DEVELOPMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTING CONDITIONS OF ESSENTIAL FACILITIES DOCTRINE IN EUROPEAN UNION COMPETITION LAW: CASE ANALYSIS

Öz

Under the principle of contractual freedom, whether in a dominant position or not, all the undertakings shall have the freedom of not to deal or the freedom of to determine the other party, scope, content, duration and other similar terms of the agreement. On the other hand, in order to protect free and fair competition, the actions of the dominant undertakings in the relevant market are supervised within the framework of the competition rules. 

As a result of this control, in some exceptional cases and under the prohibition of abuse of right, the undertaking in the dominant position could be obliged to make a deal about the concrete case. The other exceptional limitation, for the dominant undertakings in the context of competition rules, could be done under the essential facilities doctrine, which is another output of the prohibition of abuse of rights. The difference between the obligation to make a deal and essential facilities doctrine, that itself also is a type of obligation to make a deal, is that the doctrine could limit the right of property exceptionally in accordance with the principle of proportionality and without giving any harm to the essence of the right.

In this study, by examining the related decisions of the European Court of Justice and Commission, it has been tried to explain, under which exceptional conditions the principle of freedom to deal could be limited by the essential facilities doctrine in terms of dominant undertakings and the development of implementing conditions of essential facilities doctrine.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Freedom to deal,dominant position,obligation to make a deal,essential facilities doctrine,European Union,Union law,implementing conditions,essential facilities,compulsory licensing,competition law

ZORUNLU UNSUR DOKTRİNİNİN UYGULAMA KOŞULLARININ AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ REKABET HUKUKUNDA GELİŞİMİ: VAKA ANALİZLERİ

Öz

Hakim durumda olsun olmasın, her teşebbüs anlaşma yapma özgürlüğü ilkesi çerçevesinde anlaşma yapmama veya yapacağı anlaşmanın karşı tarafını, kapsam ve içeriğini, süresini ve benzeri koşullarını serbestçe belirleme özgürlüğüne sahiptir. Buna karşılık, serbest ve adil rekabetin korunması amacıyla hakim durumdaki teşebbüslerin ilgili pazardaki hareketleri, rekabet kuralları çerçevesinde denetlenmektedir. Bu denetim neticesinde, kimi istisnai hallerde ve hakkın kötüye kullanılması yasağı kapsamında hakim durumdaki teşebbüse somut olayda anlaşma yapma yükümlülüğü getirilebilmektedir. Hakkın kötüye kullanılması yasağının başka bir çıktısı olarak hakim durumdaki teşebbüslere rekabet kuralları bağlamında getirilebilen diğer istisnai nitelikteki sınırlandırma da zorunlu unsur doktrini çerçevesinde yapılır. Anlaşma yapma yükümlülüğünün bir çeşidi olan zorunlu unsur doktrininin anlaşma yapma yükümlülüğünden farkı, işbu doktrinin mutlak bir hak olan mülkiyet hakkına da dokunarak istisnai hallerde –hakkın özüne dokunulmaması ve orantılılık ilkeleri doğrultusunda- mülkiyet hakkını sınırlandırabilmesidir.

Bu çalışmada, anlaşma yapma özgürlüğü genel ilkesinin, hakim durumdaki teşebbüsler bakımından zorunlu unsur doktrini uygulanarak, hangi istisnai koşullar altında sınırlandırılabileceği ve zorunlu unsur doktrininin uygulama koşullarının gelişimi, Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı ve Komisyonun önüne gelen çeşitli vakalara ilişkin kararların incelenmesi neticesinde anlatılmaya çalışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Anlaşma yapma özgürlüğü,hakim durum,anlaşma yapma yükümlülüğü,zorunlu unsur doktrini,esaslı unsur,rekabet hukuku,Avrupa Birliği,Birlik hukuku,uygulama koşulları,zorunlu unsur,zorunlu lisanslama

