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

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2, 88 - 121, 31.12.2019

İpek Cimen Bulut

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

• • 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
• • Christopher Stothers, Parallel Trade in Europe: Intellectual Property, Competition and Regulatory Law, Hart publishing, Oxford, 2007
• • 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
• • 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
• • Dimitrijs Nemirovskis, “Mandatory Dealing in the Eurpoen Union Law: The way of Thorns”, International University Audentes Student Law Journal, ELSA SPEL, Cilt: 1, 2005
• • Erika Szyszczak, “Controlling Dominance in European Markets”, Fordham International Law Journal, Berkeley Electronic Press, Cilt: 33, Sayı: 6, 2011
• • Estelle Derclaye, “The IMS Health Decision: A Triple Victory”, (IMS), World Competition, Cilt:27, Sayı: 3, 2004
• • 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
• • 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
• • 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
• • James Killick, “IMS and Microsoft Judged in the Cold Light of IMS”, The Competition Law Review, Cilt: 1, Sayı: 2, 2004
• • 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
• • Jarrod Tudor, Compulsory Licensing in the European Union, Geo. Mason Journal Int’L Com. Law, Vol.4, Issue. 2, 2012, pp.222-258
• • 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
• • 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
• • 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
• • Osman Berat Gürzumar, Zorunlu Unsur Doktrinine Dayalı Sözleşme Yapma Yükümlülüğü, Seçkin, Ankara, 2006
• • Roger J. Vander Bergh, Peter D. Camesasca, European Competition Law and Economics: A Comparative Perspective, Intersentia – Hart, Oxford, 2001
• • 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
• • Serdar Nart, “Rekabetin Korunması Kapsamında Fikri ve Sınai Hakların Sınırları”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt:11, Sayı:1, 2009
• • 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
• • 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
• • Simon Bishop, Mike Walker, The Economics of EC Competition Law: Concepts, Application and Measurement, Sweet & Maxwell, United Kingdom, 2010
• • Steven Anderman ve Hedvig Schmidt, “EC Competition Policy and IPRs”, The Interface Between Intellectual Property Rights, (Ed. Steven Anderman), Cambridge, 2007
• • Steven D. Anderman, EC Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: The Regulation of Innovation, (ECCL), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998
• • 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
• • 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
• • 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
• • Valentine Korah, “The Interface between Intellectual Property and Antitrust: The European Experience”, Antitrust Law Journal (ATLJ), Cilt: 69, Sayı: 3, 2002, ss.801-839
• • Valentine Korah, An Introductory Guide to EC Competition Law and Practice, 8. Baskı, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2004
• • Valentine Korah, "The Interface Between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition in Developed Countries", SCRIPTed, Cilt: 2, Sayı: 4, 2005
• • 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
• VAKA BELGELERİ
• • 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
• • 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
• • 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
• • 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 .
• • 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
• • 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
• • 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
• • 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
• • 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
• • 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
• • 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
• • 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
• • 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
• • 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