BibTex RIS Cite

Rekabet Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkime Elverişliliğine İlişkin Hukuki Çerçeve

Year 2017, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 305 - 332, 01.12.2017

Hilmi Bolatoğlu

Abstract

Günümüzde, büyük bir hızla genişleyen uluslararası ticarette ortaya çıkan anlaşmazlıkların çözümünde tarafsız ve etkin bir uyuşmazlık çözüm yolu olarak görülen tahkim, ulusal yargı organlarına göre çok daha fazla tercih edilmektedir. Hızla büyüyen dünya ticareti rekabetçi ekonomileri öne çıkardığından, uluslararası ticaretten önemli bir pay almak isteyen ülkeler rekabet hukukuna büyük değer atfetmektedir. Gerek tahkim, gerek rekabet hukuku küreselleşen dünyada hızla gelişmekte olduğundan, uluslararası ticaret bakımından kaçınılmaz bir ortak oyun alanı ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu çalışma, rekabet hukuku-tahkim hukuku ilişkisinde özellikle rekabet uyuşmazlıklarının tahkime elverişliliği noktasına odaklanmaktadır. İlk bölümde tahkime elverişlilik kavramının tanımlanmasına ilişkin genel hukuki çerçeve belirlenecektir. İkinci bölümde Türk hukukunda tahkime elverişliliği düzenleyen hukuki metinler ele alınarak rekabet uyuşmazlıkları açısından yorumlanacaktır. Üçüncü bölümde konuya ilişkin yargı kararları kronolojik sistematik içinde incelenecektir. Böylelikle, çalışmamızda karşılaştırmalı hukuktan da yararlanılarak Türkiyede rekabet uyuşmazlıklarının tahkime elverişliliğine ilişkin teorik ve pratik çerçeve ortaya konmaya çalışılacaktır.

Keywords

Tahkim Rekabet Rekabet Hukuku Tahkime Elverişlilik Rekabet Uyuşmazlıkları Uluslararası Ticaret

