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

Rekabete aykırı anlaşmalar gizli şekilde yapılmakta ve bir kartele dahil olan taraflar delilleri gizlemek için yoğun çaba sarfetmektedirler. Dolayısıyla danışıklığın açık delilinin bulunmadığı vakalarda, detaylı ekonomik analizler kanunun ihlal edildiğinin tespitinde belirleyici etken olmaktadır. Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun’un 4. maddesinin 3. ve 4. fıkralarında yer alan “uyumlu eylem karinesi” Rekabet Kurumu’nun, diğer delillerin yokluğunda dahi yalnızca ekonomik analizlerden yararlanmak suretiyle kartelleri ortaya çıkarmasını mümkün kılmaktadır. Bu yüzden Avrupa Topluluğu Adalet Divanı tarafından oluşturulan emsalleri gibi, uyumlu eylem karinesi de gizli kartellere karşı çok önemli bir silah görevini görmektedir. Fakat karinenin kullanımı hatalı cezalandırmaları önlemek amacıyla her vakada pazar koşullarının detaylı bir şekilde incelenmesini gerektirmektedir. Detaylı pazar incelemesi olmadan uyumlu eylem karinesinin kullanılması oligopolistik pazarlarda teşebbüslerin karlarını en yüksek seviyeye çıkarmak amacıyla değil zımni danışıklığın ortaya çıkmasını önlemek için pazar stratejileri üretmelerine sebep olabilecektir.

Türk rekabet kanunu'ndaki uyumlu eylem karinesinin ve kullanımının Avrupa topluluğu adalet divanı kararları çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi

Anti–competitive agreements are made confidentially and the parties involved in a cartel put forth a great effort to suppress evidence. Therefore, in cases where no clear proof of collusion exists, detailed economic analyses become the decisive factor to determine the violation of law. The presumption of concerted practices in Article 4 / (3), (4) of the Act on the Protection of Competition enables Competition Authority to reveal cartels through utilization of economic analyses even in the absence of other proof. Hence, like its counterparts created by the European Court of Justice, the presumption of concerted practices is a remarkable weapon against secret cartels. However, in each case, to prevent false convictions, its utilization requires investigation of market conditions in detail. The application of the presumption of concerted practices without detailed market investigation in oligopolistic markets could lead undertakings to produce market strategies not to maximize profits but to prevent the appearance of tacit coordination.

