“REKABETİ KISITLAYICI AMAÇ”I YENİDEN DEĞERLENDİRMEK: “GROUPEMENT DES CARTES BANCAIRES V COMMISSION” KARARI IŞIĞINDA YENİ BİR GÜN

Yıl 2015, Sayı: 61, 41 - 107, 01.03.2015

Gönenç Gürkaynak Ayşe Gizem Yaşar

Öz

Rekabeti kısıtlama amacı taşıyan anlaşmalar, hem Türk rekabet hukuku hem de Avrupa Birliği AB rekabet hukuku mevzuatında yasaklanmaktadır. Bu türden anlaşmaların mevcudiyeti ortaya çıkarıldığında, rekabet otoritesi, ilgili anlaşmanın rekabet hukukunu ihlal ettiği sonucuna doğrudan ulaşabilmekte ve anlaşmanın rekabeti kısıtlayıcı etkilerini inceleme ve kanıtlama yükünden kurtulmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, her ne kadar rekabeti kısıtlayıcı amaç, rekabet otoriteleri için kullanışlı bir araç olarak karşımıza çıksa da, aynı zamanda teşebbüsler açısından önemli riskler doğurmaktadır. Bu mekanizmanın kapsamının doğru tahlil edilmesinin önemi, özellikle rekabeti kısıtlayıcı amaç taşıyan anlaşmaların tarafı teşebbüsler aleyhine kesilen para cezaları düşünüldüğünde kendini göstermektedir.Rekabeti kısıtlayıcı amaca ilişkin tartışmaların AB’de hararetle sürdüğü bir dönemde, 11 Eylül 2014 tarihinde Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı ABAD , Groupement des Cartes Bancaires CB davasına ilişkin kararını vermiştir.“CB v Commission” kararı CB kararı , ABAD’ın amacı yönünden rekabeti kısıtlayıcı anlaşmalar kavramının dar yorumlanması gerektiğine dair görüşünü ilk kez açıkça ortaya koyduğu karar olma özelliğini taşımaktadır. Karar ayrıca, ABAD Hukuk Sözcüsü Nils Wahl’ın ortaya koyduğu prensipler ile de bağlantılıolarak, rekabeti kısıtlayıcı amaç taşıdığı iddia edilen anlaşmaların değerlendirilmesi açısından Türk rekabet hukuku mevzuatının uygulamasında da yol gösterebilecek ve usul ekonomisinin güçlendirilmesi adına benimsenebilecek işlevsel bir formül ortaya koymaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Rekabeti Kısıtlayıcı Amaç, Groupement des Cartes

RE-ASSESSING OBJECT RESTRICTIONS: A NEW DAY IN LIGHT OF THE “GROUPEMENT DES CARTES BANCAIRES V COMMISSION” DECISION

Öz

Agreements that have restriction of competition as their object are prohibited both under the European Union EU and Turkish competition law legislation. When the existence of such an agreement is detected, the competition authority is authorized to conclude directly that the agreement infringes competition law, relieving itself of the burden to assess and prove the anti-competitive effects of the agreement. This way, while the object restriction emerges as a handy tool for competition authorities, it also creates great risks for undertakings. The importance of correctly determining the scope of this mechanism becomes evident especially when considering the significant amount of monetary fines imposed on undertakings for taking part in agreements that have anti-competitive object.In the midst of heated debates on restrictive object in the EU, the Court of Justice of the European Union CJEU delivered its judgment in the Groupement des Cartes Bancaires CB case on 11 September 2014.Being the first judgment where the CJEU explicitly established its view that object restrictions should be interpreted narrowly; the “CB v Commission” decision, in connection to the principles set forth by Advocate General Nils Wahl, presents a practical formula in assessing agreements that are alleged to have an anti-competitive object, which could also be adopted as a guidance for the implementation of Turkish competition law and to strengthen procedural economy

Anahtar Kelimeler

Object Restriction, Groupement des Cartes Bancaires, Advocate

Kaynakça

• AB Komisyonu (2007), “Competition Impact of Airline Code-share Agreements”, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/transport/reports/airlinecodeshare.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 10.11.2014.
