Esin AYGÜN

262

UZLAŞMA PROGRAMLARI: GENEL UNSURLARI, AB REKABET HUKUKUNDAKİ GÜNCEL GELİŞMELER VE TÜRKİYE İÇİN ÇIKARIMLAR

Bu çalışma, uzlaşma programlarının faydalarını ve genel özelliklerini başarılı bir uygulamanın ön koşulları ile birlikte açıklamayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda uzlaşma programlarının unsurları incelendikten sonra, bu özelliklerin uygulamaya ne şekilde yansıdığı AB rekabet hukukundaki güncel gelişmeler ışığında tartışılacaktır. Komisyon tarafından alınan son kararlar uzlaşma ile beklenen amaçlara ulaşılıp ulaşılmadığının analizine yardımcı olacaktır. Çalışma, bu çıkarımlardan hareketle Türk rekabet hukukunda uzlaşmanın nasıl uygulandığını değerlendirmeyi hedeflemektedir. Bu değerlendirme, Türkiye’de uzlaşmanın pişmanlık programı altında bir seçenek olarak var olduğunu zira ihlali kabul eden ve yönetmelikte istenen temel bilgileri sağlayarak işbirliği yükümlülüklerini yerine getiren teşebbüslerin indirimden yararlanma seçeneğinin olduğunu; ancak halihazırda sürecin karmaşık olduğunu ve sürece ilişkin farkındalığın zayıf olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Pişmanlık Programının kabulünden bu yana ulaşılan indirime ilişkin kısıtlı uygulama bu tespiti doğrulamaktadır. Bu nedenle uzlaşmaya yönelik açık düzenlemelerin varlığı uygulamada karşılaşılan sorunları ortadan kaldırabilecektir
Anahtar Kelimeler:

Uzlaşma, Pişmanlık, Kartel, AB Uygulamaları, Pişmanlık Yönetmeliği

CARTEL SETTLEMENTS: GENERAL FEATURES, RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S PRACTICES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TURKEY

This paper aims to explain the benefits, drawbacks and main features of the settlement programs. The conditions for successful application are explained as well. In this context, the practical implementation of settlements will be examined in the light of the EU practices. The assessment of recent decisions will help to see whether stated aims of settlements are achieved or not in practice. These inferences will be helpful to analyze Turkey practices. Although there is settlement option in Turkey under leniency program, the process is complex and the awareness is low. The limited implementation regarding to reduction proves this. Thus, a clear regulation on settlement may help to reduce negative effects. While designing it, general principals of settlements and EU practices should be examined carefully
Keywords:

