AB REKABET HUKUKUNDA İKİNCİL SEVİYE FİYAT AYRIMCILIĞI – ETKİ TEMELLİ PERSPEKTİFTEN DEĞERLENDİRME

Yıl 2014, Sayı: 59, 37 - 73, 01.09.2014

Çiğdem Tunçel

Öz

Avrupa Birliği’nin İşleyişine Dair Anlaşma’nın ABİDA 102 c maddesi, hâkim durumda bulunan teşebbüslerin, ticaret ortaklarıyla yaptığı eşit işlemlere farklı koşullar uygulayarak onları rekabetçi açıdan dezavantajlı konuma düşürmesini yasaklamaktadır. Bu alanda çalışan akademisyenler arasında ABİDA’nın anılan maddesinin sadece ikincil seviye ayrımcılığı yasakladığı yönünde geniş bir görüş birliği bulunmaktadır. İkincil seviye ayrımcılık, dikey bütünleşik olmayan teşebbüslerin rekabet içerisinde olmadığı müşterilerine yönelik olarak yaptığı ayrımcılık olup, genelde etkinlik sağlayan ve refahı artıran yaygın bir ticari uygulama olarak görülmektedir. Bu nedenle literatürde, bu tür ayrımcılık uygulamalarının her olayın kendine özgü koşulları çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi gerektiği ve ABİDA’nın 102 c maddesinin sınırlı olarak uygulanması gerektiği savunulmaktadır.Literatürdeki bu yaklaşıma karşın, Avrupa Komisyonunun ve Avrupa Mahkemelerinin ikincil seviye ayrımcılık uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesi konusunda net ve tutarlı bir çerçeve çizmiş olduğunu söylemek güçtür. Bunun yanı sıra, amacı 102. madde uygulamasına etki temelli bir yaklaşım getirmek ve açıklık ile öngörülebilirliği sağlamak olan Avrupa Komisyonunun dışlayıcı davranışlara yönelik uygulama önceliklerine ilişkin Kılavuz’da Kılavuz da ayrımcılık konusu ele alınmamıştır. Bu nedenle, ikincil seviye ayrımcılığın ne şekilde değerlendirileceği hususu 102. madde uygulamasında belirsiz bir alan olarak durmaktadır. Çalışmada, bu belirsizlikten yola çıkılarak ve ikincil seviye ayrımcılık uygulamalarının Avrupa Birliği rekabet hukukunun diğer alanlarında uygulanmakta olan etki temelli yaklaşımdan ayrı tutulamayacağı düşüncesinden hareketle ikincil seviye fiyat ayrımcılığının etki temelli yaklaşım çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesine yönelik bir analitik çerçeve sunulması amaçlanmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

İkincil Seviye, Fiyat Ayrımcılığı, Rekabetçi Dezavantaj, Etki Temelli Yaklaşım, Kılavuz

SECONDARY-LINE PRICE DISCRIMINATION UNDER EUROPEAN COMPETITION LAW – AN ASSESSMENT FROM AN EFFECTS-BASED PERSPECTIVE

Öz

Article 102 c of the TFEU prohibits “applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage”. There is a broad consensus among scholars that this provision is merely directed at secondary-line discrimination, namely discrimination imposed by a non-vertically integrated dominant undertaking on its customers with whom it does not compete with. Secondary-line discrimination is a common business practice which generally has an efficiency rationale and in most instances welfare improving. Thus, it is widely argued that it should be assessed cautiously. However, the case law of the European Commission and the European Courts does not provide a clear and consistent framework for assessment of secondaryline discrimination. Besides, it is an omitted field of law in the modernisation process of Article 102 enforcement, i.e. the Guidance Paper, which is aimed at introducing a more effects-based approach to Article 102 enforcement and providing clarity and predictability, does not adress discrimination. Because of these reasons, the assessment of secondary-line discrimination still stays as an ambiguous area in the Article 102 enforcement. As the intention of the European Commission to adopt an effects-based approach in all areas of competition law is clear, it is thought that secondary-line discrimination cannot be abstracted from such an approach. Therefore, in this study, it is aimed at proposing an analytical framework for the assessment of secondary-line discrimination from an effects-based perspective

Anahtar Kelimeler

Secondary-line, Price Discrimination, Competitive Disadvantage, Effects-based Approach, Guidance Paper