References

  • AKINCI, Ziya: Arbitration Law of Turkey: Practice and Procedure, Juris, New York, 2011.
  • AKINCI, Ziya: Milletlerarası Tahkim, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2013.
  • AKİL, Cenk: “Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nda Sulh ve Sulh Yoluyla Şarta Bağlı Hüküm Verilip Verilemeyeceği Meselesi”, GÜHFD, C. 16, S.4, 2012, (1-18).
  • AKSOY, M. Nazlı: Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanuna Aykırılığın Özel Hukuk Alanındaki Sonuçları, Rekabet Kurumu, Ankara, 2002.
  • ALLISON, John R.; “Arbitration of Private Antitrust Claims in International Trade: A Study in the Subordination of National Interests to the Demands of a World Market”, 18 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 361 (1986), (361-439).
  • ARFAZADEH, Homayoon: “Arbitrability Under the New York Convention: The lex fori revisited”, 17 Arbitration International 73, (2001), (73-87).
  • BALSSEN, Cerrahoğlu, Eda/KINIKOĞLU, Efe: “Drafting Arbitration Agreements and Arbitrability”, Arbitration in Turkey, (Yeşilırmak, Ali/Esin, İsmail, G., Edlr.), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2015.
  • BARON, Patrick M./LINIGER ve Stefan; “A Second Look at Arbitrability: Approaches to Arbitration in the United States, Switzerland and Germany”, Arbitration International, C.19, S.1, 2003, (27-54).
  • BOLATOĞLU, Hilmi: “Turkey”, International Competition Litigation, (Blanke, Gordon/Nazzini, Renato, Ed.) KluwerLaw International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2012, (731-797).
  • BORN, Gary: International Arbitration, Aspen Publishers, New York, 2011.
  • BREKOULAKIS, Stavros L.: “Law Applicable To Arbitrability: Revisiting The Revisited Lex Fori”, , Arbitrability: International &Comparative Perspectives, (Mistelis, Loukas A./Brekoulakis, Stavros L., Ed.), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2009.
  • BUCHER, Andreas/TSCHANZ, Pierre-Yves: International Arbitration in Switzerland, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1989.
  • DI BROZOLO, Luca G. Radicati: “Arbitration and Competition Law: The Position of the Courts and of Arbitrators”, OECD, Competition Committee, Working Party N. 3, Arbitration and Competition DAF/COMP (2010) 40, 2011, (31-50) http://www.oecd.org/competition/abuse/49294392.pdf (Son Erişim:08.05.2017).
  • DI PIETRO, Domenico: “Arbitrability Under the New York Convention”, Arbitrability: International &Comparative Perspectives, (Mistelis, Loukas A./Brekoulakis, Stavros L., Ed.), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2009.
  • FORTIER, L. Yves: “Arbitrability of Disputes, Global Reflections on International Law, Commerce and Dispute Resolution”, Liber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner, (Aksen Gerald/Böckstiegel K.-H.,/ Mustill M.,/Patocchi, P.M./Whitesell, A.-M., Ed.) ICC Publishing, (2005).
  • FOUCHARD Philippe/GAILLARD, Emmanuel/GOLDMAN, Berthold: Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (Gaillard, Emmanuel/Savage, John, Ed.), Kluwer Law International, 1999.
  • FOX, William F.: “Mitsubishi v. Soler and its Impact on International Commercial Arbitration” 19 J. World Trade L. 579, 591 (1985).
  • GHARAVI, Hamid G.: “The Proper Scope of Arbitration in European Community Competition Law”, 11 Tul. Eur. & Civ. L.F. 185 (1996), (185-205).
  • GÜÇER, Sülün: “Tahkim Yargılamasında Gündeme Gelen Rekabet Hukuku Uyuşmazlıkları”, BATİDER, C.25, (2009), (205-226).
  • GÜRZUMAR, Osman Berat: “4054 Sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun’un 4. Maddesine Aykırı Sözleşmelerin Tabi Olduğu Geçersizlik Rejimi”, Rekabet Dergisi, S.12, (2002), (3-76).
  • HANOTIAU, Bernard, “The Law Applicable to Arbitrability”, 26 SAcLJ 874, (2014), (874-885).
  • HEPER, Altan: “Almanya’da Hukukta Yorum Üzerine Bazı Düşünceler”, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, C.70 S.1, 2012, (71-85).
