BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

UZLAŞMA: BELİRSİZLİĞE YOLCULUK

Yıl 2015, Sayı: 64, 27 - 75, 01.12.2015

Öz

4054 sayılı rekabetin korunması Hakkında kanun’da rkHk kapsamlı değişiklikler öngören rekabetin korunması Hakkında kanun’da Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair kanun Tasarısı’nda1 Tasarı “uzlaşma” düzenlemesine yer verilmektedir. Uzlaşma müessesesinin, Türkiye rekabet hukuku uygulamasına daha önce örneği olmayan yeni bir usul kazandıracak olması yönüyle önemli bir düzenleme olduğu düşünülmektedir. Bununla beraber, ilgili Tasarı maddesinin gerek lafzı gerekse uzlaşma ile bağlantılı mevcut ve planlanan düzenlemeler eşliğinde uygulamaya yönelik önemli belirsizlikler taşıdığı değerlendirilmektedir. Bu çerçevede taslak maddesi lafzi olarak uzlaşmayı bütün ihlal türleri için ve soruşturma raporunun tebliği tarihinden önce öngörmekte, mehaz AB mevzuatında yalnızca kartel dosyaları ile sınırlı olan mekanizmanın alanını diğer ihlallere de genişletmektedir. Bununla birlikte taslak maddesi, üzerinde anlaşılan hususların dava konusu yapılamayacağı yönüyle de komisyon uygulamasından ayrılmaktadır. kanun tasarısında öngörülen bu genel çerçeve, her ne kadar uygulamanın ikincil düzenlemelerle netleştirilmesi öngörülmüşse olsa da, uzlaşma müessesesinin alacağı nihai şekle ve uygulanabilirliğe ilişkin önemli belirsizliklere işaret etmektedir. Uzlaşma müessesesinin, yakından bağlantılı olduğu pişmanlık programı ile mevcut yönetmeliğin ve taslak ceza yönetmeliğinin ceza indirimine ilişkin ilgili hükümleri eşliğinde, kanun ile ikincil düzenlemelerde ve kanun Tasarısında öngörülen soruşturma usul ve sürelerine ilişkin kısıtlar ve bugüne kadarki içtihat yapısı altında ne ölçüde uygulanabileceği de bir diğer belirsizlik alanını oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın konusunu Tasarı ile çizilen çerçevede uzlaşma mekanizmasının, konuya açıklık getirmek ve ikincil düzenlemelere ışık tutmak amacıyla, komisyon ve ülke uygulamaları çerçevesinde ele alınması ve Türk rekabet mevzuatı dâhilinde uygulanabilirliğinin tartışılması oluşturmaktadır

