TÜKETİCİLER İÇİN İYİ HABER Mİ KÖTÜ HABER Mİ?: AŞIRI FİYAT UYGULAMALARINDA AB MAHKEMELERİNİN YENİ İSTİKAMETİ

Year 2019, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 87 - 114, 25.06.2019

Eda Şahin

Abstract

Tekel ya da hâkim durumda bulunan
teşebbüslerin aşırı fiyat uygulaması, tüketicileri aldıkları mal veya hizmete
rekabetçi fiyatın çok üzerinde bir fiyat ödemeye mahkûm etmektedir. Doğrudan
tüketici zararına yol açmasına rağmen aşırı fiyatın tanımı, aşırı fiyatlamanın
nasıl tespit edileceği, tespit edilmesi halinde bu fiyatlara müdahale edilip
edilmeyeceği ve müdahale edilecekse hangi pazarların müdahaleye uygun olduğu hususları
belirsizliğini korumaktadır. Çalışmamız, tüm bu hususları şu ana dek Avrupa Birliği
Adalet Divanı tarafından oluşturulan içtihatlar ve doktrindeki görüşler
kapsamında inceleyecek, aşırı fiyatlama analizi ve bu analizde yaşanan sorunlara
ışık tutacaktır. Bu noktada söz konusu sorunların rekabet hukukunun
amaçlarından olan tüketici refahını sağlamanın önündeki engellerden biri
olduğuna dikkat çekilecektir. Sonrasında Divan’ın son içtihadı ile ortaya çıkan
yaklaşım değişikliği ve bu değişikliğin tüketiciler bakımından olası
yansımaları tartışılacaktır.

Keywords

Sömürücü Davranışlar, Aşırı Fiyatlandırma, Tüketici Zararı

IS IT BAD NEWS OR GOOD NEWS FOR CONSUMERS?: A NEW DIRECTION OF THE EU COURTS’ JURISPRUDENCE ON EXCESSIVE PRICES

Abstract

Consumers
have to pay over-competitive prices for the goods and services they purchased
due to the excessive prices charged by monopolies and dominant undertakings. Although
the infringement caused a direct loss to consumers, there has been uncertainty about
the definition of excessive prices, the proper way to identify excessive prices, the need
for intervention by competition authorities and which markets
are candidates for intervention. This article seeks address these uncertainties,
considering the EU case law and relevant literature and sheds light on the excessive
pricing analysis and the problems associated with this analysis. It draws
attention to the fact that these uncertainties make it difficult to realise one
of the goals of competition law, ie consumer welfare. Subsequently, the article
looks to the change in approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union
in its recent decision and the possible implications of this change for consumers.