  • HRLE, Jelena, International Arbitration and Competition Law (Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Institute of Comparative Law, Faculty of Law, McGill University, 1999.
  • HUYSAL, Burak; Milletlerarası Ticari Tahkimde Tahkime Elverişlilik, Vedat Kitabevi, İstanbul, 2010.
  • JERMINI, Cesare/BERNARDONI, Nicola, “Domestic Arbitration under the New Swiss Code of Civil Procedure”, Arbitration in Switzerland: The Practitioner’s Guide, (Arroyo, Manuel, Ed.) Kluwer Law International, 2013, (17-23).
  • KALPSÜZ, Turgut; Türkiye’de Milletlerarası Tahkim, BTHAE, Ankara, 2007, s.34
  • KARADAŞ, İzzet: Ulusal (İç) Tahkim, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara, 2013.
  • KAUFMANN-KOHLER, Gabrielle/ RIGOZZI, Antonio: International Arbitration: Law and Practice in Switzerland, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015.
  • KIRCA, Çiğdem: “Örtülü (Gizli) Boşluk ve Bu Boşluğun Doldurulması Yöntemi Olarak Amaca Uygun Sınırlama (Teleologische Reduktion)”, AÜHFD, 50(1), 2001, (91-119).
  • LANDI, Niccolò/ROGERS, Catherine A.: “Arbitration of Antitrust Claims in the United States and Europe” Bocconi Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-01, Corcorrenza e Mercato, 2007. https://ssrn.com/ abstract=962334 (Son erişim:06.03.2017).
  • LEHMANN, Matthias: “A Plea for a Transnational Approach to Arbitrability in Arbitral Practice”, 42 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 753, (2004), (753-775).
  • LEW, Julian D. M./MISTELIS, Loukas A./KRÖLL, Stefan: Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2003.
  • LEW, Julian, D.M.: “Competition Laws-Limits to Arbitrators’ Authority”, Arbitrability: International &Comparative Perspectives (Mistelis, Loukas A./Brekoulakis, Stavros L., Ed.), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2009, (241-262)
  • LIEBSCHER, Christoph: “Arbitration of Antitrust Disputes”, Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements and International Arbitral Awards: The New York Convention in Practice (Gaillard, Emmanuel/Di Pietro, Domenico, Edlr.), Cameron May, London, 2008, (522-549).
  • MISTELIS, Loukas A.: “Arbitrability-International and Comparative Perspectives”, Arbitrability: International &Comparative Perspectives, (Mistelis, Loukas A./Brekoulakis, Stavros L., Ed.), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2009.
  • MORGAN, Edward, “Contract Theory and the Sources of Rights: An Approach to the Arbitrability Question”, 60 Southern California Law Review 1059, (1987), (1059-1082).
  • NAZZINI, Renato: “Are Claims for Tortious Damages for Breach of the Antitrust Rules Arbitrable in the European Union? Some Reflections on the CDC Case in the Court of Justice”, Italian Antitrust Review, 3(1). (2016), (70-86).
  • OĞUZMAN, Kemal/BARLAS, Nami: Medeni Hukuk, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2011.
  • OĞUZMAN, M. Kemal/ÖZ, M. Turgut: Borçlar Hukuku (1. Cilt), Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2012.
  • ÖZBAY, İbrahim/KORUCU, Yavuz: Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu Çerçevesinde Tahkim, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara, 2016, s.6; YEŞİLIRMAK, Ali: “Legal Framework”, Arbitration in Turkey, (Yeşilırmak, Ali/Esin, İsmail, G., Ed.), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2015.
  • ÖZEL, Sibel: Milletlerarası Ticari Tahkimde Kanunlar İhtilafı Meseleleri, Legal, İstanbul, 2008.
  • POUDRET, Jean-François/BESSON, Sébastien: Comparative Law of International Arbitration, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2007.
  • REDFERN, Alan/HUNTER, Martin/BLACKABY, Nigel/PARTASIDES, Constantine: Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2005.
  • SAJKO, Kresimir: “On Arbitrability in Comparative Arbitration - An Outline”, Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu, 60(5), 2010, (961-969).
  • SARITAŞ, Hatice: “4686 Sayılı Milletlerarası Tahkim Kanununa Göre Hakem Kararlarına Karşı Kanun Yolları”, Sayıştay Dergisi, S.59, 2005, (141-157).
