Fatma Ece ASLAN

5633

Rekabet hukuku uygulamasında bilgi değişimi

Çalışmamız neticesinde, rekabet otoritelerinin bilgi paylaşımını per se yasak olarak değerlendirmedikleri sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Uygulamada bilgi değişimi eylemi değerlendirilirken ikili bir ayrıma gidildiği görülmektedir. Bunlardan ilki bilgi değişiminin per se yasak ihlaller veya karteller için zemin hazırlayan kolaylaştırıcı eylem niteliğinde olmasıdır. Bu durumda paylaşım rekabet otoritelerince yasaklanabilecek ve ilgili teşebbüslere para cezası verilebilecektir. ikincisi ise sadece bilgi değişiminin mevcut olmasıdır. Bir başka ifade ile bilgi paylaşımının kolaylaştırıcı eylem niteliğinde olmadığı durumlar ayrıca incelenmektedir. Rekabet Otoritelerinin uygulaması ışığında, paylaşımın per se bir ihlalin kolaylaştırıcı eylemi niteliğinde olmadığı hallerde, bilgi değişiminin rule of reason analizine tabi tutulması gerektiği ifade edilebilir. Bu çerçevede fiili veya potansiyel bir rekabet ihlali olup olmadığı değerlendirilir. Analiz neticesinde ihlal sonucuna ulaşılırsa bilgi değişiminin yasaklanması veya değişime koşullu izin verilmesi söz konusu olabilecektir. Çalışmamızda detaylı bir şekilde görüleceği üzere, irtibat nedeniyle pazarda normalde mevcut bulunmayan koşullar ortaya çıkmışsa, pazar koşulları elverişliyse ve değiştirilen bilgi niteliği gereği rekabete hassas ise paylaşımın rekabeti sınırlama potansiyeline sahip olduğu rahatlıkla belirtilebilir. irtibat nedeniyle pazarda normalde mevcut bulunmayan koşulların ortaya çıkıp çıkmadığı belirlenirken, değişimin olmadığı durum ile mevcut durumun karşılaştırılması gerekir. Ayrıca yüksek derecede yoğunlaşmış oligopol pazarlarda bilgi paylaşımının rekabeti sınırlandırmaya daha elverişli olduğu ifade edilebilir.
Anahtar Kelimeler:

bilgi

Information exchange in competition law practice

In accordance with our research, we reached to the conclusion that competition authorities do not evaluate information sharing as per se illegal. It is understood that there is a dual distinction in the assessment of information exchange systems in practice. Initially, sharing of information can be in the form of a facilitating practice which enables to carry out a per se illegal infringement and/ or a cartel. In a situation like this, the exchange may be banned and administrative fines may be given to the participating undertakings by the competition authorities. Secondly, the action which is considered as illegal may only be information sharing on it’s own. That is to say, an information exchange behavior which is not considered as a facilitating practice would be evaluated differently. Within the framework of competition authorities practice, it can be mentioned that information exchanges which are not in the context of facilitating practices, should be analyzed by rule of reason doctrine. Actual or potential competition infringements would be assessed in this context. As the details will be seen in our study, market conditions should be observed to determine whether an information exchange distorts competition or not. If other adverse conditions regarding competition arose other than the normal conditions in the market, than the exchange may be determined as an infringement. Besides, information sharing in a highly concentrated oligopolistic market is more likely to restrict competition. Finally, if the market conditions are available and the information has a commercialy sensitive nature it can be easily emphasized that information sharing has a potential to restrict competition.
Keywords:

information,

PDF

___

  • Bilimsel Eserler
  • ASLAN İ. Y. (2007), Rekabet Hukuku, Ekin Kitabevi, Bursa.
  • GÜVEN P.(2008), Rekabet Hukuku, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara.
  • JONES A. ve SUFRIN B (2008), EC Competition Law, Oxford University Press, New York.
  • KEKEVİ H., G. (2003), Anlaşma Uyumlu Eylem ve Birlikte Hakim Durumun Kötüye Kullanılmasında Kolaylaştırıcı Eylemler, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi, No: 21, Ankara.
  • REKABET KURUMU (2009), Rekabet Terimleri Sözlüğü, Ankara.
  • SANLI K. C. (2000), Rekabetin Korunması Hakkındaki Kanun'da Öngörülen Yasaklayıcı Hükümler ve Bu Hükümlere Aykırı Sözleşme ve Teşebbüs Birliği Kararlarının Geçersizliği, Rekabet Kurumu Lisansüstü Tez Serisi No: 3, Ankara.
  • VAN BAEL ve BELLIS (2005), Competition Law of the European Community, Kluwer Law International, Netherlands.
  • WHISH R (2005), Competition Law, Oxford University Press, New York. Makaleler
  • BERMIÇj C. ve RITTER C. (2008), "The New Guidelines on the application of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to the maritime sector", CPN No:3, s. 25- 29.
  • COLOMO P. I. (2006) , "The Spanish NCA fines the main association of film distributors € 900,000 for exchange of sensitive information- Hollywood majors' subsidiaries in Spain are moreover fined € 2,400,000 for concerted practices in the distribution of films (Distribuidores Cine-FEECE)", e-Competitions, No 1329, May.
  • DEBROX M. (2006), "The Paris Court of Appeal upholds France's highest antitrust fine ever and confirms a strict- yet not entirely clear- approach towards exchange of information between competitors in oligopoly markets (Bouygues Telecom, SFR, Orange France)", e- Competitions, No 12728, December.
  • FOSSELARD D., AURICCHIO V. ve MOSCA V. (2009), "The Italian Competition Authority inflicts a fines over € 12 M upon the main 26 producers of pasta and two associations of undertakings, for allegedly exchanging information and adopting other initiatives to increase prices (Listino prezzi della pasta)", e-Competitions, No 25933, February.
  • GIANNINO M. (2007), "The Italian Antitrust Authority fines more than 4 M € firms on the basis of Art. 82 EC for having exchanged information on the marine coatings market (Vernici Marine)", e-Competitions, No 13245, January.
  • GILES M. (2006), "The OFT finds that an exchange of information on independant school fees violates national competition provisions but accepts a structured settlement (Independent Schools)", e- Competitions No 12743, November.
  • GOYER J. (2006), "The French Competition Authority issues an opinion regarding a sharing of confidential information system designed for hotels under both art. 81 EC and national provisions (CCI Mulhouse)", e-Competitions, No 12635, October.
  • JICHOVAI. (2006), "The Czech Competition Authority annuls a decision having found 8 banks guilty of exchange of information (Stavebni sporitelny)", e-Competitions, No 12532, August.
  • JONES A. (2005), "The OFT proposes for the first time a settlement in order to cease information exchange and price- fixing (Independent Schools)", e-Competitions, No: 684, November.
  • KESERAUSKAS S. (2008), "The Lithuanian NCA inflicts its highest fine ever on a professional association running confidential information exchange scheme on the raw milk procurement and dairy products market (Dairies III)", e-Competitions, No 17676, February.
  • KESERAUSKAS S. (2008), "The Lithuanian Administrative Court upholds the NCA's findings of illegal information exchange among dairies (Dairies/ Competition Council)", e- Competitions, No 22374, August.