• AKMAN, P. (2013), “The Court of Justice’s Expedia Ruling Undermines the Economic Approach by Eliminating the ‘De Minimis’ Defence in Object Agreements”, https://competitionpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/the-court- of-justices-expedia-ruling-undermines-the-economic-approach-by-eliminating- the-de-mimimis-defence-in-object-agreements/, Erişim Tarihi: 20.05.2015.
• AREEDA, P. J. (1989), “Essential Facilities: An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles”, Antitrust L.J., No:58(3), s. 841-853.
• ASLAN, E.F. (2012), “Geleceğe Yönelik Bilgi Paylaşımının Rekabet Hukuku Kapsamında Değerlendirilmesi ve Rekabet Kurumunun Bilgi Paylaşımı Konusuna Yaklaşımı”, Rekabet Dergisi, No:13(3), s. 3-78.
• ATA, Ç. D. (2009), “Rekabeti Kısıtlayıcı Anlaşmalara Olumlu Yaklaşım: Rule of Reason Işığında Roma Antlaşması 81. Madde ve Muafiyet”, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi No: 109, http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT/1/ Documents/Uzmanl%C4%B1k+Tezi/tez124.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 20.05.2015.
• AUER, D. ve N. PETIT (2015), “Two-Sided Markets and the Challenge of Turning Economic Theory into Competition Policy”, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=2552337, Erişim Tarihi: 25.05.2015.
• BAILEY, D. (2012), “Restrictions of Competition by Object under Article 101 TFEU”, Common Market Law Review, No:49(2), s. 559-599.
• BAILEY, D. ve R. WHISH (2012), Competition Law, Seventh Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, US.
• BOSCO, D. (2012), “Coup de Froid sur la Régulation Concurrentielle du Secteur Bancaire Français”, Contrats Concurrence Consommation (LexisNexis), No:(2012)4, comm.104.
• BOTTA, M., N. HARSDORF ve K. FREWEIN (2014), “Poena sine Culpa? Comment on Schenker”, E.L.Rev., No:39(4), s. 553-566.
• CHAGNY, M. (2012), “Après la Cour de Justice, Retour à la Cour d’Appel de Paris En Attendant...”, Communication Commerce électronique (LexisNexis), No:2012(1).
• CIMENTAROV, P. (2014), “Expanding the “Object Box” and its Perverse Effects - Does EU Competition Law Condemn Innocent Behaviour?”, http:// www.mayerbrown.com/Petar-Cimentarov-Expanding-the-Object-Box- and-its-Perverse-Effects--Does-EU-Competition-Law-Condemn-Innocent- Behaviour-06-23-2014/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.10.2014.
• CLANCY, M., D. GERADIN, A. LAZEROW (2013), “Reverse-payment Patent Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Industry: An Analysis of US Antitrust Law and EU Competition Law”, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2345851, Erişim Tarihi: 19.10.2014.
• FALKENBERG, B. (2015), “Trimming the Scope of Objective Restrictions in European Antitrust Enforcement”, International Trade Law & Regulation, No:21(1), s.21-24.
• FRAILE, I., A. KAPOOR ve R. MORALES (2014), “Drug Test: When are Pay- for-delay Agreements Illegal?”, Global Competition Litigation Review, No:7(4), s. 214-220.
• GERARD, D. (2012) “The Effects-Based Approach under Article 101 TFEU and its Paradoxes: Modernisation at War with Itself?”, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117780, Erişim Tarihi: 14.10.2014.
• GIRAUD, A. (2014) “Exégèse de l’Arrêt Groupement des Cartes Bancaires”, Revue Lamy Droit des Affaires (Wolters Kluwer), No:2014(11).