___

  • BOOKS AND ARTICLES
  • ALESE, F. (1999), "The Economic Theory of Non-Collusive Oligopoly", E. C. L. R., Volume 20 No. 7.
  • ALLENDESALAZAR, R. (2006), "Oligopolies, Conscious Parallelism and Concertation" available at http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/Res Al.lendesal.azar. pdf.
  • ASLAN, İ. Y. (2005), Rekabet Hukuku, Third Edition, Ekin Press.
  • ATİYAS, 1. and G. GÜRKAYNAK (2006), "Presumption of Concerted Practices: A Legal and Economic Analysis", available at http://myweb.sa.ba,tici^ practice-may-2006. pdf.
  • BLACK, O. (1992), "Communication and Obligation in Arrangements and Concerted Practices", E.C.L.R, Volume 5.
  • BRIONES-ALONSO, J. (1995), "Oligopolistic Dominance. Is There A Common Approach In Different Jurisdictions?" para. 30, available at http://ecxuropa.eu/comm/corr^etitioii/speeches/text/spl995 036 eii.html.
  • CENGİZ, D. (2006), Türk Rekabet Hukunda Uyumlu Eylem ve Bu Eylemin Hukuki Sonuçları, First Edition, Beta Publishing.
  • FAULL, J. and A. NIKPAY (1999), The EC Law of Competition, First Edition, Oxford University Press.
  • GOYDER, D. (2003), EC Competition Law, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press.
  • GÜRKAYNAK, G. (2001), "The Presumption of Concerted Practice in Turkish Competition Law: An Institution of Legal Uncertainty With an Uncertain Future", available at www, geocities.com/gonencgurkaynak/Rcseareh. html.
  • İKİZLER, M. (2005), Rekabet Hukunda Uyumlu Eylemler, First Edition, Seçkin Publishing.
  • JONES, A. and B. SUFRIN (2004), EC Competition Law, Second Edition, Oxford University Press.
  • JOLIET, R. (1974), "La' Notion De Pratigue Concertee Et L'Arret ICI Dans Une Perspective Comparative", Cahiers De Droit European.
  • KAHRAMAN, Z. (2008), Rekabet Hukuku Açısından Oligopolistik Bağımlılık, First Edition, Beta Publishing.
  • OECD (1999), Oligopoly, DAFFE / CLP(99)25, available at ^jjr//www.olis.oecd.org/olis/1999doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00002AE6/$F1LE/H)E917 28JDF.
  • OSTI, C. (1994), "Information Exchanges in The Obscure Light of Woodpulp", e. C. L. R., Volume 3.
  • RITTER, L., D. BRAUN and F. ROWLINSON (2000), European Competiton Law: A practitioner's Guide, Second Edition, Kluwer Law International.
  • SOAMES, T. (1996), "An Analysis of the Principles of Concerted Practices and Collective Dominance: A Distinction Without a Difference?", E. C. L. R., Volume 2.
  • TOY, O. Y. (2004), Rekabet Hukunda Uyumlu Eylem, Turkish Competition Authority.
  • VAN BAEL, I. and J. F. BELLIS (2005), Competition Law of the European Community, Fourth Edition, Kluwer Law International.
  • VAN GEVREN, G. and E. NAVARRO VARONA (1994), "The Woodpulp Case and The Future of Concerted Practices", C. M. L. R. Volume 31.
  • WESSLEY, T. W. (2001), "Polpropylene Appeal Cases", C.M.L.R., Volume 38.
  • WHISH, R. (2005), Competition Law, Fifth Edition, Oxford University Press.
  • JUDGMENTS OF THE ECJ
  • "Dyestuffs", Case 48/69, ICI v. Commission (1972) ECR 619.
  • "Sugar", Cases 40/73 etc, Suiker Unie v. Commission (1975) ECR 1663.
  • Case 172/80, Züchner v. Bayerische Vereinsbank AG, (1981) ECR 2021.
  • "CRAM and Rheinzink", Cases 29 and 30/83, Compagnie Royale Asturienne des Mines SA and Rheinzink GmbH v. Commission, (1984) ECR 1679.
  • "Woodpulp II", Cases C-89, 114, 116 to 117, 125 to 129/85, A. Ahlstroem Osakeyhtiö and others v. Commission (1993), ECR 1-1307.
  • "Polypropylene Judgments", C^9/92P, Anic v.Commission (1999), ECR I-4125, C-51/92P, Hercules v. Commission (1999), ECR 1-4235, C-199/92, Hüls v. Commission (1999), ECR 1-4287, C-200/92P, ICI v. Commission (1999), ECR 1-4399, C-227/92P, Hoechst v. Commission (1999), ECR 1-4443, C- 234/92P, Shell v. Commission (1999), ECR 1-4561, C-235/92P, Montecatini v. Commission (1999), ECR 1-4539.
  • JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
  • Case of Özturk v. Germany, Application no. 8544/79, February 21, 1984.
  • Case of Lutz v. Germany, Application no. 9912/82, August 25, 1987.
  • Case of Salabiaku v. France, Application no. 10519/83, October 07, 1988.
  • Case of Pham Hoang v. France, Application no. 13191/87, September 25, 1992.
  • DECISIONS OF THE TURKISH COMPETITION BOARD
  • "Turkcell-Telsim", referenced no. 99-57/614-391, dated December 14, 1999.
  • "Milk", referenced no. 00-11/109-54, dated March 23, 2000.
  • "Bread Yeast I", referenced no. 00-24/255-138, dated June 27, 2000.
  • "Newspaper", referenced no. 00-26/291-161, dated July 17, 2000.
  • "Bread Yeast II", referenced no. 02^6/557-227, dated August 1, 2002.
  • "PMSA-JTI", referenced no. 02-80/937-385, dated December 24, 2002.
  • "Bread Yeast III", referenced no. 05-60/896-241, dated September 23, 2005.
  • "Bread Yeast III" (reexamined upon partial reversal by Council of State), referenced no.
  • 08-63/1050-409, dated November 12, 2008.
  • JUDGMENTS OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE
  • Case of Mauri v. The Turkish Competition Authority, decree no 2008/4389 -docket no 2006/1381, dated 23.05.2008.
  • Case of Pak Gıda v. The Turkish Competition Authority, decree no 2008/4390 -docket no 2006/1031, dated 23.05.2008.
  • Case of Akmaya v. The Turkish Competition Authority, decree no 2008/4391 -docket no 2006/1521, dated 23.05.2008.
  • Case of Özmaya v. The Turkish Competition Authority, decree no 2008/4392 -docket no 2006/1150, dated 23.05.2008.