  • STEMPEL, Jeffrey W.: “Pitfalls of Public Policy: The Case of Arbitration Agreements” (Public Policy), 22 St. Mary’s L.J. 298, 355 (1990).
  • STRONG, Stacie, I.: “Monism and Dualism in International Commercial Arbitration: Overcoming Barriers to Consistent Application of Principles of Public International Law”, University of Missouri Legal Studies Research Paper Series, No. 2012-39, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2189905 (Son Erişim:22.06.2017).
  • ULUÇ, Didem: Rekabet Hukukunda Tahkim Uygulamaları, Rekabet Kurumu, Ankara, 2012.
  • WEIGAND, Frank-Bernd/BAUMANN, Antje: “Introduction”, Practitioner’s Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration, (Weigand, Frank-Bernd, Ed.) Oxfrod University Press, Oxford, 2010.
  • YEŞİLIRMAK, Ali: “Legal Framework”, Arbitration in Turkey, (Yeşilırmak, Ali/Esin, İsmail, G., Ed.), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2015.
  • YILMAZ, Ejder: “Tahkimde İtirazın İptali Davası ve Tahkime Elverişlilik Kuralı”, DEÜHFD, C. 16, Prof. Dr. Hakan PEKCANITEZ’e Armağan, 2014, (531-554).
  • YONGALIK, Aynur: “İstisnalar Dar Yorumlanır Kuralı ve Değerlendirilmesi”, AÜHFD, 60(1), 2011 (1-15). Internet Kaynakları
  • Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat on the 1985 Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as amended in 2006, http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/ MLARB-explanatoryNote20-9-07.pdf (Son Erişim 15.05.2017)
  • HMK Tasarısı: https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/sirasayi/donem23/yil01/ss393.pdf (Son Erişim: 12.09.2017)
  • International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration, Queen Mary University/White&Case, 2015, http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/docs/164761.pdf (Son Erişim: 18.03.2017)
  • MTK Tasarısı: http://www2.tbmm.gov.tr/d21/1/1-0874.pdf (Son Erişim:12.09.2017)
  • (Tüm Kararlara Erişim: www.kazanci.com)
  • Yargıtay İBGK, 23.10.1972, E:1972/2, K:1972/12.
  • Yargıtay HGK, 03.07.1974, E:1972/5-1450, K:1972/810.
  • Yargıtay HGK, 15.04.1987, E:1986/3-413, K:1986/325.
  • Yargıtay HGK, 01.02.1995, E:1994/11-465, K:1995/39.
  • Yargıtay HGK, 15.04.1998, E:1998/19–256, K:1998/279
  • Yargıtay HGK, 05.05.1999, E:1999/15–235, K:1999/273
  • Yargıtay HGK, 19.03.2003, E:2003/15-142, K:2003/182.
  • Yargıtay HGK, 08.02.2012, E:2011/13-568, K:2012/47.
  • Yargıtay HGK, 30.09.2015, E:2013/1847, K:2015/2020.
  • Yargıtay 3. HD, 02.12.2004, E:2004/13018, K:2004/13409.
  • Yargıtay 4. HD, 14.05.1974, E:1973/2094, K:1974/2496.
  • Yargıtay 4. HD, 29.01.1980, E:1979/10780, K:1980/991.
  • Yargıtay 4. HD, 17.06.2003, E:2002/14825, K:2003/8201.
  • Yargıtay 11. HD, 13.02.2001, E:2000/10659, K:2001/1904.
  • Yargıtay 11. HD, 18.10.2001, E:2001/5995, K:2001/8030.
  • Yargıtay 11. HD, 06.10.2016, E:2016/725, K:2016/7777.
  • Yargıtay 13. HD, 16.04.1974, E:1974/439, K:1974/923.
  • Yargıtay 13. HD, 25.12.1995, E:1995/10533, K:1995/11673.
  • Yargıtay 13. HD, 17.04.2012, E: 2012/8426, K:2012/10349
  • Yargıtay 13. HD, 13.11.2012, E: 2011/19737, K:2012/25406
  • Yargıtay 15. HD, 26.12.1978, E:1978/2090, K:1978:2486.
  • Yargıtay 15. HD, 18.03.1986, E:1985/3919, K:1986/1044.
  • Yargıtay 15. HD, 09.05.1994, E:1994/408, K:1994/2970.
  • Yargıtay 15. HD, 08.10.1998, E:1998/3612, K:1998/3775.
  • Yargıtay 15. HD, 27.06.2007, E:2007/2145, K:2007/4389.
  • Yargıtay 15. HD, 25.12.2007, E:2007/429, K:2007/8164.
  • Yargıtay 15. HD, 17.11.2008, E:2008/5601, K:2008/6837.
  • Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v Benetton International NV, C-126/97, ECR 1999 I-03055.
  • İsviçre Federal Mahkemesi, BGE 118 II 193 (1992)
  • İsviçre Federal Mahkemesi, BGE 132 III 389 (2006).
  • İsviçre Federal Mahkemesi, BGE 141 III 201 (2015)
  • İsviçre Federal Mahkemesi, 4P.119/1998, ASA Bulletin 1999, s.529. (Yayımlanmamış karar)
  • Meadows Indemnity v. Baccala & Shoop Insurance Services, 760 F Supp 1036, (EDNY 1991)
  • Mitsubishi v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. 614 (1985).