Kaynakça

  • AARON, J (2014), “DOJ Waives the White Flag on Waivers”, conrad O’Brien
  • Aralık 2014, http://www.trendingwhitecollar.com/doj-waves-the-white-flag-on- waivers/, Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2014
  • ALMUNIA, J. (2013), “Remedies, Commitments and Settlements in Antitrust”
  • European Commission Press Releases Database- Speech/13/210 08.03.2013, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-210_en.htm, 12.2014.
  • ARI H., E. AYGÜN, H.G. KEKEVİ (2011), “Rekabet Hukukunda Taahhüt ve Uzlaşma”, Rekabet Hukukunda Güncel Gelişmeler Sempozyumu VII, 16-17 Nisan 2019, Kayseri, s.229-294
  • ASCIONE, A. ve MOTTA, M. (2008), “Settlements in Cartel Cases”, C.D.
  • Ehlerman ve M. Marquis (der), European competition law Annual 2008
  • Antirust Settlements under EC Competition Law içinde, s.67-83. GAROUPA, N ve STEPHEN, F. H. (2006), “Law and Economics of Plea
  • Bargaining”, SSRN Working Paper Series, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=917922, Erişim Tarihi: 25.1.2.2014, Section 4.1.
  • GENEVAZ, S. (2013), “Specific Issues in Horizontal and Vertical Agreement
  • Cases”, http://www.euchinacomp.org/attachments/article/353/6.0-EN-Leniency%20 and%20Settlement-Simon.pdf , Erişim tarihi: 25.12.2014 Erişim tarihi
  • HANSEN, M. ve YOSHIDA D. (2012), “Cartel Settlements & Leniency in the United States and the European Union”, Tokyo, Japan, 21.11.2012, http://lw.com/ presentations/cartel-settlements-and-leniency-us-eu-2012, Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2014.
  • ICN (2008), “Cartel Settlements”, Report to the ICN Annual Conference, Kyoto, Japan, Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2014.
  • ITALIANER, A. (2013), “Fighting cartels in Europe and the US: different systems, common goals”, Annual Conference of the International Bar Association (IBA) on 9 October 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/speeches/text/sp2013_09_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi:25.12.2014
  • KEKEVİ, G.H. (2008), ABD, AB ve Türk rekabet Hukukunda kartellerle
  • Mücadele, Rekabet Kurumu Lisansüstü Tez Serisi, No. 15, Ankara. LACHNIT, E.S. (2013), “Alternative enforcement of competition law – Balancing legal requirements in practice”, RENFORCE Working Papers, http://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2362789, Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2014.
  • LAINA F. ve BOGDANOV A. (2014), “The EU Cartel Settlement Procedure
  • Latest Developments”, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, No: (10), s. 717-727. LAINA, F. ve LAURINEN E. (2013), “The EU Cartel Settlement Procedure
  • Current Status and Challenges”, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, No:4(4), s.302-311. LASSERE, B. ve FABIEN Z. (2008), “A Principled Approach to Settlements: A
  • Few Open Issues”, C.D. Ehlerman ve M. Marquis (der), European Competition law Annual 2008: Antirust Settlements under Ec competition law içinde, s.143
  • LEVY, M. ve TARDIF N. (2014), “France: Cartel Regulation”, The European
  • Antitrust Review 2015, s. 110-115.
  • O’BRIAN, A. (2008), “Cartel Settlements in the U.S. and EU: Similarities
  • Differences & Remaining Questions”, 13th Annual EU Competition Law and Policy Workshop, Florence,Italy, http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/235598. pdf, Erişim tarihi: 25.12.2014.
  • OECD (2007), “Plea Bargaining and Settlement of Cartel Cases”, Competition
  • Policy Roundtables 2006, DAF/COMP(2007)38, http://www.oecd.org/competition/ cartels/40080239.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 25.12.2014.
  • OECD (2008) , “Plea Bargaining and Settlement of Cartel Cases”, Policy Brief
  • September 2008, http://www.oecd.org/regreform/sectors/41255395.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 12.2014.
  • OECD (2012), “Leniency For Subsequent Applicants”, Working Party No. on Co-operation and Enforcement, DAF/COMP/WP3(2012)9, www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DAF/COMP/
  • WP3%282012%299&docLanguage=En, Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2014. http://
  • OFT (2012), “Review of the OFT’s investigation procedures in competition cases”, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov. uk/shared_oft/policy/OFT1263con2, Erişim tarihi: 25.12.2014.
  • OLSEN, G. ve JEPHCOTT M. (2010), “Sharing the Benefits of Procedural Economy
  • The European Commission’s Settlement Procedure”, American Bar Association- Antitrust, No:25(1), s.76-80
  • PARR, N. ve BURROWS, E. (2013), “European Union”, Global Legal Insights
  • Cartels Enforcement, Appeals & Damages Actions, s.75-83. SCHNELLE, U. ve SOYEZ, V. (2014), “Germany: Cartels”, European
  • Antitrust Review 2015, http://globalcompetitionreview.com/reviews/62/sections/210/ chapters/2487/germany-cartels/, Erişim Tarihi: 15.1.2014
  • SLATHER, D., S. THOMAS, D. WAELBROECK (2008), “Competition law proceedings before the European Commission and the right to a fair trial: no need for reform?”,Research Papers in Law 5/2008, College of Europe
  • European Legal Studies, https://www.coleurope.eu/system/files_force/research-paper/ researchpaper5_2008.pdf?download=1, Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2014.
  • VASCOTT, D. (2013), “EU cartel settlements: are they working?”, Global
  • Competition Review News, 8.4.2013, http://www.globalcompetitionreview.com/ features/article/33348/eu-cartel-settlements-working/, Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2014.