• Global Competition Review (2014), “ECJ Condemns Liberal Interpretation of Object Infringement”, http://globalcompetitionreview.com/news/article/36840/ ecj-condemns-liberal-interpretation-object-infringement, Erişim
• Tarihi: GRAHAM, C. (2013), “Methods for Determining Whether An Agreement Restricts Competition: Comment on Allianz Hungária”, European Law Review, No:2013(4), s. 542-551.
• GÜNDOĞDU, M. (2009), “Rekabet Hukuku Perspektifinden Hava Yolu Taşımacılığı Sektöründe Stratejik İttifaklar”, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi No: 98, http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT/1/Documents/ Uzmanl%c4%b1k+Tezi/tez119.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 02.11.2014.
• GÜRKAYNAK, G., A. GÜNER ve J. FILSON (2014), “Global Reach of FTC v. Actavis” International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, No:45(2), s. 128-160.
• HARPER, P. (2014), “EU Antitrust: Rolling back on the Expansion of ‘By Object’ Infringements”, http://www.allenovery.com/publications/en-gb/Pages/ EU-antitrust--rolling-back-on-the-expansion-of--by-object--infringements.aspx, Erişim Tarihi: 28.05.2015.
• HARRISON, P. (2013), “The Court of Justice’s Judgment in Allianz Hungária is Wrong and Needs Correcting”, CPI Antitrust Chronicle, No: May 2013(1), http://www.sidley.com/~/media/Files/Publications/2013/05/The%20Court%20 of%20Justices%20Judgment%20in%20Allianz%20Hungri__/Files/View%20 Article/FileAttachment/HarrisonMay13%281%29, Erişim Tarihi: 01.06.2015.
• HAUTBOURG, S. ve A. CHOFFEL (2014), “La Notion de ‘Restriction de Concurrence par Object’ après l’Arrêt Cartes Bancaires”, Séminaire Droit et Economie de la Concurrence, Paris France, http://www.concurrences.com/spip. php?action=acceder_document&arg=24946&cle=cea5f793fee76fe83529783 b4804c1b8e11171a5&file=pdf%2Fslidesconfconcurrences14oct2014-2.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.05.2015.
• IBANEZ COLOMO, P. (2012), “Market Failures, Transaction Costs and Article 101(1) TFEU Case Law”, European Law Review, No:37(5), s. 541-562.
• IBANEZ COLOMO, P. (2014), “Intel and Article 102 TFEU Case Law: Making Sense of a Perpetual Controversy”, LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 29/2014, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2530878, Erişim Tarihi: 18.12.2014.
• IDOT, L. (2014), “La Cour Rappelle les Principes Applicables pour l’Identification d’un Restriction de Concurrence par Objet en revenant à une Approche plus Restrictive?”, Europe (LexisNexis), No:2014(11).
• İstanbul Barosu (2014), “Rekabet Hukuku Dünyası Tartışıyor: Rekabet Kanunu Tasarısı ve Ceza Yönetmeliği Taslağının Getirdiği Yenilik ve Tartışmalar”, İstanbul, 2014, http://www.istanbulbarosu.org.tr/Yayinlar/eyayin/REKABETHUKUK. pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2015.
• ITALIANER, A. (2013), “Competitor Agreements under EU Competition Law”, 40th Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy, Fordham Competition Law Institute, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/speeches/text/ sp2013_07_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 30.10.2014.
• ITALIANER, A. (2014), “The Object of Effects”, CRA Annual Brussels Conference – Economic Developments in Competition Policy, http://ec.europa. eu/competition/speeches/text/sp2014_07_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.01.2015. JONES, A. (2010), “Left Behind by Modernisation? Restrictions by Object under Article 101(1)”, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1932309, Erişim Tarihi: 19.09.2014.