Settlement, Leniency, Cartel, EU Law, Leniency Regulation,

PDF

___

  • ARI, H., G. KEKEVI and E. AYGUN (2008), “The evaluation of Turkish
  • Competition Authority’s Fining Policy for Cartel Cases”, Annual Symposium on Recent Developments in Competition Law – VI, Kayseri (in Turkish) ARI, H., E. AYGUN and G. KEKEVI (2009), “Commitment and Settlement
  • Mechanisms in Competition Law”, Annual Symposium on Recent Developments in Competition Law – VII, Kayseri (in Turkish) ASCIONE, A. and M. MOTTA (2008), “Settlements in Cartel Cases”, 13th
  • Annual EU Competition Law and Policy Workshop (EUI, 6-7 June 2008), http:// www.eui.eu/Documents/RSCAS/Research/Competition/Motta-Ascione-2008. pdf, Date Accessed: 25.08.2012.
  • BRANKIN, S.P. (2008), “All Settled: Where Are the European Commission’s
  • Settlement Proposals Post Consultation?”, Competition Law Journal, p.170-181
  • BRANKIN, S.P. (2011), “The first cases under the Commission’s cartel- settlement procedure: problems solved?, E.C.L.R., No: 32(4), p.165-169
  • CENTELLA, M.L.T (2008) “The new settlement procedure in selected cartel cases”, Competition Policy Newsletter, (3), p.30-35.
  • “Commission Issues Its First Cartel Settlement Decision in the DRAM Case”, Alert Memo, Cleary Gottlieb, Brusells May 2010, http://www.cgsh.com/files/News/57eadca7-dac8-4763-a24e-3d176348abaa/
  • Presentation/NewsAttachment/7b1bd469-9d41-4104-93f4-405f45009936/
  • CGSH%20Alert%20-%20First%20Cartel%20Settlement%20Decision.pdf, Date Accessed: 26.08.2012.
  • DEKEYSER, K. and C. ROQUES (2010), “The European Commission’s settlement procedure in cartel cases”, Antitrust Bulletin, No:55(4), p.819-842.
  • DEKEYSER, K., R. BECKER and D. CALISTI (2010), “Impact of public enforcement on antitrust damages actions: Some Likely Effects of Settlements and Commitments on Private Actions for Damages”, Claus-Dieter Ehlermann and Mel Marquis (eds.), in European Competition Law Annual 2008: Antitrust
  • Settlements under EC Competition Law, (Hart Publishing 2010)
  • GAMBLE, R. (2011), “Speaking (formally) with the enemy– cartel settlements evolve”, E.C.L.R, No: 32(9), p.449- 456.
  • GONZALEZ, A.O. (2011), “The cartel settlement procedure in practice”, E.C.L.R., No: 32(4), p.170-178
  • HAMMOND, S.D. (2006), “The US Model of Negotiated Plea Agreements: A
  • Good Deal with Benefits for All”, OECD Competition Committee Working Party No.3, http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/219332.pdf, Date Accessed
  • HOLMES, S. and P. GIRARDET (2009), “Settling Cartel Cases: Recent
  • Developments in Europe”, in Global Legal Group: The International Comparative Legal Guide to Cartels and Leniency 2009
  • HOLMES, S. and P. GIRARDET (2011), “Settling Cartel Cases: Recent
  • Developments in Europe”, in Global Legal Group: International Comparative Legal Guide to Cartels and Leniency 2011, http://www.iclg.co.uk/practice-areas/ cartels-and-leniency/cartels-and-leniency-2012/1-settling-cartel-cases-recent- developments-in-europe
  • HOVE, K.V. and R. BURTON (2010), “Direct Settlement”, Competition Law Insight, articles/?Area=166, Date Accessed: 26.08.2012. http://www.vanbaelbellis.com/en/fiches/publications/
  • International Competition Network (2008a), “Cartel Settlements”, Report to the ICN Annual Conference, April 2008, http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc347.pdf, Date Accessed: 25.08.2012.
  • International Competition Network (2008b), “Setting of Fines for Cartels in ICN
  • Jurisdictions”, Report to the 7th ICN Annual Conference, http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc351.pdf39, Date Accessed: 25.08.2012.
  • Interview with Dr. Alexander Italianer, Director General for Competition European Commission, theantitrustsource, (April 2011), http://www.americanbar.org/ content/dam/aba/publishing/antitrust_source/apr11-fullsource.authcheckdam. pdf, Date Accessed: 26/08/2012.