SETTLEMENT: A JOURNEY TO UNCERTAINTY

Yıl 2015, Sayı: 64, 27 - 75, 01.12.2015

Öz

One of the most important features of the proposed amendment of the Act on Protection of Competition Act No 4054 is the introduction of a settlement procedure to competition law enforcement in Turkey. However the proposed settlement mechanism bears some uncertainties in terms of both its language and its applicability alongside the related present regulations such as leniency. Although one of the reasons for proposing an amendment of Act No 4054 is to achieve convergence with European Union competition law, there are remarkable differences between the settlement mechanism in the EU competition law and the proposal. Settlement mechanism in EU competition law is designed as a procedure to be used in cartel investigations while the proposal anticipates settlement for all kind of infringements of Act No 4054. Unlike the EU settlement mechanism, the proposal does not foresee any waiver of procedural rights like access to one’s file or oral hearing however it foresees a waiver of the right to appeal which raises questions about due process and judicial review of administrative decisions. Although important features of the proposed settlement is left to be determined by secondary legislation, even the general frame is capable to raise concern about its final form and its applicability. Other areas of concern about the proposed settlement mechanism’s applicability are its relationship with leniency procedure and fining policy and the time constraint in investigation process that is also introduced in the proposed amendment

Kaynakça

  • AARON, J (2014), “DOJ Waives the White Flag on Waivers”, conrad O’Brien
  • Aralık 2014, http://www.trendingwhitecollar.com/doj-waves-the-white-flag-on- waivers/, Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2014
  • ALMUNIA, J. (2013), “Remedies, Commitments and Settlements in Antitrust”
  • European Commission Press Releases Database- Speech/13/210 08.03.2013, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-210_en.htm, 12.2014.
  • ARI H., E. AYGÜN, H.G. KEKEVİ (2011), “Rekabet Hukukunda Taahhüt ve Uzlaşma”, Rekabet Hukukunda Güncel Gelişmeler Sempozyumu VII, 16-17 Nisan 2019, Kayseri, s.229-294
  • ASCIONE, A. ve MOTTA, M. (2008), “Settlements in Cartel Cases”, C.D.
  • Ehlerman ve M. Marquis (der), European competition law Annual 2008
  • Antirust Settlements under EC Competition Law içinde, s.67-83. GAROUPA, N ve STEPHEN, F. H. (2006), “Law and Economics of Plea
  • Bargaining”, SSRN Working Paper Series, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=917922, Erişim Tarihi: 25.1.2.2014, Section 4.1.
  • GENEVAZ, S. (2013), “Specific Issues in Horizontal and Vertical Agreement
  • Cases”, http://www.euchinacomp.org/attachments/article/353/6.0-EN-Leniency%20 and%20Settlement-Simon.pdf , Erişim tarihi: 25.12.2014 Erişim tarihi
  • HANSEN, M. ve YOSHIDA D. (2012), “Cartel Settlements & Leniency in the United States and the European Union”, Tokyo, Japan, 21.11.2012, http://lw.com/ presentations/cartel-settlements-and-leniency-us-eu-2012, Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2014.
  • ICN (2008), “Cartel Settlements”, Report to the ICN Annual Conference, Kyoto, Japan, Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2014.
  • ITALIANER, A. (2013), “Fighting cartels in Europe and the US: different systems, common goals”, Annual Conference of the International Bar Association (IBA) on 9 October 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/speeches/text/sp2013_09_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi:25.12.2014
  • KEKEVİ, G.H. (2008), ABD, AB ve Türk rekabet Hukukunda kartellerle