• KILLICK, J. ve J. JOURDAN (2014), “Cartes Bancaires: A Revolution or A Reminder of Old Principles We Should Never Have Forgotten?”, Competition Policy International, https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/cartes- bancaires-a-revolution-or-a-reminder-of-old-principles-we-should-never-have- forgotten, Erişim Tarihi: 11.12.2014.
• KING, S. (2013), “An Individual Response to the European Commission’s Consultation on the Revision of the De Minimis Notice”, http://ec.europa.eu/ competition/consultations/2013_de_minimis_notice/saskia_king_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 25.05.2015.
• KING, S. (2015), “Agreements that Restrict Competition by Object under Article 101(1) TFEU: Past, Present and Future”, Doktora Tezi, http://etheses.lse. ac.uk/3068/1/King_Agreements_that_restrict_competition_by_object_under_ Article_101.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 25.05.2015.
• KWAN, J. (2015), “Object or Effect: Where do Competition Authorities Need to Draw the Line?”, http://communities.lawsociety.org.uk/download?ac=8128, Erişim Tarihi: 20.05.2015.
• LAMADRID, A. (2015), “The Double Duality of Two-Sided Markets”, Competition Law Journal, No:1(2015), https://antitrustlair.files.wordpress. com/2015/05/the-double-duality-of-two-sided-markets_clj_lamadrid.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 08.05.2015, s. 5-18.
• Latham & Watkins Client Alert (2014), “‘By Object’ Restrictions of Competition Revisited: European Court of Justice Endorses Narrow Interpretation”, http:// www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/LW-European-Justice-Court-Groupement- Cartes-Bancaires, Erişim Tarihi: 20.09.2014.
• MAHTANI, M.R. (2012), “Thinking outside the Object Box: An EU and UK Perspective”, European Competition Journal, No:8(1), s.1-39.
• MONAGHAN, A. (2014), “Object or Effect: Where do Competition Authorities Need to Draw the Line?”, http://communities.lawsociety.org.uk/ download?ac=8127, Erişim Tarihi: 09.05.2015.
• MONTI, G. (2013), “Response to the Consultation on the Draft Notice on Agreements of Minor Importance”, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ consultations/2013_de_minimis_notice/giorgio_monti_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: MURRAY, G. (2015), “In Search of the Obvious: Groupement des Cartes Bancaires and ‘By Object’ Infringements under EU Competition Law”, European Competition Law Review, No:36(2), s. 47-51.
• NAGY, C. I. (2013), “The Distinction between Anti-competitive Object and Effect after Allianz: The End of Coherence in Competition Analysis?”, World Competition, No:36(4)
• http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ NAGY, C. I. (2015), “The New Concept of Anti-Competitive Object: A Loose Cannon in EU Competition Law”, E.C.L.R., No:36(4), s. 154-159.
• ODUDU, O. (2009), “Restrictions of Competition by Object: What’s the Beef?”, Competition Law Journal, No: 9(1), http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/faculty- resources/summary/restrictions-of-competition-by-object-whats-the-beef-91- 2009-competition-law-journal-11-17/6078, Erişim Tarihi: 02.11.2014, s. 11-17. ODUDU, O. (2010), “The Last Vestiges of Overambitious EU Competition Law”, Cambridge Law Journal, No:69(2), s. 248-250.OECD (2007), Facilitating Practices in Oligopolies, OECD, Paris.
• OECD (2009), Two-Sided Markets, OECD, Paris.
• OECD (2010), Information Exchanges between Competitors under Competition Law, OECD, Paris.
• ORTEGA GONZALEZ, A. (2013), “Restrictions by Object and the Appreciability Test: The Expedia Case, A Surprising Judgment or A Simple Clarification?”, European Competition Law Review, No:34(9), s. 457-465.
• Oxera Economics (2013), “Bad Medicine? An Effects-based Approach to ‘Pay- for-delay’ Agreements”, Ekim 2013, http://www.oxera.com/Latest-Thinking/ Agenda/2013/Bad-medicine-An-effects-based-approach-to-pay.aspx, Tarihi: 20.10.2014.
