AB Rekabet Hukuku’nun Sınır-Aşırı Uygulanması: Hukuk Emperyalizmi’nin Yeni Sancaktarı?

Year 2021, Volume: 20 Issue: 2, 411 - 446, 31.12.2021

Hüseyin Çağrı Çorlu

https://doi.org/10.32450/aacd.1050057

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Etki doktrini, yerel rekabete etkileri olan sınır-aşırı eylemlerin tespiti ve kovuşturulması açısından önemli bir araç olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu doktrinin ABD tarafından katı bir şekilde uygulanması, diğer devletler tarafından kendilerinin egemenlik haklarına yönelik bir ihlal olarak değerlendirilmiş ve bu sebeple uluslararası toplumun sert tepkisine yol açmıştır. AB hukukunda ise AB Adalet Divanı, uzun süre boyunca etki doktrinini görmezden gelmiş ve genellikle hukuki yetkisinin sınırlarını ülkesellik ilkesi üzerinden belirlemiştir. Divan Intel kararında etki doktrinini kabul etmiş fakat yine de bu çerçevede uyguladığı yargı yetkisini ülkesellik ilkesi üzerinden kurmaya devam etmiştir. Bu çalışma, Divanın bu kararını sorgulamakta ve özellikle AB rekabet hukukunun üye devlet mahkemelerinde
uygulanması aşamasındaki etkilerini incelemektedir. Çalışma, Divanın kararının, AB hukukunun AB sınırları dışındaki eylemler için kapsamlı bir şekilde uygulanmasına neden olacağını öngörmektedir.

Keywords

Sınır-aşırılık, Rekabet Hukuku, Intel, Etki Doktrini, Birleşen Kartelleri, Yargı Yetkisi

EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF EU COMPETITION LAW: THE NEW STANDARDBEARER OF LEGAL IMPERIALISM?

Abstract

The effects doctrine has been a major instrument in dealing with foreign conduct having repercussions on the competitiveness of national markets. The aggressive implementation of the doctrine by US courts in competition law cases has caused clamor in international community. In EU law, on the other hand, the effects doctrine had long been ignored by the CJEU, which exercised its jurisdiction on the basis of territoriality principle. In Intel, the CJEU finally endorsed the effects doctrine. This paper questioned the CJEU’s designation of the effects doctrine as a means to
establish territorial jurisdiction over extraterritorial conduct. This paper concluded that the CJEU’s approach to extraterritoriality would result in an overarching application of EU competition rules over foreign conduct.

Keywords

Extraterritoriality, Competition Law, Intel, Effects Doctrine, Component Cartels, Jurisdiction.