Kaynakça

• AGUIRRE, I., S. COWAN and J. VICKERS (2010), “Monopoly Price
• Discrimination and Demand Curvature”, Am Econ Rev, No:100(4), p.1601-15.
• AKMAN, P. (2012), The Concept of Abuse in EU Competition Law, Hart Publishing.
• ARMSTRONG, M. (2006), “Price Discrimination”, http://else.econ.ucl.ac.uk/papers/uploaded/222.pdf, Date Accessed: 25.07.2013.
• BEARD, T. R., D. L. KASERMAN and M. L. STERN (2008), “Price
• Discrimination and Secondary-Line Competitive Injury: The Law versus the Economics”, The Antitrust Bulletin, No:53(1), p.75-93. BISHOP, S. (2005), “Delivering Benefits to Consumers or per se Illegal?
• Assessing the Competitive Effects of Loyalty Rebates”, Swedish Competition Authority (ed.), in The Pros and Cons of Price Discrimination, p. 65-100
• BISHOP, S. and M. WALKER (2010), The Economics of EC Competition Law
• Concepts, Application and Measurement, Third Edition, Sweet & Maxwell. BULMASH, H. (2012), “An Empirical Analysis of Secondary Line Price
• Discrimination Motivations”, JCLE, No:8(2), p.361-397. DeGRABA, P. (1990), “Input Market Price Discrimination and the Choice of
• Technology”, Am Econ Rev, No:80(5), p.1246-53.
• EAGCP (2005), “An Economic Approach to Article 82”, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/ competition/economist/eagcp_july_21_05.pdf, Date Accessed: 15.07.2013.
• FLETCHER, A. (2005), “The Reform of Article 82: Recommendations on Key
• Policy Objectives”, Competition Law Forum, Brussels, 15 March 2005, http:// www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/speeches/spe0205.pdf, Date Accessed: 28.07.2013.
• FURSE, M. (2001), “Monopoly Price Discrimination, Article 82 and the Competition Act”, ECLR, No:22(5), p.149-155.
• GEHRIG, T. P. and R. STENBACKA (2005), “Price Discrimination, Competition and Antitrust”, Swedish Competition Authority (ed.), in The Pros and Cons of
• Price Discrimination, p. 131-160. GERADIN, D. (2010), “Is the Guidance Paper on the Commission’s Enforcement
• Priorities in Applying Article 102 TFEU to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct Useful?”, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1569502, Date Accessed: 10.07.2013.
• GERADIN, D. and D. HENRY (2009), “Abuse of Dominance in the Postal Sector – The Contribution of the Guidance Paper on Article 82 EC”, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1435362, Date Accessed: 06.2013.
• GERADIN, D. and N. PETIT (2006), “Price Discrimination under EC
• Competition Law: Another Antitrust Doctrine in Search of Limiting Principles?”, JCLE, No:2(3), p.479-531. GERARD, D. (2005), “Price Discrimination under Article 82(2)(C) EC: Clearing up the Ambiguities”, GCLC Research Paper, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1113354, Date Accessed: 10.07.2013.
• GIFFORD, D. J. and R. T. KUDRLE (2010), “The Law and Economics of Price
• Discrimination in Modern Economies: Time for Reconciliation?”, U.C. Davis L. Rev., No:43(4), p.1235-93.
• GORMSEN, L. L. (2010), A Principled Approach to Abuse of Dominance In
• European Competition Law, Cambridge University Press. HOVENKAMP, H. (1999), Federal Antitrust Policy The Law of Competition and Its Practice, Second Edition, West Group.
• JONES, A. and B. SUFRIN (2011), EU Competition Law, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press.
• KATZ, M. (1987), “The Welfare Effects of Third-Degree Price Discrimination in
• Intermediate Good Market”, Am Econ Rev, No:77(1), p. 154-167. KLEIN, B. (2008), “Price Discrimination and Market Power”, http://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1657202, Date Accessed: 20.07.2013.
• KROES N. (2005), “Preliminary Thoughts on Policy Review of Article 82”
• Fordham Corporate Law Institute, NewYork, 23 November 2005, http://europa. eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/537&format=HTML& aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en, Date Accessed: 22.06.2013.
• LAGE, S. M. and R. ALLENDESALAZAR (2006), “Community Policy on
• Discriminatory Pricing: A Practitioner’s Perspective”, C. D. Ehlermann and I. Atanasiu (eds.), in What is an Abuse of a Dominant Position?, Hart Publishing, p. 325-354. LANG J. T. and R. O’DONOGHUE (2002), “Defining Legitimate Competition
• How to Clarify Pricing Abuses Under Article 82 EC”, Fordham Int’l LJ, No:26(1), p.83-162. LANGENFELD, J., L. WENQING and G. SCHINK (2003), “Economic Literature on Price Discrimination and Its Application to the Uniform Pricing of Gasoline”