Kaynakça

1. • Ali Demiröz, “Sözleşme Yapmayı Reddetme Bağlamında Hakim Durumdaki Teşebbüslere Getirilen Yükümlülüklerin Sınırları”, Rekabet Kurumu, http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT/Documents/Diğer+Etkinlik/alidemiroz.pdf
2. • Christopher Stothers, Parallel Trade in Europe: Intellectual Property, Competition and Regulatory Law, Hart publishing, Oxford, 2007
3. • Damien Geradin, “Limiting the Scope of Article 82 of the EC Treaty: What can the EU learn from the US Supreme Court’s Judgment İn Trinko in the Wake of Microsoft, IMS and Deutsche Telekom?”, Common Market Law Review, 2005, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=617263
4. • David W. Hull, James R. Atwood, James B. Perine, “Intellectual Property: Compulsory Licensing”, The European Antitrust Review, 2002, http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/020522hulldoc.pdf
5. • Dimitrijs Nemirovskis, “Mandatory Dealing in the Eurpoen Union Law: The way of Thorns”, International University Audentes Student Law Journal, ELSA SPEL, Cilt: 1, 2005
6. • Erika Szyszczak, “Controlling Dominance in European Markets”, Fordham International Law Journal, Berkeley Electronic Press, Cilt: 33, Sayı: 6, 2011
7. • Estelle Derclaye, “The IMS Health Decision: A Triple Victory”, (IMS), World Competition, Cilt:27, Sayı: 3, 2004
8. • Estelle Derclaye, “Abuse of a Dominant Position and Intellectual Property Rights: A Suggestion to Reconcile the Community Courts Case Law”, Competition, Regulation and the New Economy (CRNE) (Ed. Cosmo Graham ve Fiona Smith), Hart Publishing, Oregon, USA, 2004