• PİŞMAF, Ş. (2012), “İktisadi ve Hukuki Açıdan Teşebbüsler Arası Bilgi Değişimi”, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi No: 115, http://www. rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT/1/Documents/Uzmanl%C4%B1k+Tezi/5samil pismafmiz.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 30.05.2015.
• Erişim PRADELLES, F. ve A. SCORDAMAGLIA-TOUSIS (2014), “Two Sides of the Cartes Bancaires Ruling: Assessment of the Two-Sided Nature of Card Payment Systems under Article 101(1) TFEU and Full Judicial Scrutiny of Underlying Economic Analysis”, Competition Policy International, No:10(2), s. 139-156.
• PRIETO, N. (2014), “Ententes: Restriction de Concurrence”, Le Lamy Europe Traité – Edition 2014 - Walters Kluwer içinde, fasikül 1410.
• Rekabet Kurumu (2009), “Tüm Kartları Kabul Kuralına ilişkin Sektör Araştırması Raporu”, Ankara, Türkiye, http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2f1% 2fDocuments%2fSekt%25c3%25b6r%2bRaporu%2fsektorrapor3.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2015.
• ROSATI, F. (2014), “Le Rôle de l’Analyse Économique dans l’Évaluation des Infractions par Object”, Séminaire Droit et Economie de la Concurrence, Paris France, http://www.concurrences.com/spip.php?action=acceder_document&arg =24946&cle=cea5f793fee76fe83529783b4804c1b8e11171a5&file=pdf%2Fslid esconfconcurrences14oct2014-2.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.05.2015.
• RUIZ CALZADO, J. ve A. SCORDAMAGLIA-TOUSIS (2015), “Groupement des Cartes Bancaires v Commission: Shedding Light on What is not a ‘By Object’ Restriction of Competition”, Journal of Competition Law & Practice Current Intelligence, http://jeclap.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/03/18/jeclap. lpv022.abstract, Erişim Tarihi: 17.05.2015.
• SCHWARZ, D. (2014), “Object or Effect: Where do Competition Authorities Need to Draw the Line?”, http://communities.lawsociety.org.uk/download?ac=8129, Erişim Tarihi: 20.05.2015.
• SCORDAMAGLIA-TOUSIS, A. (2014), “New De Minimis Communication: ‘De Minimis’ and ‘By Object’ Restrictions of Competition Law”, Journal of Competition Law & Practice Current Intelligence, http://jeclap.oxfordjournals. org/content/early/2014/10/10/jeclap.lpu092, Erişim Tarihi: 05.05.2015.
• Séminaires Nasse (2012), La Direction Générale du Trésor (Fransız Hazinesi Genel Müdürlüğü), Compte-rendu du Séminaire Philippe Nasse du Jeudi 13 Décembre 2012: Les Marchés «Biface», Décembre 2012, http://www.tresor. economie.gouv.fr/File/395781, Erişim Tarihi: 08.11.2014.
• Shearman and Sterling Antitrust Client Publication (2014), “The EU General Court Gets a Rap on its Knuckles”, http://www.shearman.com/~/media/Files/ NewsInsights/Publications/2014/09/The-EU-General-Court-Gets-a-Rap-on-Its- Knuckles-AT-091114.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 08.11.2014.
• SHUTOVA, N. (2013), “Monopole Naturel, Marchés Bifaces, Différenciation Tarifaire: Trois Essais sur la Régulation de Télécommunications”, Université Panthéon – Assas, Ecole Doctorale de Sciences Économiques et de Gestion, Thèse de Doctorat en Sciences Économiques soutenue le 24 Septembre 2013, http://www.teraconsultants.fr/medias/uploads/pdf/Publications/2013/2013-Sep- these-Natalia-Shutova-vf.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 11.11.2014.