• Int J of the Economics of Business, No:10(2), p.179-193. MONTI, M. (2006), “8th EU Competition Law and Policy Workshop, Florence, 7 June 2003”, C. D. Ehlermann and I. Atanasiu (eds.), in What is an abuse of a dominant position, Hart Publishing, p. 3.
• MOTTA, M. (2004), Competition Policy Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press.
• NAHATA, B., K. OSTASZEWSKI and P. K. SAHOO (1990), “Direction of
• Price Changes in Third-Degree Price Discrimination”, Am Econ Rev, No:80(5), p.1254-58.
• NAZZINI, R. (2011), The Foundations of European Union Competition Law
• Oxford University Press. OFT (2004), “Draft Guidelines on Assessment of Conduct”, http://www.oft.gov. uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/competition_law/oft414a.pdf, Date Accessed: 06.2013.
• O’DONOGHUE, R. (2006), “Over-Regulating Lower Prices-Time for a Rethink on Pricing Abuses under Article 82 EC”, C. D. Ehlermann and I. Atanasiu (eds.), in What is an abuse of a dominant position?, Hart Publishing, p. 371-426.
• O’DONOGHUE, R. and A. J. PADILLA (2006), The Law and Economics of
• Article 82 EC, Hart Publishing. PACE, L. F. (2007), European Antitrust Law, Edward Elgar Publishing.
• PAPANDROPOULOS, P. (2007), “How Should Price Discrimination be Dealt with by Competition Authorities?”, Concurrences, No:3, p. 34-38.
• P’BRIEN, D. P. and G. SCHAFFER (1994), “The Welfare Effects of Forbidding
• Discriminatory Discounts: A Secondary Line Analysis of Robinson-Patman”, J Law Econ, No:10(2), p.296-318. PEEPERKORN, L. (2009), “Price Discrimination and Exploitation”, B. E. Hawk
• (ed.), in International Antitrust Law & Policy, Juris Publishing, p. 611-634. PERROT, A. (2005), “Towards an Effects-Based Approach of Price
• Discrimination”, Swedish Competition Authority (ed.), in The Pros and Cons of Price Discrimination, p. 161-186. RIDYARD, D. (2002), “Exclusionary Pricing and Price Discrimination Abuses under Article 82-an Economic Analysis”, ECLR, No: 23(6), p.286-303.
• SCHAMALANSEE, R. (1981), “Output and Welfare Implications of Monopolistic
• Third-Degree Price Discrimination”, Am Econ Rev, No:71(1), p.242-247. SCHERER, F. M. and D. Ross (1990), Industrial Market Structure and Economic
• Performance, Third Edition, Houghton Mifflin Co. SCHWARTZ, M. (1990), “Third Degree Price Discrimination and Output
• Generalizing a Welfare Result”, Am Econ Rev, No:80(5), p.1259-62.
• SULLIVAN, E. T. and H. HOVENKAMP (1999), Antitrust Law, Policy and Procedure, Fourth Edition, Lexis Law Publishing.
• TIROLE, J. (1998), The Theory of Industrial Organization, Tenth Edition, The MIT Press.
• VARIAN, H. R. (1985), “Price Discrimination and Social Welfare”, Am Econ Rev, No: 75(4), p.870-875.
• WHISH, R. and D. BAILEY (2012), Competition Law, Seventh Edition, Oxford University Press.
• YOSHIDA, Y. (2000), “Third-Degree Price Discrimination in Input Markets
• Output and Welfare”, Am Econ Rev, No: 90(1), p.240-246. TABLE OF CASES Commission Decisions Michelin (Case IV.29.491) Commission Decision 81/969/EEC [1981] OJ L353/33
• HOV SVZ/MCN (Case IV/33.941) Commission Decision 94/210/EC [1994] OJ L104/34.
• Brussels National Airport Commission Decision 95/364/EC [1995] OJ L216/8
• Alpha Flight Services/Aéroports de Paris (Case IV/35.613) Commission Decision OJ L230/10 Football World Cup (Case IV/36.888) Commission Decision 2000/12/EC OJ 2000 L5/55.
• Virgin/British Airways (Case IV/D-2/34.780) Commission Decision 2000/74/EC OJ L 30/1.
• Soda-Ash-Solvay (Case IV/33.133) Commission Decision C 91/299/EEC [2003] OJ L10/10.
• Clearstream (Case COMP/38.096) Commission Decision 2009/C 165/05 [2005] CMLR 1302.
• Scandlines v Port of Helsingborg (Case COMP/A.36.568) [2006] 4 CMLR 1298.
• Judgements of the General Court T-228/97 Irish Sugar v Commission [1999] ECR II-2969.
• T-128/98 Aeroports de Paris v Commission [2000] ECR II-3933.
• T-219/99 British Airways v Commission [2003] ECR II-5917.
• T-203/01 Michelin v Commission [2003] ECR II-4082.
• Judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union C-13/63 Italy v Commission [1963] ECR 165.
• C-40 to 48, 50, 54 to 56, 111, 113 and 114/73 Coöperatieve Vereniging “Suiker Unie” v Commission [1975] ECR 1663.
• C-27/76 United Brands v Commission [1978] ECR 207.
• C-85/76 Hoffman-La Roche v Commission [1979] ECR 461.
• C-322/81 Michelin v Commission [1983] ECR 3461.
• C-18/93 Corsica Ferries v Corpo dei Piloti del Porto di Genovo [1994] ECR I-1783.
• C-163/99 Portugal v Commission [2001] ECR I-2613.
• C-95/04P British Airways v Commission [2006] ECR II-2969