15 January 2005.
  • Conseil de la Concurrence, November 25th 2005, decision O5-D-64, regarding Parisian Luxry Hotels.
  • Conseil de la Concurrence, November 30th 2005, decision O5-D-65, regarding mobile telecommunication operators.
  • Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı Kararları
  • Joined Cases 40/73 to 48/73, 50/73, 54/73 to 56/73, 111/73, 113/73 and 114/73, Suiker Unie and others vs. Commission, [1975] ECR 1663.
  • Joint Cases C-89/85 and others, A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v. Commission [1993] ECR I- 1307.
  • Case C-7/95 P, John Deere Ltd. vs. Commission, [1998] ECR I-3111 [1998] 5 CMLR.
  • Case C-8/95 P, New Holland Ford vs. Commission, [1998] ECR I-3175.
  • Case C-199/92 P, Hüls AG v. Commission, [1999] ECR I-4287.
  • Case C-49/92 P, Anic Partezipazioni, [1999] ECR I-4125.
  • Case C-194/99 P, Thyssen stahl AG v. Commission [2003] ECR I-11005.
  • Case C-238/05, Asnef-Equifax/Ausbanc, [2006] ECR I-11125, [2007] 4 CMLR 6. Joined Cases C-403/04, Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd. v. Commission, [2007] ECR I-729.
  • Joined Cases C-501/06 P and others, GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v. Commission, 06 October 2009.
  • Case C-8/08, T-Mobile Netherlands and others, [2009] ECR I-4529.
  • Press Release No 47/09, 4 June 2009, Judgement of the Court of Justice in Case C- 8/08, http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp09/aff/cp090047en.pdf, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012, s. 2, 3.
  • Genel Mahkeme Kararları
  • Case T-35/92, John Deere Ltd. vs. Commission, [1994] ECR II-957.
  • Case T-34/92, Fiatagri and New Holland Ford vs. Commission, [1994] ECR II- 905.
  • Case T-141/94, Thyssen stahl AG v. Commission [1999], ECR II-347, [1999] 4 CMLR 810.
  • Joined Case T-25/95 and others, Cimenteries CBR SA, [2000] ECR II-491, [2000] 5 CMLR 204.
  • Joined Cases T-202/98 and others, Tate& Lyle v Commission, [2001] ECR II- 2035.
  • Avrupa Birliği Komisyonu Kararları
  • VVVF, in [1969] OJ L 168.
  • IFTRA-Flat Glass Containers [1974] OJ L 160.
  • IFTRA-Aluminium, [1975] OJ L 228.
  • Copelba/VNP, [1977] OJ L 242/10.
  • Vegatable Parchment, [1978] OJ L 70/54.
  • TEKO, OJ 1990 L 13/34, [1990] 4 CMLR 957.
  • Commission Decision, UK Agricultural Tractor Exchange, [1992] OJ L 68/19.
  • Commission decision, Cartonboard, [1994] OJ L 243/1.
  • Case No. IV/33.815, 35.842- EUDIM in Commission’s Notice pursuant to Artcile 19.3 of the Regulation 17, [1996] OJ C 111/8.
  • Commission decision, Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, [1998] OJ L 1/10.
  • İngiltere Adil Ticaret Ofisi Kararı
  • Schools: Exchange of information on future fees, No. CA98/05/2006, 20 November 2006, http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/ca98_public_register/decisions/schools.pdf;js essionid=9BD92B23924FB5D3B95DFE7D7DF443F6, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • Decision of the Office of Fair Trading No. CA98/05/2006, Exchange of information on future fees by certain independent fee-paying schools 20 November 2006, (Case CE/2890-03).
  • RBS Agrees to pay £28.5 million penalty for disclosing pricing information to competitor, Press Release, 34/10, 30 March 2010, http://www.oft.gov.uk/newsand- updates/press/2010/34-10, Erisim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • Rekabet Kurulu Karar ve Görüsleri
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 15.05.1998 tarihli ve 1054 sayılı Türkiye Çimento Müstahsilleri Birliği (TÇMB) Görüsü
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 02-06/51-24 sayılı, 01.02.2002 tarihli İç Anadolu, Akdeniz, Marmara Bölgeleri Çimento (OYSA I) Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 02-07/57-26 sayılı, 08.02.2002 tarihli Gübre Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 02-45/530-219 sayılı, 25.07.2002 tarihli Reklamcılar Derneği Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 02-53/685-278 sayılı, 06.09.2002 tarihli ve 03-12/135-63 sayılı 25.02.2003 tarihli Yonga ve Lif Levha Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 04-26/287-65 sayılı, 15.04.2004 tarihli Otomotiv Distribütörleri Derneği (ODD 1) Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 05-68/958-259 sayılı, 14.10.2005 tarihli Uzun Demir Çelik Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 06-29/355-87 sayılı, 24.04.2006 tarihli Seramik Karteli Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 06-65/1202-365 sayılı, 28.12.2006 tarihli Ortak Havacılık Operasyon Sözlesmesine Đliskin Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurumu Petrol Piyasasında Uygulanacak Fiyatlandırma Sistemi Hakkında Görüs (2007)
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 07-31/325-120 sayılı, 11.04.2007 tarihli Work and Travel (WAT) Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 07-42/466-178 sayılı, 23.05.2007 tarihli Türkiye Hazır Beton Birliği Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 07-56/672-209 sayılı, 04.07.2007 tarihli Emaye Bobin Teli Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 07-64/794-291 sayılı 03.08.2007 tarihli Seramik 2 Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 07-76/907-345 sayılı, 20.09.2007 tarihli Petrol Sanayi Derneği (PETDER) Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 09-28/600-141 sayılı, 16.06.2009 tarihli Erdemir, ArcelorMittal ve Borçelik Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 09-41/998-255 sayılı, 09.09.2009 tarihli ODD 2 Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 09-57/1393-362 sayılı, 25.11.2009 tarihli Beyaz Et Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 10-10/94-42 sayılı, 28.01.2010 tarihli Uluslararası Nakliyeciler Derneği (UND) Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 11-12/226-76 sayılı, 03.03.2011 tarihli Özel Okullar 2 Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 11-24/464-139 sayılı, 18.04.2011 tarihli otomotiv sektöründe faaliyet gösteren çesitli tesebbüsler hakkında Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 11-43/916-285 sayılı, 14.07.2011 tarihli ODD 3 Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 11-48/1215-428 sayılı, 22.09.2011 tarihli PETDER 2 Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 12-13/389-118 sayılı, 21.03.2012 tarihli UND 2 Kararı
Rekabet Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1302-552X
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 5 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2000
  • Yayıncı: Rekabet Kurumu
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye’de deniz tasımacılığı sektöründe rekabet hukuku uygulamaları

Gönenç GÜRKAYNAK

Türkiye konserve ton balığı piyasası için bir fiyat-yoğunlasma modeli

Ekrem KALKAN

Geleceğe yönelik bilgi paylasımının rekabet hukuku kapsamında değerlendirilmesi ve rekabet kurumunun bilgi paylasımı konusuna yaklasımı

Fatma Ece ASLAN