Keywords

Exploitative Practices, Excessive Pricing, Consumer Loss

References

• Almunia, Joaquin, (2010), ‘Competition and Consumers: The Future of EU Competition Policy’, speech at European Competition Day, Madrid, <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-10-233_en.pdf> s.e.t. 17 Aralık 2018. Akman, Pınar (2008), ‘Exploitative Abuse in Article 82EC: Back to Basics?’, University of East Anglia, CCP Working Paper no: 09-1, <http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.105848!ccp09-1.pdf> s.e.t. 17 Aralık 2018. Akman, Pınar (2009), ‘Searching for the Long-Lost Soul of Article 82 EC’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, S:29. Akman, Pınar (2010), 'The European Commission’s Guidance on Article 102TFEU: From Inferno to Paradiso?', Modern Law Review, S:73, C:4. Akman, Pınar & Garrod, Luke (2010), ‘When Are Excessive Prices Unfair?”’, University of East Anglia, CCP Working Paper no: 10-4, <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1578181> s.e.t. 17 Aralık 2018. Akman, Pınar (2016), ‘The Reform of The Applicatıon of Article 102 TFEU: Mission Accomplished?’, Antitrust Law Journal, S:81, C:1. Bishop, Simon & Walker, Mike (2010), The Economics of EC Competition Law: Concepts, Application and Measurement, 3. Bası, London, Sweet & Maxwell. Dörter, Pınar (2008), ‘Avrupa Toplulukları Adalet Divanı’nda Ön Karar Usulü ile Görülen Davalar’ (Yüksek Li̇sans) Dokuz Eylül Üni̇versi̇tesi̇ Sosyal Bi̇li̇mler Ensti̇tüsü, <http://dspace.deu.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/12345/11155/226860.pdf?sequence=1> s.e.t. 17 Aralık 2018. Ezrachi, Ariel & Gilo, David, (2008) ‘Are Excessive Prices Really Self-Correcting?’, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, S:5. Evans, David & Padilla, Atilano J. (2005), ‘Excessive Prices: Using Economics to Define Administrable Legal Rules’, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, S:97, C:1. Fox, Eleanor M. (1986), ‘Monopolization and Dominance in the United States and the European Community: Efficiency, Opportunity and Fairness’, Notre Dame Law Review, S:61. Furse, Mar (2008)., ‘Excessive Prices, Unfair Prices and Economic Value: The Law of Excessive Pricing under Article 82 EC and the Chapter II Prohibition’ European Competition Journal, S:59. Gal, Michael S. (2004), ‘Monopoly Pricing as an Antitrust Offense in the US and the EC: Two Systems of Belief about Monopoly?’, New York University Law and Economics Working Papers, no: 15, <http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=nyu_lewp> s.e.t. 17 Aralık 2018. Gerard, Damien M.B. (2005), 'Price Discrimination under Article 82 (2) (C) EC: Clearing up the Ambiguities', Global Competition Law Centre Research Paper on the Modernisation of Article 82 EC, <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1113354> s.e.t. 17 Aralık 2018. Gerber, David J. (1998), Law and Competition in Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Hordijk, Erik P., ‘Excessive Pricing Under EC Competition Law: An Update in the Light of Dutch Developments’: Hawk, Barry (editör) (2002) International Antitrust Law and Policy: Fordham Corporate Law Institute Annual Proceedings 2001, New York, Juris Publishing. Hou, Liyang (2011), ‘Excessive Prices within EU Competition Law’, European Competition Journal, S:47, C:7. Hubert, Patrick & Combet, Marie-Laure (2011), 'Exploitative Abuse: The End of the Paradox?', Concurrences Doctrines, S:I, C:1. Joliet, Rene (1970), Monopolization and Abuse of Dominant Position, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff. Kroes, Neelie, ‘Tackling Exclusionary Practices to Avoid Exploitation of Market Power: Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Policy Review of Article 82’: Hawk, Barry (editör) (2006) International Antitrust Law and Policy: Fordham Corporate Law Institute Annual Proceedings 2005, New York, Juris Publishing. Lamadrid, Alfonso (2017), ‘On Excessive Pricing and Subjectivity- The CJEU’s Judgment in case C-177/16 AKKA/LAA’, Chilling Competition, <https://chillingcompetition.com/2017/09/28/on-excessive-pricing-and-subjectivity-the-cjeus-judgment-in-case-c-17717-akkalaa/> s.e.t. 17 Aralık 2018. Lande, Robert H. & Averitt, Neil W. (2007), ‘Using the Consumer Choice Approach to Antitrust Law’, Antitrust Law Journal, S:74. Leslie, Charles R. (2006), 'Antitrust Damages and Deadweight Loss', Antitrust Bulletin, S:51, C:3. Lyons, Bruce (2007), ‘The Paradox of the Exclusion of Exploitative Abuse’: The Pros and Cons of High Prices, Swedish Competition Authority. Marshall, Alfred (1890), Principles of Economics, London, Macmillan. Motta, Massimo & de Streel, Alexandre, ‘Exploitative and Exclusionary Excessive Prices in EU Law’: Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter & Atanasıu, Isabella (editörler) (2006), European Competition Law Annual 2003: What Is an Abuse of a Dominant Position?, Oxford, Hart Publishing. O’Donoghue, Robert & Padilla, Atilano J. (2013), The Law and Economics of Article 102 TFEU, Oxford, Hart Publishing. Paulis, Emil, ‘Article 82 EC and Exploitative Conduct’: Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter & Marquis, Mel (editörler) (2008) European Competition Law Annual 2007: A Reformed Approach to Article 82 EC, Oxford, Hart Publishing. Pozdnakova, Alla (2010), ‘Excessive Pricing and the Prohibition of the Abuse of a Dominant Position’, World Competition, S:33, C:1. Quitzow, Carl