• SVETLICIINI, A. (2011), “‘Objective Justifications’ of ‘Restrictions by Object’ in Pierre Fabre: A More Economic Approach to Article 101(1) TFEU?”, European Law Reporter, No:11, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ ŞAHİN, Y. (2013), “Reviving an Old Debate: The Rule of Reason under Article 101”, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, http://www.jeanmonnet.org.tr/Portals/0/scholars_ database_thesis/selen_yersu_sahin_tez.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 20.05.2015.
• TEKDEMİR, Y. (2012), “İlaç Sektöründe Uzlaşma Anlaşmaları ve Jenerik Rekabetin Gecikmesi”, Rekabet Yazıları, http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/tr-TR/ Rekabet-Yazisi/Ilac-Sektorunde-Uzlasma-Anlasmalari-ve-Jenerik-Rekabetin- Gecikmesi, Erişim Tarihi: 01.06.2015.
• TEKİNALP, Ü., “Rekabetin Korunması hakkında Kanunda Güncel Gelişmeler”, http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2F1%2FDocuments%2FPer%25c 5%259fembe%2BKonferans%25c4%25b1%2BYay%25c4%25b1n%2Fperskonf yyn108.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2015.
• TÜSİAD (2014), “Rekabetin Korunması hakkında Kanunda Değişiklik Yapılmasına dair Kanun Tasarısı’na ilişkin TÜSİAD Görüşü”, TÜSİAD, İstanbul, http://www.tusiad.org.tr/__rsc/shared/file/RekabetinKorunmasi-TUSIADGorus. pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 07.06.2014.
• VOGEL, L. (2015), “Une Nouvelle Venue sur la Scène du Droit de la Concurrence: La Restriction par Object”, Contrats Concurrence Consommation (LexisNexis), No:2015(5), Dosya 2.
• ZAFAR, O. (2014), “Lundbeck, and Johnson & Johnson and Novartis: The European Commission’s 2013 ‘Pay-for-delay’ Decisions”, Journal of Competition Law & Practice Current Intelligence, http://www.bristows.com/ assets/documents/JECLP%20-%20Lundbeck%20and%20Johnson%20%20 Johnson%20and%20Novartis.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 03.11.2014. Mevzuat
• sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun
• AB’nin İşleyişine dair Antlaşma (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)
• Commission Notice on Agreements of Minor Importance which do not Appreciably Restrict Competition under Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ: C:2014:291:FULL&from=EN, Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2015.
• Guidance on Restrictions of Competition “By Object” for the Purpose of Defining which Agreements may Benefit from the De Minimis Notice, http://ec.europa.eu/ competition/antitrust/legislation/de_minimis_notice_annex.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2015.
• Guidelines on the Applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to Horizontal Co-operation Agreements, http://eur-lex. europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011XC0114(04)&from= EN, Erişim Tarihi: 07.06.2015.
• Guidelines on the Application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty, http://eur-lex.europa. eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52004XC0427(07), Erişim Tarihi: 01.11.2014.
• Guidelines on Vertical Restraints, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:130:0001:0046:EN:PDF, 19.01.2015. Erişim
• Tarihi: Muafiyetin Genel Esaslarına ilişkin Kılavuz, http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?p ath=ROOT%2f1%2fDocuments%2fKilavuz%2fmuafiyettt.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2015.
• Rekabet Kurulu Kararları
• Rekabet Kurulunun 26.11.1998 tarihli ve 93/750-159 sayılı LPG kararı.
• Rekabet Kurulunun 17.06.1999 tarihli ve 99-30/276-166(a) sayılı Ege Bölgesi Çimento Soruşturması kararı.
• Rekabet Kurulunun 24.11.1999 tarihli ve 99-53/575-365 sayılı Dayanıksız Tüketim Maddeleri kararı.
• Rekabet Kurulunun 08.02.2002 tarihli ve 02-07/57-26 sayılı Gübre kararı.