9. • Haris Apostolopoulos, “Refusal-to Deal Cases If IP Rights at the Aftermarket in the US and EU Law: Converging of Both Law Systems Through Speaking the Same Language of Law and Economics”, Chicago-Kent, Journal of International and Comparative Law, Cilt: 7, 2007
10. • Ian S. Forrester, “Compulsory Licensing In Europe: A Rare Cure To Aberrant National Intellectual Property Rights?”, 2002, http://www.whitecase.com/Publications/Detail.aspx?publication=241#.U96PVfl_uSo
11. • James Killick, “IMS and Microsoft Judged in the Cold Light of IMS”, The Competition Law Review, Cilt: 1, Sayı: 2, 2004
12. • James Turney, “Defining the Limits of the EU Essential Facilities Doctrine on Intellectual Property Rights: The Primacy of Securing Optimal Innovation”, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Cilt: 3, Sayı: 2, 2005
13. • Jarrod Tudor, Compulsory Licensing in the European Union, Geo. Mason Journal Int’L Com. Law, Vol.4, Issue. 2, 2012, pp.222-258
14. • Jonathan S.Wolfe, Richard Montauk, “Anti-trust in the European Economic Community: An Analysis of Recent Developments in the Court of Justice”, Santa Clara Law Review, Cilt: 18, Sayı: 2, 1978
15. • Marjolein Tapking, Refusal to Supply Customers Under Article 82 EC, (Master Tezi), Université de Genéve, Faculté de Droit, 2008, http://www.unige.ch/droit/mbl/upload/pdf/MEMOIRE_Marjolein_Tapking.pdf
16. • Mustafa Ateş, “Fikri Mülkiyet Koruması ve Rekabet Hukuku Taslak Tebliği”, Rekabet Kurumu ve Erciyes Üniversitesi İşbirliği ile Rekabet Hukukunda Güncel Gelişmeler Sempozyumu – VII, Erciyes Üniversitesi ve Rekabet Kurulu, Kayseri, 17-18.04.2009, http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT/Documents/Etkinlik+Kitabı/etkinlikkitap25.pdf
17. • Osman Berat Gürzumar, Zorunlu Unsur Doktrinine Dayalı Sözleşme Yapma Yükümlülüğü, Seçkin, Ankara, 2006
18. • Roger J. Vander Bergh, Peter D. Camesasca, European Competition Law and Economics: A Comparative Perspective, Intersentia – Hart, Oxford, 2001
19. • Sebastian J. Evrard, Essential Facilities in the European Union: Bronner and Beyond, Columbia Journal of European Law, Vol.10, Issue. 3, 2004, https://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/e2d79ea9-8440-49e6-a879-c834f4b0b557/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/9cf89b02-295b-43cf-8a00-3cbea13a85bf/Article%20essential%20facilities.pdf
20. • Serdar Nart, “Rekabetin Korunması Kapsamında Fikri ve Sınai Hakların Sınırları”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt:11, Sayı:1, 2009
21. • Sergio Baches Opi, “The Application of the Essential Facilities Doctrine to Intellectual Property Licensing in the European Union and the United States: Are Intellectual Property Rights Still Sacrosanct?”, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, Cilt: 11, Sayı: 2, 2001
22. • Sigfrido M. Ramirez Perez ve Sebastian van de Scheur, “The Evolution of the Law on Article 85 and 86 EEC (Articles 101 and 102 TFEU): Ordoliberalism and its Keynesian Challenge”, The Historical Foundations of EU Competition Law (Ed. Kiran Klaus Patel, Heike Schweitzer), Oxford, 2013
23. • Simon Bishop, Mike Walker, The Economics of EC Competition Law: Concepts, Application and Measurement, Sweet & Maxwell, United Kingdom, 2010
24. • Steven Anderman ve Hedvig Schmidt, “EC Competition Policy and IPRs”, The Interface Between Intellectual Property Rights, (Ed. Steven Anderman), Cambridge, 2007
25. • Steven D. Anderman, EC Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: The Regulation of Innovation, (ECCL), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998
26. • Steven Anderman, “Does the Microsoft Case Offer a New Paradigm for the ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ Test and Compulsory Copyright Licenses under EC Competition Law?”, Competition Law Review, Cilt: 1, Sayı: 2, 2004
27. • Şahin Yavuz, “Avrupa Topluluğu Rekabet Hukukunda Fikri Mülkiyetin Zorunlu Lisanslaması: IMS Davası ve Bazı Yanılsamalar”, Rekabet Kurumu Rekabet Dergisi, Sayı: 22, http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2FDocuments%2FRekabet%2BDergisi%2Fdergi22.pdf
28. • Valentine Korah, Access to Essential Facilities under the Commerce Act in the Light of Experience in Australia, the European Union and the United States, Victoria University of Welling Law Review Journal (VUWLR), Vol.31, 2000, pp.231-254, https://www.victoria.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/838757/Korah.pdf
29. • Valentine Korah, “The Interface between Intellectual Property and Antitrust: The European Experience”, Antitrust Law Journal (ATLJ), Cilt: 69, Sayı: 3, 2002, ss.801-839
30. • Valentine Korah, An Introductory Guide to EC Competition Law and Practice, 8. Baskı, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2004
31. • Valentine Korah, "The Interface Between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition in Developed Countries", SCRIPTed, Cilt: 2, Sayı: 4, 2005
32. • Yaşar Tekdemir, AT Rekabet Hukukunda Anlaşma Yapmayı Reddetme Sorunu ve Zorunlu Unsur Doktrini: Anlaşma Yapma Yükümlülüğü ya da Sözleşme Serbestisinin Sınırları, (Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi No.2), Rekabet Kurumu, Ankara, 2003
33. VAKA BELGELERİ
34. • Joined Cases 6/73 and 7/73, Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano SpA and Commercial Solvents Corp v. Commission, 1974, ECR 223, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61973CJ0006&from=EN
35. • Case 238/87, Volvo v. Erik Veng [1988] ECR 6211, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61987CJ0238 • Case 53/87, Consorzio Italiano della componentistica di ricambio per autoveicoli (CICRA) and Maxicar v. Regie nationale des usines Renault [1988] ECR 6039, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61987CJ0053
36. • Commission Decision of 11 June 1992 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/34.174 – Sealink/B&I – Holyhead), http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/34174/34174_2_2.pdf
37. • Commission Decision of 21 December 1988 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty: 89/205/EEC (IV/31.851 – Magill TV Guide/ITP, BBC, RTE); https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1542625853025&uri=CELEX:31989D0205 .
38. • Joined Cases C-241/91 P and 242/91P, Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v. Commission (Magill) [1995] ECR I-743, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61991CJ0241
39. • Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 1997 in Case T-504/93, Tierce Ladbroke SA v. Commission [1997] ECR II-923, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=103416&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1107808
40. • Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in joined Cases T-374/94, T-375/94, T-384/94 & T-388/94, European Night Service Ltd (ENS), Eurostar (UK) Ltd, formerly European Passenger Services Ltd (EPS), Union internationale des chemins de fer (UIC), NV Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS) and Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) v. Commission of the European Communities, 15.Sep.1998, ECR II-3141, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=44079&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3236278
41. • PRESS RELEASE No 55/98, regarding the Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-374/94, T-375/94, T-384/94 and T-388/94, The Court of First Instance Annuls the Commission’s Decision Concerning the Agreement on the Night Rail Services Through the Channel Tunnel, http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp98/cp9855en.htm
42. • Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 November 1998, Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co. KG v Mesiaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG, Mediaprint Zeitungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Mediaprint Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Case C-7/97, European Court Reports 1998 I-07791, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61997CJ0007&from=EN
43. • Case D3/38.044, IMS Health/NDC Health, Commission’s Decision 2002/165/CE (03.07.2001) Official Journal, L 59/18, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002D0165&from=EN
44. • Case D3/38.044, IMS Health/NDC Health, Commission’s Decision 2003/741/EC (13.08.2003) Official Journal, L 268/69, https://www.akd.nl/Downloads/PublicatiesPDF-EN/990519_eblr_jhoudijk_2005.pdf
45. • Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-418/01, IMS Health GmbH & Co OHG v. NDC Health GmbH & Co KG [2004] ECJ 166, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1542097822885&uri=CELEX:62001CJ0418
46. • Commission Decision of 24.03.2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft), http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/37792/37792_4177_1.pdf
47. • Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) in Case T-201/04, Microsoft v. Commission, 17.09.2007, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=62940&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3252591