  • Mücadele, Rekabet Kurumu Lisansüstü Tez Serisi, No. 15, Ankara. LACHNIT, E.S. (2013), “Alternative enforcement of competition law – Balancing legal requirements in practice”, RENFORCE Working Papers, http://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2362789, Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2014.
  • LAINA F. ve BOGDANOV A. (2014), “The EU Cartel Settlement Procedure
  • Latest Developments”, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, No: (10), s. 717-727. LAINA, F. ve LAURINEN E. (2013), “The EU Cartel Settlement Procedure
  • Current Status and Challenges”, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, No:4(4), s.302-311. LASSERE, B. ve FABIEN Z. (2008), “A Principled Approach to Settlements: A
  • Few Open Issues”, C.D. Ehlerman ve M. Marquis (der), European Competition law Annual 2008: Antirust Settlements under Ec competition law içinde, s.143
  • LEVY, M. ve TARDIF N. (2014), “France: Cartel Regulation”, The European
  • Antitrust Review 2015, s. 110-115.
  • O’BRIAN, A. (2008), “Cartel Settlements in the U.S. and EU: Similarities
  • Differences & Remaining Questions”, 13th Annual EU Competition Law and Policy Workshop, Florence,Italy, http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/235598. pdf, Erişim tarihi: 25.12.2014.
  • OECD (2007), “Plea Bargaining and Settlement of Cartel Cases”, Competition
  • Policy Roundtables 2006, DAF/COMP(2007)38, http://www.oecd.org/competition/ cartels/40080239.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 25.12.2014.
  • OECD (2008) , “Plea Bargaining and Settlement of Cartel Cases”, Policy Brief
  • September 2008, http://www.oecd.org/regreform/sectors/41255395.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 12.2014.
  • OECD (2012), “Leniency For Subsequent Applicants”, Working Party No. on Co-operation and Enforcement, DAF/COMP/WP3(2012)9, www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DAF/COMP/
  • WP3%282012%299&docLanguage=En, Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2014. http://
  • OFT (2012), “Review of the OFT’s investigation procedures in competition cases”, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov. uk/shared_oft/policy/OFT1263con2, Erişim tarihi: 25.12.2014.
  • OLSEN, G. ve JEPHCOTT M. (2010), “Sharing the Benefits of Procedural Economy
  • The European Commission’s Settlement Procedure”, American Bar Association- Antitrust, No:25(1), s.76-80
  • PARR, N. ve BURROWS, E. (2013), “European Union”, Global Legal Insights
  • Cartels Enforcement, Appeals & Damages Actions, s.75-83. SCHNELLE, U. ve SOYEZ, V. (2014), “Germany: Cartels”, European
  • Antitrust Review 2015, http://globalcompetitionreview.com/reviews/62/sections/210/ chapters/2487/germany-cartels/, Erişim Tarihi: 15.1.2014
  • SLATHER, D., S. THOMAS, D. WAELBROECK (2008), “Competition law proceedings before the European Commission and the right to a fair trial: no need for reform?”,Research Papers in Law 5/2008, College of Europe
  • European Legal Studies, https://www.coleurope.eu/system/files_force/research-paper/ researchpaper5_2008.pdf?download=1, Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2014.
  • VASCOTT, D. (2013), “EU cartel settlements: are they working?”, Global
  • Competition Review News, 8.4.2013, http://www.globalcompetitionreview.com/ features/article/33348/eu-cartel-settlements-working/, Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2014.
Toplam 40 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Research Article
Yazarlar

Ebru İnce Bu kişi benim

Neyzar Ünübol Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Aralık 2015
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2015 Sayı: 64

Kaynak Göster

APA İnce, E., & Ünübol, N. (2015). UZLAŞMA: BELİRSİZLİĞE YOLCULUK. Rekabet Dergisi(64), 27-75.