Year 2017, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 305 - 332, 01.12.2017

Hilmi Bolatoğlu

Abstract

legal Framework Concerning arbitrability of Competition DisputesT oday, arbitration is seen as a neutral and effective solution to disputes in the rapidly expanding international trade and is favored much more than national courts. As the fast-growing world trade brings competitive economies to forefront, the countries that want greater share from international trade attach greater value to the competition law. Since both the arbitration and the competition law are rapidly developing in the globalizing world, an inevitable common playground for international trade has emerged.This study focuses particularly on the arbitrability of competition disputes, in correlation of competition law and arbitration law. In the first section, the general legal framework for defining the concept of arbitrability will be determined. In the second section, legal texts that regulate arbitrability in Turkish law will be examined and interpreted in terms of competition law. In the third section, judicial decisions regarding the subject will be examined chronologically. In this way, the theoretical and practical framework concerning the arbitrability of competition disputes in Turkey will be tried to be established in our work by utilising the comparative law

Keywords

Arbitration Competition Competition Law Arbitrability Competition Disputes International Trade

References

  • AKINCI, Ziya: Arbitration Law of Turkey: Practice and Procedure, Juris, New York, 2011.
  • AKINCI, Ziya: Milletlerarası Tahkim, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2013.
  • AKİL, Cenk: “Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nda Sulh ve Sulh Yoluyla Şarta Bağlı Hüküm Verilip Verilemeyeceği Meselesi”, GÜHFD, C. 16, S.4, 2012, (1-18).
  • AKSOY, M. Nazlı: Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanuna Aykırılığın Özel Hukuk Alanındaki Sonuçları, Rekabet Kurumu, Ankara, 2002.
  • ALLISON, John R.; “Arbitration of Private Antitrust Claims in International Trade: A Study in the Subordination of National Interests to the Demands of a World Market”, 18 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 361 (1986), (361-439).
  • ARFAZADEH, Homayoon: “Arbitrability Under the New York Convention: The lex fori revisited”, 17 Arbitration International 73, (2001), (73-87).
  • BALSSEN, Cerrahoğlu, Eda/KINIKOĞLU, Efe: “Drafting Arbitration Agreements and Arbitrability”, Arbitration in Turkey, (Yeşilırmak, Ali/Esin, İsmail, G., Edlr.), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2015.
  • BARON, Patrick M./LINIGER ve Stefan; “A Second Look at Arbitrability: Approaches to Arbitration in the United States, Switzerland and Germany”, Arbitration International, C.19, S.1, 2003, (27-54).
  • BOLATOĞLU, Hilmi: “Turkey”, International Competition Litigation, (Blanke, Gordon/Nazzini, Renato, Ed.) KluwerLaw International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2012, (731-797).
  • BORN, Gary: International Arbitration, Aspen Publishers, New York, 2011.
  • BREKOULAKIS, Stavros L.: “Law Applicable To Arbitrability: Revisiting The Revisited Lex Fori”, , Arbitrability: International &Comparative Perspectives, (Mistelis, Loukas A./Brekoulakis, Stavros L., Ed.), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2009.
  • BUCHER, Andreas/TSCHANZ, Pierre-Yves: International Arbitration in Switzerland, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1989.
  • DI BROZOLO, Luca G. Radicati: “Arbitration and Competition Law: The Position of the Courts and of Arbitrators”, OECD, Competition Committee, Working Party N. 3, Arbitration and Competition DAF/COMP (2010) 40, 2011, (31-50) http://www.oecd.org/competition/abuse/49294392.pdf (Son Erişim:08.05.2017).
  • DI PIETRO, Domenico: “Arbitrability Under the New York Convention”, Arbitrability: International &Comparative Perspectives, (Mistelis, Loukas A./Brekoulakis, Stavros L., Ed.), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2009.
  • FORTIER, L. Yves: “Arbitrability of Disputes, Global Reflections on International Law, Commerce and Dispute Resolution”, Liber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner, (Aksen Gerald/Böckstiegel K.-H.,/ Mustill M.,/Patocchi, P.M./Whitesell, A.-M., Ed.) ICC Publishing, (2005).
  • FOUCHARD Philippe/GAILLARD, Emmanuel/GOLDMAN, Berthold: Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (Gaillard, Emmanuel/Savage, John, Ed.), Kluwer Law International, 1999.
