Kadir BAŞ

4147

Türk hukukunda rekabet ihlallerine ilişkin tazminat davalarında passıng-on savunması ve dolaylı alıcı kuralının uygulanması: Abd ve ab uygulamaları ışığında değerlendirme ve öneriler

Bir hâkim durum veya kartelden kaynaklı hukuka aykırı fiyat artışı, çoğu durumda dağıtım zincirinin bir üst seviyesindeki alıcılar tarafından bir alt seviyedeki alıcılara aktarılmaktadır. Fiyat artışının bu şekilde dağıtım zinciri boyunca yansıtılması, hangi alıcı grubunun fiyat artışına karşı tazminat davası açma hakkına sahip olacağının belirlenmesini zorlaştırmaktadır. Hanover Shoe ve Illinois Brick kararlarında, ABD Yüksek Mahkemesi, rekabet ihlallerine ilişkin tazminat davalarının caydırıcılık amacını tazmin etme amacından üstün tutarak passing-on savunmasını reddedip fiyat artışına karşı yalnızca doğrudan alıcılara dava açma hakkı vermiştir. AB Komisyonu ise, AB Adalet Divanı’nın tazmin etme amacını öne çıkardığı Courage ve Manfredi kararlarını temel alarak passing-on savunması ve dolaylı alıcı kuralının her ikisine de izin vermiştir. Türkiye’de de passing-on savunması ve dolaylı alıcı kuralı açısından, rekabet hukukunun özel hukuk alanında daha etkin uygulanmasına hizmet edici bir politikanın oluşturulması gerekmektedir. Bu makale, ABD ve AB’deki tartışma ve uygulamalardan yararlanmak suretiyle konuya ilişkin bazı değerlendirme ve politika önerileri sunmayı amaçlamaktadır.