• Rekabet Kurulunun 01.12.2005 tarihli ve 05-80/1106-317 sayılı Karbogaz kararı. Rekabet Kurulunun 02.11.2006 tarihli ve 06- 79/1032-298 sayılı Gelibolu kararı. Rekabet Kurulunun 24.04.2007 tarihli ve 07-34/347-127 sayılı ABC Türkiye Tiraj Denetleme Kurulu kararı.
• Rekabet Kurulunun 20.01.2009 tarihli ve 09-03/45-14 sayılı Carrefour SA kararı Rekabet Kurulunun 25.11.2009 tarihli ve 09-57/1393-362 sayılı Beyaz Et kararı. Rekabet Kurulunun 28.01.2010 tarihli ve 10-10/94-42 sayılı UND kararı.
• Rekabet Kurulunun 01.07.2010 tarihli ve 10-47/858-296 sayılı Doğan Yayın Holding/Feza Gazetecilik kararı.
• Rekabet Kurulunun 06.08.2010 tarihli ve 10-53/1057-391 sayılı Peugeot Bayileri kararı.
• Rekabet Kurulunun 08.12.2010 tarihli ve 10-76/1572-605 sayılı Sony Europe/ Arçelik kararı.
• Rekabet Kurulunun 23.06.2011 tarihli ve 11-39/838-262 sayılı Anadolu Elektronik kararı.
• Rekabet Kurulunun 30.10.2012 tarihli ve 12-52/1479-508 sayılı Çelik Çember kararı.
• Rekabet Kurulunun 13.06.2013 tarihli ve 13-36/468-204 sayılı Reckitt Benckiser kararı.
• Rekabet Kurulunun 26.06.2013 tarihli ve 13-40/522-231 sayılı OSD kararı.
• Rekabet Kurulunun 16.12.2013 tarihli ve 13-70/952-403 sayılı Hyundai Bayileri kararı.
• Rekabet Kurulu’nun 16.04.2014 tarih ve 14-15/277-119 sayılı Aktif-İriyıl Otomotiv kararı.
• Rekabet Kurulunun 22.10.2014 tarihli ve 14-42/764-340 sayılı Dogati kararı.
• Avrupa Birliği Kararları
• ABAD’ın 28.03.1984 tarihli Joined Cases 29/83 and 30/83 - Compagnie Royale Asturienne des Mines and Rheinzink v Commission kararı.
• ABAD’ın 28.04.1998 tarihli Case C-306/96 - Javico International and Javico AG v Yves Saint Laurent Parfums SA kararı.
• ABAD’ın 06.04.2006 tarihli Case C-551/03 P - General Motors v Commission kararı.
• ABAD’ın 20.11.2008 tarihli Case C-209/07 - Competition Authority v Beef Industry Development Society Ltd and Barry Brothers (Carrigmore) Meats Ltd kararı.
• ABAD’ın 04.06.2009 tarihli Case C-8/08, T-Mobile Netherlands BV v Raad van beestuur van de Nederlandse Medeingingsautoriteit kararı.
• ABAD’ın 06.10.2009 tarihli Joined Cases C-501/06 P, C-513/06 P, C-515/06 P and C-519/06 P - GlaxoSmithKline Services and Others v Commission and Others kararı.
• ABAD’ın 13.10.2011 tarihli C-439/09 P - Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique SAS Président de l’Autorité de la Concurrence, Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi kararı.
• ABAD’ın 13.12.2012 tarihli C-226/11 - Expedia Inc v Autorite de la Concurrence kararı.
• ABAD’ın 14.03.2013 tarihli C-32/11 - Allianz Hungaria Biztosito Zrt v Gazdasagi Versenyhivatal kararı.
• ABAD’ın 11.09.2014 tarihli Case C-67/13 P - CB v Commission kararı.
• Genel Mahkeme’nin 10.03.1992 tarihli Case T-14/89 - Montedipe SpA v Commission kararı.