  • FOX, William F.: “Mitsubishi v. Soler and its Impact on International Commercial Arbitration” 19 J. World Trade L. 579, 591 (1985).
  • GHARAVI, Hamid G.: “The Proper Scope of Arbitration in European Community Competition Law”, 11 Tul. Eur. & Civ. L.F. 185 (1996), (185-205).
  • GÜÇER, Sülün: “Tahkim Yargılamasında Gündeme Gelen Rekabet Hukuku Uyuşmazlıkları”, BATİDER, C.25, (2009), (205-226).
  • GÜRZUMAR, Osman Berat: “4054 Sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun’un 4. Maddesine Aykırı Sözleşmelerin Tabi Olduğu Geçersizlik Rejimi”, Rekabet Dergisi, S.12, (2002), (3-76).
  • HANOTIAU, Bernard, “The Law Applicable to Arbitrability”, 26 SAcLJ 874, (2014), (874-885).
  • HEPER, Altan: “Almanya’da Hukukta Yorum Üzerine Bazı Düşünceler”, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, C.70 S.1, 2012, (71-85).
  • HRLE, Jelena, International Arbitration and Competition Law (Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Institute of Comparative Law, Faculty of Law, McGill University, 1999.
  • HUYSAL, Burak; Milletlerarası Ticari Tahkimde Tahkime Elverişlilik, Vedat Kitabevi, İstanbul, 2010.
  • JERMINI, Cesare/BERNARDONI, Nicola, “Domestic Arbitration under the New Swiss Code of Civil Procedure”, Arbitration in Switzerland: The Practitioner’s Guide, (Arroyo, Manuel, Ed.) Kluwer Law International, 2013, (17-23).
  • KALPSÜZ, Turgut; Türkiye’de Milletlerarası Tahkim, BTHAE, Ankara, 2007, s.34
  • KARADAŞ, İzzet: Ulusal (İç) Tahkim, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara, 2013.
  • KAUFMANN-KOHLER, Gabrielle/ RIGOZZI, Antonio: International Arbitration: Law and Practice in Switzerland, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015.
  • KIRCA, Çiğdem: “Örtülü (Gizli) Boşluk ve Bu Boşluğun Doldurulması Yöntemi Olarak Amaca Uygun Sınırlama (Teleologische Reduktion)”, AÜHFD, 50(1), 2001, (91-119).
  • LANDI, Niccolò/ROGERS, Catherine A.: “Arbitration of Antitrust Claims in the United States and Europe” Bocconi Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-01, Corcorrenza e Mercato, 2007. https://ssrn.com/ abstract=962334 (Son erişim:06.03.2017).
  • LEHMANN, Matthias: “A Plea for a Transnational Approach to Arbitrability in Arbitral Practice”, 42 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 753, (2004), (753-775).
  • LEW, Julian D. M./MISTELIS, Loukas A./KRÖLL, Stefan: Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2003.
  • LEW, Julian, D.M.: “Competition Laws-Limits to Arbitrators’ Authority”, Arbitrability: International &Comparative Perspectives (Mistelis, Loukas A./Brekoulakis, Stavros L., Ed.), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2009, (241-262)
  • LIEBSCHER, Christoph: “Arbitration of Antitrust Disputes”, Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements and International Arbitral Awards: The New York Convention in Practice (Gaillard, Emmanuel/Di Pietro, Domenico, Edlr.), Cameron May, London, 2008, (522-549).
  • MISTELIS, Loukas A.: “Arbitrability-International and Comparative Perspectives”, Arbitrability: International &Comparative Perspectives, (Mistelis, Loukas A./Brekoulakis, Stavros L., Ed.), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2009.
  • MORGAN, Edward, “Contract Theory and the Sources of Rights: An Approach to the Arbitrability Question”, 60 Southern California Law Review 1059, (1987), (1059-1082).
  • NAZZINI, Renato: “Are Claims for Tortious Damages for Breach of the Antitrust Rules Arbitrable in the European Union? Some Reflections on the CDC Case in the Court of Justice”, Italian Antitrust Review, 3(1). (2016), (70-86).
  • OĞUZMAN, Kemal/BARLAS, Nami: Medeni Hukuk, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2011.
  • OĞUZMAN, M. Kemal/ÖZ, M. Turgut: Borçlar Hukuku (1. Cilt), Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2012.
  • ÖZBAY, İbrahim/KORUCU, Yavuz: Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu Çerçevesinde Tahkim, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara, 2016, s.6; YEŞİLIRMAK, Ali: “Legal Framework”, Arbitration in Turkey, (Yeşilırmak, Ali/Esin, İsmail, G., Ed.), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2015.
  • ÖZEL, Sibel: Milletlerarası Ticari Tahkimde Kanunlar İhtilafı Meseleleri, Legal, İstanbul, 2008.
  • POUDRET, Jean-François/BESSON, Sébastien: Comparative Law of International Arbitration, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2007.