PDF

___

  • ABA (1983), “Report of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law Task Force to Review Proposed Legislation to Repeal or Modify Illinois Brick”, Antitrust Law Journal, No:52, s.841 882.
  • ABA (1991), “Report of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law Task Force to Review the Supreme Court’ Decision in California v. ARC America Corp.”, Antitrust Law Journal, No:59, s.273 316.
  • ABA (1995), “Report of the Indirect Purchaser Task Force”, Antitrust Law Journal, No:63, s.993 1004.
  • ANTITRUST MONDERNIZATION COMMISSION (2007), “Reports and Recommendations”.
  • ARKAN, S. (2003), Ticaret İşletme Hukuku, Yedinci Baskı, Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Araştırma Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • BAKER, D.I. (2004), “Revisiting History What Have We Learned About Private Antitrust Enforcement That We Would Recommend to Others”, Loyola Consumer Law Review, No:16, s.379 408.
  • BENSTON, G.J. (1986), “Indirect Purchasers’ Standing to Claim Damages in Price Fixing Antitrust Actions: A Benefit/Cost Analysis of Proposals to Change the Illinois Brick Rule”, Antitrust Law Journal, No: 55, s.213 252.
  • BEYAZ KİTAP, European Commission (2008), White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules, Com(2008)165 final, Brussels.
  • BEYAZ KİTAP ÇALIŞMA RAPORU, European Commission (2008), Commission Staff Working Paper Accompanying the White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules, Brussels.
  • BOGE, U. ve K. OST (2006), “Up and Running, or is it? Private Enforcement The Situation in Germany and Policy Perspectives”, European Competition Law Review, No: 27(4), s.197 205.
  • BREIT, W. ve K.G. ELZINGA (1985), “Private Antitrust Enforcement: The New Learning”, the Journal of Law & Economics, No:28, s.405 443.
  • CAVANAGH, E.D. (2005), “Illinois Brick: A Look Back and A Look Ahead”, Loyola Consumer Law Review, No:17, s.1 52.
  • CENGIZ, F. (2007), “Passing on Defense and Indirect Purchaser Standing in Actions for Damages against the Violations of Competition Law: What can the EC Learn from the US”, ESRC Centre for Competition Policy, UEA, CCP Working Paper 07 21, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1462234, Erişim Tarihi: 01.03.2011.
  • COOPER, E.S. ve J.T. PRUD’HOMME (2006), “One More Challenge for the AMC: Repairing the Legacy of Illinois Brick”, University of San Francisco Law Review, No:40, s.675 702.
  • COOPER, J.D. ve D.L. FOSTER (1977), “Report of the American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section Task Force on Legislative Alternatives Concerning Illinois Brick, Co., v. Illinois”, Antitrust Law Journal, No:46, s.1137 1180.
  • CUNEO, J.W. (2005), “Prepared Statement Before Antitrust Modernization Commission”, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/amc/commission_hearings/pdf/Cuneo_rev2.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 01.03.2011.
  • DAVIS, J.P. ve R.H. LANDE (2008), “Benefits From Private Antitrust Enforcement: An Analysis of Forty Cases”, University of San Francisco Law Review, No:42, s.879 918.
  • DAVIS, R.W. (1997), “Indirect Purchaser Litigation: ARC America’s Chickens Come Home to Roost on the Illinois Brick Wall”, Antitrust Law Journal, No:65, s.375 406.
  • DE SMIJTER, E. ve D. O’SULLIVAN (2006), “The Manfredi Judgement of the ECJ and How It Relates to the Commission’s Initiative on EC Antitrust Damage Actions”, EC Competition Policy Newsletter, No:2006/3, s.23 26.
  • EREN, F. (2009), Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, On Birinci Baskı, Beta, İstanbul.
  • EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2007), Making Antitrust Damages Actions More Effective in the EU: Welfare Impact and Potential Scenarios Final Report, Brussels.
  • EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE (2006), Opinion on the Green Paper Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rule, (2006/C 324/01), Brussels.
  • EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE (2009), “Opinion on the White paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules”, Brussels.
  • EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (2007), Resolution of 25 April 2007 on the Green Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules”, (2006/2207(INI)), Strasbourg.
  • EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (2009), Resolution of 26 March 2009 on the White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules, (2008/2154(INI)), Strasbourg.