M. (2001), State Measures Distorting Free Competition in the EC: A Study of the Need for a New Community Policy Towards Anti-Competitive State Measures in the EMU Perspective, The Netherland, Kluwer Law International. Röller, Lars-Hendrik, ‘Exploitative Abuses’: Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter & Marquis, Mel (editörler) (2008) European Competition Law Annual 2007: A Reformed Approach to Article 82 EC, Oxford, Hart Publishing. Sanlı, Kerem C. (2010), ‘Rekabet Hukukunda Tekelci Fiyatlandırma’: Perşembe Konferansları 10, Ankara, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları. Schmidt, K.S Hedvig., 'Private Enforcement - Is Article 82 EC special? ': Mackenrodt, Mark-Oliver & Gallego, Beatriz C. & Enchelmaier, Stefan (editörler) (2010) Abuse of Dominant Position: New Interpretation, New Enforcement Mechanisms?, Berlin, Springer. Schumpeter, Joseph A., ‘History of Economic Analysis’: Schumpeter, E. Boody (editör) (1954), New York, Oxford University Press. Spiegel, Henry W., ‘Scholastic Economic Thought’: J. Eatwell, M. Milgate ve P. Newman (editörler) (1991), The World of Economics, London, The New Palgrave. Tirole, Jean (1988), The Theory of Industrial Organization, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Ünal, Çiğdem (2010), ‘Rekabet Hukukunda Tek Taraflı Sömürücü Davranışlar’, Rekabet Dergisi, S:11, C:4. Whish, Richard & Bailey, David (2012), Competition Law, 7. Bası, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Avrupa Komisyonu Dökümanları
• AB Komisyonu, DG Competition Discussion Paper on the Application of the Treaty to Exclusionary Abuses, (Brussels, 2005), <http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/art82/discpaper2005.pdf> s.e.t. 17 Aralık 2018 (“Discussion Paper”). AB Komisyonu, Guidance on the Commission’s Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 EC Treaty to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings, (Brussels, 2009/C45/02, 2009), <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:045:0007:0020:EN:PDF> s.e.t. 17 Aralık 2018. AB Komisyonu, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, Excessive Prices (DAF/COMP/WP2/WD(2011)54, Brussels, 2011). AB Komisyonu, Staff Working Document: Practical Guide Quantifying Harm in Actions for Damages based on Breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Accompaying the Communication from the Commission on quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (SWD(2013) 205, Strasbourg, 2013). Oxera & Komninos Assimakis & others, Quantifying Antitrust Damages - Towards Non-binding Guidance for Courts, Study Prepared for the Commission (Luxembourg, 2009).
• Avrupa Komisyonu Kararları
• AB Komisyonu, 75/75/EEC General Motors Continental [1975] OJ L 29/14, [1975] 1 CMLR D20. AB Komisyonu, 76/353/EEC Chiquita [1976] OJ L 95/1. AB Komisyonu, 84/379/EEC British Leyland [1984] OJ L 207/11. AB Komisyonu, 2001/463/EC DSD (Duales System Deutschland) (COMP D3/34493) [2001] OJ L 166/1. AB Komisyonu, Deutsche Post AG — Interception of cross-border mail [2001] OJ L 331/40, [2002] 4 CMLR 598. AB Komisyonu, COMP/C-1/37.451, 37.578, 37.579 Deutsche Telekom AG [2003] OJ L263/9. AB Komisyonu, COMP/36.568/D3 Scandlines Sverige AB v Port of Helsingborg [2004]. AB Komisyonu, COMP/38.784 Wanadoo España v Telefónica [2007] OJ C 83/6. AB Komisyonu, COMP/38.636 Rambus [2009].
• ABAD Kararları
• Case 6/72 Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company Inc. v Commission [1973] ECR 00215. Case 26/75 General Motors v Commission [1975] ECR 1367, [1976] 1 CMLR 95. Case 27/76 United Brands Company and United Brands Continentaal BV v Commission of the European Communities - Chiquita Bananas [1978] ECR 207, [1978] 1 CMLR 429. Case 226/84 British Leyland Public Limited Company v Commission [1985] ECR 3300-3306. Case 30/87 Corinne Bodson v Pompes Funebres des régions libérées SA [1988] ECR. 2479, [1989] 4 CMLR 984. Joined Cases 110/88, 241/88 and 242/88 Lucazeau and others v SACEM [1989] ECR 281. Case C-395/87 Ministère public v Jean-Louis Tournier [1989] ECR 2521, [1991] 4 CMLR 248. Joined Cases C-241/91 and C-242/91 P, Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v Commission [1995] ECR 743. Case C-418/01, IMS Health GmbH & Co OHG v NDC Health GmbH & Co KG [2004] ECR I-5039. Case C 159/08 P Isabella Scippacercola ve Ioannis Terezakis v Commission [2009] ECR I-46. Case C-385/07P Der Grüne Punkt - DSD v Commission [2009] ECR I-06155. Case C-177/16 Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība’ v Konkurences padome [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2017:689 (henüz rapor edilmemiş). Kanun Sözcüsü Wahl’ın AKKA/LAA davasına ilişkin görüşü, para 8, <http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=189662&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1273145> s.e.t. 17 Aralık 2018.
• Diğer Kaynaklar
• 4054 sayılı Kanun’un Madde Gerekçeleri, Madde 6’nın gerekçesi, <https://www.rekabet.gov.tr/tr/Sayfa/Mevzuat/4054-sayili-kanun/madde-gerekceleri> s.e.t. 17 Aralık 2018. Verizon Communications Inc v Law Offices of Curtis Trinko 540 US 398 [2004]. Attheraces Ltd v The British Horseracing Board Ltd [2005] EXCH 3015, [2005] UKCLR 757. OECD (2011), Quantification of Harm to Competition by National Courts and Competition Agencies (DAF/COMP(2011)25, <http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/QuantificationofHarmtoCompetition2011.pdf> s.e.t. 17 Aralık 2018.