  • REDFERN, Alan/HUNTER, Martin/BLACKABY, Nigel/PARTASIDES, Constantine: Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2005.
  • SAJKO, Kresimir: “On Arbitrability in Comparative Arbitration - An Outline”, Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu, 60(5), 2010, (961-969).
  • SARITAŞ, Hatice: “4686 Sayılı Milletlerarası Tahkim Kanununa Göre Hakem Kararlarına Karşı Kanun Yolları”, Sayıştay Dergisi, S.59, 2005, (141-157).
  • STEMPEL, Jeffrey W.: “Pitfalls of Public Policy: The Case of Arbitration Agreements” (Public Policy), 22 St. Mary’s L.J. 298, 355 (1990).
  • STRONG, Stacie, I.: “Monism and Dualism in International Commercial Arbitration: Overcoming Barriers to Consistent Application of Principles of Public International Law”, University of Missouri Legal Studies Research Paper Series, No. 2012-39, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2189905 (Son Erişim:22.06.2017).
  • ULUÇ, Didem: Rekabet Hukukunda Tahkim Uygulamaları, Rekabet Kurumu, Ankara, 2012.
  • WEIGAND, Frank-Bernd/BAUMANN, Antje: “Introduction”, Practitioner’s Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration, (Weigand, Frank-Bernd, Ed.) Oxfrod University Press, Oxford, 2010.
  • YEŞİLIRMAK, Ali: “Legal Framework”, Arbitration in Turkey, (Yeşilırmak, Ali/Esin, İsmail, G., Ed.), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2015.
  • YILMAZ, Ejder: “Tahkimde İtirazın İptali Davası ve Tahkime Elverişlilik Kuralı”, DEÜHFD, C. 16, Prof. Dr. Hakan PEKCANITEZ’e Armağan, 2014, (531-554).
  • YONGALIK, Aynur: “İstisnalar Dar Yorumlanır Kuralı ve Değerlendirilmesi”, AÜHFD, 60(1), 2011 (1-15). Internet Kaynakları
  • Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat on the 1985 Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as amended in 2006, http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/ MLARB-explanatoryNote20-9-07.pdf (Son Erişim 15.05.2017)
  • HMK Tasarısı: https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/sirasayi/donem23/yil01/ss393.pdf (Son Erişim: 12.09.2017)
  • International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration, Queen Mary University/White&Case, 2015, http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/docs/164761.pdf (Son Erişim: 18.03.2017)
  • MTK Tasarısı: http://www2.tbmm.gov.tr/d21/1/1-0874.pdf (Son Erişim:12.09.2017)
  • (Tüm Kararlara Erişim: www.kazanci.com)
  • Yargıtay İBGK, 23.10.1972, E:1972/2, K:1972/12.
  • Yargıtay HGK, 03.07.1974, E:1972/5-1450, K:1972/810.
  • Yargıtay HGK, 15.04.1987, E:1986/3-413, K:1986/325.
  • Yargıtay HGK, 01.02.1995, E:1994/11-465, K:1995/39.
  • Yargıtay HGK, 15.04.1998, E:1998/19–256, K:1998/279
  • Yargıtay HGK, 05.05.1999, E:1999/15–235, K:1999/273
  • Yargıtay HGK, 19.03.2003, E:2003/15-142, K:2003/182.
  • Yargıtay HGK, 08.02.2012, E:2011/13-568, K:2012/47.
  • Yargıtay HGK, 30.09.2015, E:2013/1847, K:2015/2020.
  • Yargıtay 3. HD, 02.12.2004, E:2004/13018, K:2004/13409.
  • Yargıtay 4. HD, 14.05.1974, E:1973/2094, K:1974/2496.
  • Yargıtay 4. HD, 29.01.1980, E:1979/10780, K:1980/991.
  • Yargıtay 4. HD, 17.06.2003, E:2002/14825, K:2003/8201.
  • Yargıtay 11. HD, 13.02.2001, E:2000/10659, K:2001/1904.
  • Yargıtay 11. HD, 18.10.2001, E:2001/5995, K:2001/8030.
  • Yargıtay 11. HD, 06.10.2016, E:2016/725, K:2016/7777.
  • Yargıtay 13. HD, 16.04.1974, E:1974/439, K:1974/923.
  • Yargıtay 13. HD, 25.12.1995, E:1995/10533, K:1995/11673.
  • Yargıtay 13. HD, 17.04.2012, E: 2012/8426, K:2012/10349
  • Yargıtay 13. HD, 13.11.2012, E: 2011/19737, K:2012/25406
  • Yargıtay 15. HD, 26.12.1978, E:1978/2090, K:1978:2486.
  • Yargıtay 15. HD, 18.03.1986, E:1985/3919, K:1986/1044.
  • Yargıtay 15. HD, 09.05.1994, E:1994/408, K:1994/2970.
  • Yargıtay 15. HD, 08.10.1998, E:1998/3612, K:1998/3775.
  • Yargıtay 15. HD, 27.06.2007, E:2007/2145, K:2007/4389.
  • Yargıtay 15. HD, 25.12.2007, E:2007/429, K:2007/8164.
  • Yargıtay 15. HD, 17.11.2008, E:2008/5601, K:2008/6837.
  • Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v Benetton International NV, C-126/97, ECR 1999 I-03055.
  • İsviçre Federal Mahkemesi, BGE 118 II 193 (1992)
  • İsviçre Federal Mahkemesi, BGE 132 III 389 (2006).
  • İsviçre Federal Mahkemesi, BGE 141 III 201 (2015)
  • İsviçre Federal Mahkemesi, 4P.119/1998, ASA Bulletin 1999, s.529. (Yayımlanmamış karar)
  • Meadows Indemnity v. Baccala & Shoop Insurance Services, 760 F Supp 1036, (EDNY 1991)
  • Mitsubishi v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. 614 (1985).
There are 91 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Hilmi Bolatoğlu This is me