  • JOSHUA, J., K. HUGMARK and I. DAEMS (2009), “What’s the Deal Navigating the European Commission’s 2008 Settlement Notice”, The European Antitrust Review, p.2-9.
  • KEKEVI, G. (2009), “Leniency Program: Not Quiet on the Western Front”
  • Competition Journal, No: 10(4), p.73-116. LASSERRE, B. and F.ZIVY (2010), “A Principled Approach to Settlements: A
  • Few Open Issues”, Claus-Dieter Ehlermann and Mel Marquis (eds), in European Competition Law Annual 2008: Antitrust Settlements under EC Competition
  • Law, (Hart Publishing 2010)
  • MARQUIS, M. (2012), “Settling Cartel Investigations in the EU and its Member
  • States”, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2070190, Date Accessed: 25.08.2012.
  • MEHTA, K. and M.L.T CENTELLA (2008), “EU Settlement Procedure
  • Public Enforcement Policy Perspective”, 13th Annual EU Competition Law and Policy Workshop (EUI, 6-7 June 2008), http://www.eui.eu/Documents/
  • RSCAS/Research/Competition/Mehta-TiernoCentella-2008.pdf, Date Accessed
  • O’BRIEN, A. (2008), “Cartel Settlements in the US and EU: Similarities
  • Differences & Remaining Questions”, 13th Annual EU Competition Workshop, http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/235598.pdf, 08.2012. Date Accessed
  • OECD (1998), “Recommendation of the Council Concerning Effective Action against Hard Core Cartels” C(98)35/FINAL, http://acts.oecd.org/Instruments/ShowInstrumentView.aspx?InstrumentID=193
  • &InstrumentPID=189&Lang=en&Book=False, Date Accessed: 25.08.2012.
  • OECD (2005), “Competition Law and Policy in Turkey”, http://www.rekabet.gov. tr/dosyalar/images/file/UluslararsiIliskiler/2.pdf, Date Accessed: 26.08.2012.
  • OECD (2008a), “Plea Bargaining and Settlement of Cartel Cases”, Policy Brief, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/43/41255395.pdf, Date Accessed: 26.08.2012.
  • OECD (2008b), “Experience with Direct Settlements in Cartel Cases”, Policy
  • Roundtables, http://www.oecd.org/redirect/dataoecd/11/9/44178372.pdf, Date Accessed: 26.08.2011.
  • OLSEN, G. and M. JEPHCOTT (2010), “The European Commission’s Settlement
  • Procedure”, 25 Antitrust, p.76-80. SCHINKEL, M.P. (2011) “Bargaining in the Shadow of the European Settlement for Cartels”, Antitrust Bulletin, No: 56(2), p.461-481.
  • SOLTESZ, U. and C. V. KOCKRITZ (2011), “EU cartel settlements in practice – the future of EU cartel law enforcement?”, E.C.L.R., No:32(5), p.258-265.
  • STEPHAN, A. (2009), “The Direct Settlement of EC Cartel Cases”, http:// ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/legislation/cartels_settlements/astephan.pdf, Date Accessed: 25.08.2012.
  • STEPHAN, A. (2010a), “OFT dairy price-fixing case leaves sour taste for cooperating parties in settlements”, E.C.L.R., No:31(11)
  • STEPHAN, A. (2010b), “Is the ‘Hybrid’ Settlement in the Animal Feed Phosphates
  • Cartel Case Pointless?”, (UEA Competition Policy Blog), http://competitionpolicy. wordpress.com/2010/08/02/is-the-%E2%80%98hybrid%E2%80%99- settlement-in-the-animal-feed-phosphates-cartel-case-pointless/, Date Accessed
  • WILS, W.P.J. (2008), “The Use of Settlements in Public Antitrust Enforcement”, th Annual EU Competition Law and Policy Workshop (EUI, 6-7 June 2008), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1135627, Date Accessed
  • THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S DECISIONS Animal Feed Phosphates, Case COMP/38866 (20/07/2010)
  • CRT Glass, Case COMP/39605 (19/10/2011)
  • Consumer Detergents, Case COMP/39579 (13/04/2011) DRAMs, Case COMP/38511 (19/05/2010)
  • Refrigeration Compressors, Case COMP/39600 (7/12/2011)
  • Summary of Animal Feed Phosphates, Case COMP/38.866, 2011/C 111/10
  • Summary of Consumer Detergents, Case COMP/39.579, 2011/C 193/06
  • Summary of CRT Glass, Case COMP/39.605, 2012/C 48/07
  • Summary of DRAMs, Case COMP/38.511, 2011/C 180/09