  • EVEN SHOSHAN, G., D. SLATER ve D. WAELBROECK (2004), “Study on the Conditions of Claims for Damages in the Case of Infringement of EC Competition Rules Comparative Report”, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/comparative_report_cl ean_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 01.03.2011.
  • FOER, A.A. (2003), “Putting the Antitrust Modernization Commission into Perspective”, Buffalo Law Review, No:51, s.1029 1052.
  • FOLSOM, R. (2005), “Indirect Purchasers: State Antitrust Remedies and Roadblocks”, Antitrust Bulletin, No:50, s.181 196.
  • GAVIL, A.I. (2001), “Federal Judicial Power and the Challenges of Multijurisdictional Direct and Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation”, the George Washington Law Review, No:69, s.860 901.
  • GAVIL, A.I. (2005a), “Antitrust Remedy Wars Episode I: Illinois Brick From Inside the Supreme Court”, St. John’s Law Review, No:79, s.553 624.
  • GAVIL, A.I. (2005b), “State Indirect Purchaser Actions: Proposals for Reforms Prepared Remarks Before Antitrust Modernization Commission Panel II”, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/amc/commission_hearings/pdf/Gavil_Statement_c orrected_6.27.05_version_with_app.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 01.03.2011.
  • GIALI, D.J. ve J.T. TOMLIN (2003), “Federalism and the Indirect Purchaser Mess”, George Mason Law Review, No:11, s.157 178.
  • GISSER, M.V. (1982), “Indirect Purchaser Suits under State Antitrust Laws: A Detour Around the Illinois Brick Wall”, Stanford Law Review, No:34, s.203 220.
  • GUSTAFSON, D.E. (2005), “Prepared Statement Before Antitrust Modernization Commission”, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/amc/commission_hearings/pdf/Gustafson.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 01.02.2011.
  • HARRIS, R.G. ve L.A. SULLIVAN (1980), “Passing On the Monopoly Overcharge: A Comprehensive Policy Analysis”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, No:128, s.269 360.
  • HELLWIG, M. (2007), “Private Damages Claims and the Passing On Defense in Horizontal Price Fixing Cases An Economist’s Perspective”, J. Basedow (der.), Private Enforcement of EC Competition Law, Kluver Law International, the Netherlands içinde, s.121 162.
  • HERZOG, D.K. (1980), “Recent Developments A Door in the Illinois Brick Wall A Functional Equivalent to the Cost Plus Contract Exception”, Vanderbilt Law Review, No:33, s.481 498.
  • HOSEINIAN, F. (2005), “Passing on Damages and Community Antitrust Policy An Economic Background”, World Competition, No:28(1), s.3 23.
  • HOVENKAMP, H. (1990), “The Indirect Purchaser Rule and Cost plus Sales”, Harvard Law Review, No:103, s.1717 1731.
  • HOVENKAMP, H. (2005), Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition and Its Practice, Thomson West, Minnesota, US.
  • İNAN, N. (1999), “Rekabet Hukukunun Diğer Disiplinlerle İlişkisi”, Rekabet Kurumu Perşembe Konferansları, Ankara.
  • JACOBS, F.G. ve T. DEISENHOFER (2003), “Procedural Aspects of the Effective Private Enforcement of EC Competition Rules: A Community Perspective”, C.D. Ehlermann ve I. Atanasiu (der), European Competition Law Annual 2001: Effective Private Enforcement of EC Antitrust Law içinde, s.187 227.
  • JOYCE, J.M. ve R.H. MCGUCKIN (1986), “Assignment of Rights to Sue Under Illinois Brick: An Empirical Assessment”, Antitrust Bulletin, No:31, s.235 260.
  • KILIÇOĞLU, A.M. (2007), Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, Sekizinci Baskı, Turhan Kitapevi, Ankara.
  • KLINGSBERG, D. (1988), “Balancing the Benefits and Detriments of Private Antitrust Enforcement: Detrebling, Antitrust Injury, Standing, and Other Proposed Solutions”, Cardozo Law Review, No:9, s.1214 1244.
  • KOCAYUSUFPAŞAOĞLU, N. (2008), Borçlar Hukuku Genel Bölüm, Birinci Cilt, Dördüncü Baskı, Filiz Kitapevi, İstanbul.
  • KOMNINOS, A.P. (2008), EC Private Antitrust Enforcement: Decentralised Application of EC Competition Law by National Courts, Hart Publishing, Portland Oregon, US.
  • KORTUNAY, A. (2009), “AB Rekabet Hukukunda Tazminat Davalarına Yönelik Reform Çalışmaları ve Türk Hukuku Bakımından “De Lege Feranda” Düşünceler”, Rekabet Dergisi Cilt:10 Sy:1, s.81 138.
  • KURU, B., R. ARSLAN ve E. YILMAZ (2008), Medeni Usul Hukuku Ders Kitabı, Değiştirilmiş 18. Baskı, Yetkin, Ankara.
  • LANDES, W.M. ve R.A. POSNER (1979), “Should Indirect Purchasers Have Standing to Sue Under the Antitrust Laws? An Economic Analysis of the Rule of Illinois Brick”, the University of Chicago Law Review, No: 46, s.602 635.
  • LANDES, W.M. ve R.A. POSNER (1980), “The Economics of Passing On: A Reply to Harris and Sullivan”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, No: 128, s.1274 1279.