References

• Council Regulation on the concentrations between undertakings 4064/89 [1989] OJ L395/1 (replaced by Reg. 139/2004 [2004] L24/1). Council Regulation on the concentrations between undertakings 4064/89 [1989] OJ L395/1 (replaced by Reg. 139/2004 [2004] L24/1).
• Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union.
• Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003, 2006/C 210/02. Akbar, Yusuf. ‘The Extraterritorial Dimension of US and EU Competition Law: A Threat to the Multilateral System’, Australian Journal of International Affairs 53/1, (1999): 113-125.
• Alford, Roger P. ‘Extraterritorial Application of Antitrust Laws: The United States and European Community Approaches’ Virginia Journal of International Law 33/1, (1992): 259-87.
• Amato, Guiliano. Antitrust and the Bounds of Power: the Dilemma of Liberal Democracy in the History of the Market. Oxford: Hart Publ., 1997.
• Dam, Kenneth W. ’Extraterritoriality in an Age of Globalization: The Hartford Fire Case ’The Supreme Court Review (1993): 289-328.
• Damro, Chad.‘Building an International Identity: The EU and Extraterritorial Competition Policy’, Journal of European Public Policy 8/2 (2001): 208-226.
• Damrosch, Lori F. Et al., International Law: Cases and Materials. 5th Ed. West, 2009. Fox, Elanor. M. ’National Law Global Markets and Hartford: Eyes Wide Shut’ Antitrust Law Journal 68/1 (2000): 73-86.
• Fox, Elanor. M. ‘Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, Antitrust and the EU Intel Case: Implementation, Qualified Effects, and the Third Kind’, Fordham International Law Journal 42/3, (2019): 981-98.
• Greenfield, Leon B. et al. ‘Foreign Component Cartels and the U.S. Antitrust Laws: A First Principle Approach ’Antitrust 29/2 (2015):18-27.
• Griffin, Joseph P. ‘Extraterritoriality in the US and EU Antitrust Enforcement’, Antitrust Law Journal 67/1 (1999): 159-199.
• Grundman, V. Rock ‘The Imperialism: The Extraterritorial Application of United States Law’, International Lawyer 14 (1980): 257-66.
• Jones, Alison & Sufrin, Breanda. EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 7. Baskı. Oxford, 2019.
• Knebel, Donald E. ‘Extraterritorial Application of US Antitrust Laws: Principles and Responses’ Jindal Global Law Review 8/2 (2017): 181-202.
• Kovacic, William E. ‘Extraterritoriality, Institutions, and Convergence in International Competition policy’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (ASIL) 97/1 (2003): 309-312.
• Masingill, Megan L. ‘Extraterritoriality of Antitrust Law: Applying the Supreme Court’s Analysis in RJR Nabisco to Foreign Component Cartels ’American University Law Review 68/2 (2019): 621-665.
• Meriwether, Ellen. ‘Motorola Mobility and the FTAIA: If Not Here, Then Where?’ Antitrust 29/2 (2015): 8-17.
• Nanto, Dick K. ‘Globalized Supply Chains and U.S. Policy ’in America in the 21st Century: Political and Economic Issues Series: Globalized Supply Chains and Policy, ed. Solomon Mensah (2010).
• Prete, Luca. ‘On Implementation and Effect: The Recent Case-law on the Territorial (or Extraterritorial?) Application of EU Competition Rules’, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 9/8 (2018): 497-495. Ryu, Jae Hyung. ‘Deterring Foreign Component Cartels in the Age of Globalized Supply Chains ’Wake Forest Journal of Business and Intellectual Property Law 17/1 (2016): 81-112.
• Scott, Joanne .’Extraterritoriality and Territorial Extension in EU law’ American Journal of Comparative Law 62/1 (2014): 87-126.
• Sornarajah, Muthucumaraswamy.‘ The Extraterritorial Application of US Antitrust Laws: ConfliCt and Compromise’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 31/1 (1982): 127-49.
• Trenor, Josh A. ‘Jurisdiction and the Extraterritorial Application of Antitrust Law after Hartford Fire’ The University of Chicago Law Review 62, (1995): 1583- 1618.
• S.S. ’Lotus’ (France v. Turkey), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10.
• United States v. Aluminum Co of America, 148 F.2d 416 424 (2d Cir. 1945).
• United States v. Imperial Chemicals Industries Ltd. 100 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1951).
• United States v. Watchmakers of Switzerland Info. Center, Inc. 168 F. Supp. 904 (S.D.N.Y. 1958).
• Grosfillex & Fillistorf , 64/233/EEC [1964] OJ L 64/915. Sabre Shipping Corp. v. American President Lines Ltd. 285 F. Supp. 949 (S.D.N.Y. 1968).
• In re the Cartel in Aniline Dyes [1969] OJ L195/11.
• Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd. (Belgium v. Spain) ICJ. 1970.
• Case 48/69, ICI v. Commission (Dyestuffs) [1972] ECR 619.
• Timberlane Lumber Co. v Bank of America, 549 F2d 597 (9th Cir 1976).
• Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977). Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congloeum Corp., 595 F.2d 1287, 1297 (3rd Cir. 1979)
• Case 170/83, Hydrotherm Gerätebau GmbH v Compact del Dott. Ing. Mario Andreoli & C. Sas. [1985] ECR 3016. Wood Pulp (Case IV/29725)
• Commission Decision 85/202/EEC [1985] OJ L85/1.
• Case 89/85, A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and others v Commission [1988] ECR I-5193.
• Case T-11/89, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd [1992] ECR II-884. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993).
• Case 73/95 P, Viho Europe BV v Commission EU:C:1996:405.
• Gencor/Lonrho (Case No IV/M.619) Commission Decision of 24 April 1996 OJ L11/30 [1997].
• Case T-102/96, Gencor Ltd v. Commission [1999] ECR II-753. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v Empagran, 542 U.S. 155 (2004).
• Case T-325/01 Daimler Chrysşer Ag v Commission [2005] ECR II-3326. Case 97/08 Akzo Nobel NV v Commission [2009] ECR I-8237.
• Intel (Case COMP/37.990) [2010] OJ C227/13. LCD — Liquid Crystal Displays (Case COMP/39.309) [2010] OJ 2011
• C 295/8. TV and Computer Monitor Tubes (Case COMP/39.437) Commission Decision of 5 December 2012.
• T-91/11, InnoLux v Commission, [2014] ECLI:EU:T:2014:92. T-286/09, Intel v Commisson, ECLI:EU:T:2014:547.
• Case 231/14, InnoLux v Commission [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:451.
• Cases 293-294/13 P, Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. v. Commission [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:416.
• Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp. 775 D.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2015).
• United States v. Hui Hsiung 778 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2015).
• Case C-413/14 P Intel Corporation v Commission [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2017:632.
• Iiyama Benelux BV & others v. Schott AG & others [2016] EWHC 1207 (Ch).
• Iiyama (UK) Limited and others v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and others [2016] EWHC 1980 (Ch); [2016] 5 C.M.L.R.
• Iiyama (UK) Ltd and others v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and others [2018] EWCA Civ 220; [2018] 4 C.M.L.R.