  • Summary of Refrigeration Compressors, Case COMP/39.600, 2012/C 122/04
  • THE TURKISH COMPETITION BOARD’S DECISIONS Günes Ekspres Havacilik A.S. and Condor Flugdienst GmbH, No. 11-54/1431- and dated 27.10.2011.
  • Sodas Sodyum Sanayi A.S. and Otuzbir Kimya ve San. Turk Ltd. Sti, No. 12- /711-199 and dated 03.05.2012.
  • Siemens, No. 05-13/156-54 and dated 10.03.2005.
  • Yonga Levha I, No. 02-53/685-278 and dated 06.09.2002.
  • Yonga Levha II, No. 03-12/135-63 and dated 25.02.2003.
  • YTONG, No. 06-37/477-129 and dated 30.05.2006.
  • THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S RELEVANT LEGISLATION Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases, (2006) C 298/17.
  • Commission Notice on the conduct of settlement procedures in view of the adoption of Decisions pursuant to Article 7 and Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in cartel cases, (2008/C 167/01) [2008] C 167/1.
  • Commission Regulation (EC) No 622/2008 amending Regulation (EC) No /2004, [2008] L 171/3.
  • THE TURKISH COMPETITION AUTHORITY’S RELEVANT LEGISLATION Regulation on Fines to Apply in Cases of Agreements, Concerted Practices and Decisions Limiting Competition, and Abuse of Dominant Position, Official Gazette Dated 15.09.2012, Numbered: 27142.
  • Regulation on Active Cooperation for Detecting Cartels (Active Cooperation/ Leniency Regulation), Official Gazette Dated 15.09.2012, Numbered: 27142.
  • Draft Guidelines on Regulation on Active Cooperation for Detecting Cartels (Active Cooperation/Leniency Regulation). OFFICAL DOCUMENTS AND POLICY PAPERS “Annual Report On Competition Policy Developments In Turkey” (2006), DAF/ COMP(2006)7/20.
  • “Antitrust: Commission Adopts First Cartel Settlement Decision-Questions and Answers” (2010), MEMO/10/201.
  • “Antitrust: European Commission fines animal feed phosphates producers” (2010), IP/10/985.
  • “Antitrust: Commission fines DRAM producers € 331 million for price cartel; reaches first settlement in a cartel case” (2010), IP/10/586.
  • “Antitrust: Commission fines producers of CRT glass € 128 million in fourth cartel settlement” (2011), IP/11/1214.
  • “Antitrust: Commission fines producers of refrigeration compressors € 161 million in fifth cartel settlement” (2011), IP/11/1511.
  • “Antitrust: Commission fines producers of water management products € 13 million in sixth cartel settlement” (2012), IP/12/704.
  • “Antitrust: Commission introduces settlement procedure for cartels” (2008) IP/08/1056.
  • “Antitrust: Commission Introduces Settlement Procedure for Cartels-frequently asked questions” (2008), MEMO/08/458.
  • Almunia, J. (19 May 2010) “First cartel decision under settlement procedure –
  • Introductory remarks”, SPEECH/10/247. Press releases 45/10 ‘OFT update on Dairy investigation’ (30 April 2010). http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/dosyalar/images/file/Basin/karar.pdf, Date Accessed: 08.2012. http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/dosyalar/images/file/Tefhim%20Metni.pdf, Date Accessed: 26.08.2012. http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/index.php?Sayfa=sayfahtml&Id=1787&Lang=EN, Date Accessed: 26.08.2012. http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/index.php?Sayfa=sayfahtml&Id=1980&Lang=EN, Date Accessed: 26.08.2012.
Rekabet Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1302-552X
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 5 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2000
  • Yayıncı: Rekabet Kurumu
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

2010/4 SAYILI TEBLİĞ’İN UYGULAMASINA BİR BAKIŞ: SORUNLAR VE ÇÖZÜM ÖNERİLERİ

Ekrem SOLMAZ, Gülçin DERE

TÜRKİYE ELEKTRİK PAZARINDAKİ TEKNİK ETKİNLİK ÖLÇÜMLERİ ÜZERİNE AMPİRİK ÇALIŞMALARIN TARAMASI VE SENTEZİ

Aydın ÇELEN

UZLAŞMA PROGRAMLARI: GENEL UNSURLARI, AB REKABET HUKUKUNDAKİ GÜNCEL GELİŞMELER VE TÜRKİYE İÇİN ÇIKARIMLAR

Esin AYGÜN