  • KINBL J. (2009), "The Czech Supreme Administrative Court takes a liberal approach towards information exchange agreements (Building saving banks)", e-Competitions, No 26574, July.
  • KRISTOF M. (2006), "Developments in cartel case-law: Commission decision and Court Judgments of 2005", CPN, No:l, Spring, s. 57- 60.
  • LENOIR N., ROSKİS D ve DOREMUS C. M. (2007), "The French Commercial Supreme Court partly annuls the Paris Court of Appeal's Judgment on illicit exchange of sensitive information in the mobile telephony cartel, thus strengthening the standard of proof (Bouygues Telecom SFR and Orange)", e-Competitions, No 14050, June.
  • LEPINE L. ve ENJOIRAS D. (2007), "The French Commercial Supreme Court rules that exchange of information between competitors in an oligopolistic market is not per se contrary to Art. 81 EC and national equivalent provision (Bouygues Telecom, Orange, SFR)", e- Competitions, No: 14162, June.
  • LEVEQUE F. (2006), "Exchange of information: The John Deere case law under review", Concurrences, No: 176, March, Law& Economics, p.33- 37.
  • OVERGAARD P.B. (2003), "Market Transparency, Information Exchange and Competition", Helsinki, s.20.
  • PALLINGER K. (2008), "The German Federal Cartel Office imposes multi-million fines on account of market information exchange", e- Competitions, No 21256, July.
  • PHILIPPE J. (2006), "Caroline Evrard, The Paris Court of Appeal confirms the NCA's record fine on three mobile telephony operators for exchanging market shares (Boygues Telecoms, SFR, Orange France)", e- Competitions, No: 12702, December.
  • RASINKANGAS S. (2008), "The Finnish Competition Authority closes its investigation into exchange of confidential information in the daily consumer goods retail trade market (RuokaKesko, Suomen Osuuskauppojen Keskuskunta, Tradeka)", e-Competitions, No 19963, June.
  • RIVOLLIER M. (2007), "The French Commercial Supreme Court rules that exchange of information is not prohibited per se and recalls that imposing fine in an oligopolistic market requires to demonstrate a concrete anticompetitive object or effect (Bouygues Telecom, Orange, SFR, "Mobile telephony case")", e-Competitions, No: 13983, June.
  • SEIKYTE S. (2006), "The Lithuanian Competition Authority concludes that sharing of confidential information in the wholesale paper distribution market violates both national competition provisions and art. 81 EC (Schneidersöhne Baltija)", e- Competitions, No 12738.
  • Süreli Yayınlar
  • AB Rekabet Politikası Bülteni/ EC Competition Policy News Letter (CPN)
  • CPN, Vol:l., No:3, 1994, s. 22, 23. CPN, No:l, February, 2002, 31, 37,42. CPN, No: 3, October, 2002, 55.
  • CPN, No: 1, Spring, 2003, 65, 66. CPN, No:l, Spring, 2005, s.68, 71. CPN, No:l, Spring, 2006, 64, 66. CPN, No: 3, Autum 2006, 31, 33. CPN, No:l, Spring 2007, s.65. CPN, No:3, 2008, s. 58.
  • Rekabet Politikası Raporu/ Reports on Competition Policy (RCP)
  • RCP, 1999, s. 156, 157.
  • RCP, 2000, s.36.
  • RCP, 2002, s. 181.
  • RCP, 2003, s. 182.
  • RCP, 2004, s. 41.
  • RCP, 2005, s. 68.
  • AB Komisyonu Kararları
  • IV.29.176, Vegetable Parchment, 78/252/EEC, OJ L 070, 13.03.1978, s. 54- 68.
  • Case IV/31.149, Polypropylene, 86/398/EEC, OJ L 230, 18.08.1986, s. 1-66.
  • Case IV/31.370 and 31.446, UK Agricultural Tractor Registration Exchange, 92/157/EEC, OJL 068, 13.03.1992, s. 19-33.
  • European Producers ofBeams, 94/215/ECSC, OJL 116, 06.05.1994, s. 1- 62.
  • Case IV/36.069, Wirtschaftftsvereinigung Stahl, 98/4/ECSC, OJ L 1, 03.01.1998, 10-21.
  • Case COMP/37.152, Plasterboard Cartel.
  • Case COMP/37.533, Choline Chloride Cartel.