  • MEHRA, S.K. (2002), “Deterrence: The Private Remedy and International Antitrust Cases”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, No: 40, s.275 322.
  • MONTAGUE, H.L. (2005), “State Indirect Purchaser Actions in the U.S. Antitrust Enforcement System: Written Testimony before the Antitrust Modernization Commission”, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/amc/commission_hearings/pdf/Montague.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 01.03.2011.
  • MURRAY, C.R. ve B.D. RICHMAN (2007), “Rebuilding Illinois Brick: A Functionalist Approach to the Indirect Purchaser Rule”, Duke Law School Research Paper No.155, http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2331&context=facu lty_scholarship, Erişim Tarihi: 01.03.2011.
  • NOMER, H.N. (1996), Haksız Fiil Sorumluluğunda Maddi Tazminatın Belirlenmesi, Beta, İstanbul.
  • OĞUZMAN, M.K. ve M.T. ÖZ (2006), Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, Dördüncü Baskı, Filiz Kitapevi, İstanbul.
  • ÖZKAYA, E. (2000), Gabin Davaları, Seçkin Yayınevi, Ankara.
  • POLLOCK, E.E. (1966), “Standing to Sue, Remoteness of Injury, and the Passing on Doctrine”, Antitrust Law Journal, No: 32, s.5 40.
  • POSNER, R.A. (2001), “Antitrust in the Economy”, Antitrust Law Journal, No: 68, s.925 944.
  • RUBENSTEIN, W.B. (2005), “Understanding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005”, http://www.classactionprofessor.com/cafa analysis.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 01.03.2011.
  • RÜGGEBERG, J., M.P. SCHINKEL ve J. TUINSTRA (2005), “Illinois Walls: How Barring Indirect Purchaser Suits Facilitates Collusion”, Amsterdam Center for Law& Economics Working Paper No. 2005 02, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=730384, Eri*im Tarihi: 01.03.2011.
  • SANLI, K.C. (2003), “Türk Rekabet Hukukunda Haksız Fiil Sorumluluğu”, Rekabet Hukukunda Güncel Gelişmeler Sempozyumu I, Kayseri, s.197 262.
  • SANLI, K.C. (2007), Haksız Fiil Hukukunun Ekonomik Analizi: Hukuk ve Ekonomi Öğretisi, Arıkan, Denizli.
  • SCHAEFER, E.J. (1975), “Passing on Theory in Antitrust Treble Damage Actions: An Economic and Legal Analysis”, William. and Mary Law Review, No:16, s.883 936.
  • SCHWARTZ, M. ve G.J. WERDEN (1984), “Illinois Brick and the Deterrence of Antitrust Violations An Economic Analysis”, Hastings Law Journal, No: 35, s.629 668.
  • SAYHAN, İ. (2005), “Rekabet Hukukunda Tazminat Sorumluluğu Bakımından Hukuka Aykırılık Unsuru ve Sorumluluğun Sınırı”, Ankara Barosu Fikri Mülkiyet ve Rekabet Hukuku Dergisi, Cilt.5, Sayı.3, s.29 61.
  • SNYDER, E.A. (1985), “Efficient Assignment of Rights to Sue for Antitrust Damages”, Journal of Law & Economics, No: 28, s.469 482.
  • MAHBAZ, A.U. (2008), ABD Uygulaması Işığında Rekabet Đhlallerinden Doğan Zararların Tayini ve Tazmini, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi No: 88, Ankara.
  • TULCHIN, D.B. (2005), “State Indirect Purchaser Actions in the U.S. Antitrust Enforcement: Testimony Before the Antirust Modernization Commission”, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/amc/commission_hearings/pdf/Tulchin.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 01.03.2011.
  • WILS, W.P.J. (2003), “Should Private Antitrust Enforcement Be Encouraged in Europe?”, World Competition, No: 26(3), s.473 488.
  • YEŞİL KİTAP, EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2005), ‘Green Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules’ COM (2005) 672 final, Brussels.
  • YEŞİL KİTAP ÇALIŞMA RAPORU, EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2005), Commission Staff Working Paper Accompanying the Green Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules, Brussels.
  • ZWISLER, M.M. (2005), “State Indirect Purchaser Litigation and U.S. Antitrust Enforcement: Testimony Before the Antitrust Modernization Commission”, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/amc/commission_hearings/pdf/Zwisler.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 01.03.2011.
Rekabet Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1302-552X
  • Yayın Aralığı: 5
  • Başlangıç: 2000
  • Yayıncı: Rekabet Kurumu
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ REKABET HUKUKUNDA AB KOMİSYONUNUN İNCELEME YETKİSİ

Hamdi PINAR

Türk rekabet hukukunda uyumlu eylemlerin ispatı odaklı ispat tartışmaları

Gönenç GÜRKAYNAK, K. Korhan YILDIRIM, M. Hakan ÖZGÖKÇEN, Buğra AYDIN

Türk hukukunda rekabet ihlallerine ilişkin tazminat davalarında passıng-on savunması ve dolaylı alıcı kuralının uygulanması: Abd ve ab uygulamaları ışığında değerlendirme ve öneriler

Kadir BAŞ