Publication Date December 1, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017 Volume: 7 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Bolatoğlu, H. (2017). Rekabet Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkime Elverişliliğine İlişkin Hukuki Çerçeve. Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 305-332.
AMA Bolatoğlu H. Rekabet Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkime Elverişliliğine İlişkin Hukuki Çerçeve. HHFD. December 2017;7(2):305-332.
Chicago Bolatoğlu, Hilmi. “Rekabet Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkime Elverişliliğine İlişkin Hukuki Çerçeve”. Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 7, no. 2 (December 2017): 305-32.
EndNote Bolatoğlu H (December 1, 2017) Rekabet Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkime Elverişliliğine İlişkin Hukuki Çerçeve. Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 7 2 305–332.
IEEE H. Bolatoğlu, “Rekabet Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkime Elverişliliğine İlişkin Hukuki Çerçeve”, HHFD, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 305–332, 2017.
ISNAD Bolatoğlu, Hilmi. “Rekabet Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkime Elverişliliğine İlişkin Hukuki Çerçeve”. Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 7/2 (December 2017), 305-332.
JAMA Bolatoğlu H. Rekabet Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkime Elverişliliğine İlişkin Hukuki Çerçeve. HHFD. 2017;7:305–332.
MLA Bolatoğlu, Hilmi. “Rekabet Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkime Elverişliliğine İlişkin Hukuki Çerçeve”. Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 7, no. 2, 2017, pp. 305-32.
Vancouver Bolatoğlu H. Rekabet Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkime Elverişliliğine İlişkin Hukuki Çerçeve. HHFD. 2017;7(2):305-32.