  • Case COMP/ 37.773, Monochloroacetic Acid (MCAA) Cartel.
  • Case COMP/E 1-37.370, Sorbates Cartel.
  • Case COMP/E-2/37.667, Specialty Graphite Cartel.
  • Case COMP/E-1/37.671, Food Flavour Enhancers Cartel.
  • Case COMP/ 38.281, Raw Tobacco Italy Cartel.
  • Case COMP/ 38.337, Industrial Tread Cartel.
  • Case COMP 38.354, Industrial Bags Cartel.
  • Case COMP/ 38.443, Rubber Chemicals Cartel.
  • Case 38.695, Sodium Chlorate Cartel.
  • Case 39.180, Aluminium Fluoride Cartel. CFI Kararlan
  • Case T-35/92 John Deere v Commission [1994] 11-0957.
  • Case T-34/92 New Holland v Commission [1994] 11-0905. AT AD Kararları
  • Case C- 194/99 P, Thyssen Stahl AG v Commission [2003], 2 October 2003.
  • Case C- 49/ 92 P, Commission v Anic PartecipaziomSpA [1999], 8 July 1999.
  • Case C-7/95 John Deere v Commission [1998] 1-3111, 28 May 1998.
  • Case C-8/95 New Holland v Commission [1998] 1-3175.
  • Joined Cases C-89/85, C-104/85, C-l 14/85, C-l 16/85, C- 117/85, C-125/85, C-129/85, A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v Commission, [1993].
  • Case C-8/08, 4 June 2009, T- Mobile, KPN Mobile, Orange, Vodafone v. Raad van bestuur van de Netherlandse Mededingingsautoriteit.
  • AB Mevzuatı
  • Guidelines on the application of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to maritime transport services, Brussels, 1.7.2008, SEC (2008) 2151 final.
  • Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ C 31, 05.02.2004.
  • Guidelines on the Horizontal Cooperation Agreements, OJ [2001] C3/2, 4 CMLR 819.
  • Notice on Cooperation Agreements, O J [1968] CMLR D5. Fransa Yüksek Temyiz Mahkemesi Kararları
  • Conseil de la Concurrence, November 25th 2005, decision 05-D-64, regarding Parisian Luxry Hotels.
  • Conseil de la Concurrence, June 29th 2007 decision, U 07-10.303, Z 07-10.354, W 07-10.397 regarding Mobil Telecommunication Operators.
  • Amerika Mevzuata ve Temyiz Mahkemesi Karan
  • FTC& US DoJ (2000), Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors.
  • Todd v. Exxon Corp., 275 F.3d 191 (U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals 2001)
  • Rekabet Kııırıaltı Kararları
  • Rekabet Kurumu'nun 1054 sayılı, 15.05.1998 tarihli TÇMB görüşü.
  • Rekabet Kurulu'nun 02-06/51-24 sayılı, 01.02.2002 tarihli kararı.
  • Rekabet Kurulu'nun 02-07/57-26 sayılı, 08.02.2002 tarihli kararı.
  • Rekabet Kurulu'nun 02-53/685-278 sayılı, 06.09.2002 tarihli kararı.
  • Rekabet Kurulu'nun 03-12/135-63 sayılı, 25.02.2003 tarihli kararı.
  • Rekabet Kurulu'nun 04-26/287-65 sayılı, 15.04.2004 tarihli kararı.
  • Rekabet Kurulu'nun, 06-65/1202-365 sayılı, 28.12.2006 tarihli kararı.
  • Rekabet Kurulu'nun, 07-76/907-345 sayılı, 20.09.2007 tarihli kararı.
  • Rekabet Kurumu'nun Petrol Piyasasında Uygulanacak Fiyatlandırma Sistemine İlişkin Taslak Hakkında 11.10.2007 tarihli görüşü.
  • Rekabet Kurulu'nun 08-23/237-75 sayılı, 10.03.2008 tarihli kararı.
  • İnternet Kaymaklan
  • http://www.rekabet. gov.tr/index.php?Sayfa=:sayfahtml&Id=915
Rekabet Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1302-552X
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 5 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2000
  • Yayıncı: Rekabet Kurumu
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

The evaluation of the presumption of concerted practices in the Turkish competition act and of its utilization under the case law of the european court of justice

Bahadır BALKI

Rekabet hukuku uygulamasında bilgi değişimi

Fatma Ece ASLAN

Türk rekabet hukuku uygulamasında kamu teşebbüsleri ve kamu kuruluşlarının rekabeti bozucu davranışları

AHMET FATİH ÖZKAN