• Genel Mahkeme’nin 29.11.2012 tarihli T-491/07 - CB v Commission kararı.
• Fransız Rekabet Otoritesi, Décision n° 08-D-25 du 29 Octobre 2008 relative à des Pratiques mises en œuvre dans le Secteur de la Distribution de Produits Cosmétiques et d’Hygiène Corporelle vendus sur Conseils Pharmaceutiques.
• Fransız Rekabet Otoritesi, Décision n° 09-D-06 du 5 Février 2009 relative à des Pratiques mises en œuvre par la SNCF et Expedia Inc. dans le Secteur de la Vente de Voyages en Ligne.
• Fransız Rekabet Otoritesi, Décision n°13-D-17 du 20 Septembre 2013 relative à des Pratiques de MasterCard relevées dans le Secteur des Cartes de Paiement.
• Komisyon’un 17.10.2007 tarihli Case COMP/D1/38606 - CB kararı.
• Komisyon’un 19.07.2013 tarihli Case COMP/39226 - Citalopram kararı.
• Komisyon’un 10.12.2013 tarihli Case COMP/ AT. 39685 - Fentanyl kararı.
• Komisyon’un 09.07.2014 tarihli Case COMP/AT.39612 - Perindopril (Servier) kararı.
• Komisyon’un Fentanyl kararı - Özet, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015XC0429(03)&from=EN, Erişim Tarihi: Komisyon’un Case 39.794 - Lufthansa/Turkish Airlines dosyası.
• Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit (Hollanda Ulusal Rekabet Otoritesi), nr. 2658-344 sayılı kararı. Diğer
• Hukuk Sözcüsü Nils Wahl’ın Case C-67/13 P - CB v Commission dosyasındaki görüşü
• &pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&c id=48136, Erişim Tarihi: 02.11.2014.Komisyon (DG Competition), “Management Plan 2014”, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/annual_management_ plan/amp_2014_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 03.11.2014.
• Komisyon’un basın açıklaması, “Antitrust: Commission Sends Statement of Objections to Google on Comparison Shopping Service; Opens Separate Formal Investigation on Android”, (IP/15/4780).
• Komisyon’un basın açıklaması, “Antitrust: Commission Announces the Launch of Market Tests in Investigations in the Online Hotel Booking Sector by the French, Swedish and Italian Competition Authorities”, (IP/14/2661).
• Komisyon’un basın açıklaması, “Antitrust: Commission Fines Servier and Five Generic Companies for Curbing Entry of Cheaper Versions of Cardiovascular Medicine”, (IP/14/799).
• Komisyon’un basın açıklaması, “Antitrust: Commission Fines Lundbeck and Other Pharma Companies for Delaying Market Entry of Generic Medicines” (IP/13/563).
• Komisyon’un basın açıklaması, “Antitrust: Commission Accepts Legally Binding Commitments from Simon & Schuster, Harper Collins, Hachette, Holtzbrinck and Apple for Sale of E-books” (IP/12/1367).
• Komisyon’un basın açıklaması, “Antitrust: Commission Opens Formal Proceedings to Investigate Sales of E-books” (IP/11/1509).
• Komisyon’un basın açıklaması, “Antitrust: Commission Opens Investigation against Pharmaceutical Companies Cephalon and Teva” (IP/11/511).
• Komisyon’un basın açıklaması, “Antitrust: Commission Probes Certain Co- operation Agreements between Lufthansa and Turkish Airlines and between Brussels Airlines and TAP Air Portugal” (IP/11/147).
• Komisyon’un basın açıklaması, “Antitrust: Commission Probes Allegations of Antitrust Violations by Google” (IP/10/1624).
• Rekabet Kurumu (2015), “16. Yıllık Rapor”, Rekabet Kurumu, Ankara, http:// www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2f1%2fDocuments%2fFaaliyet+Raporl ar%C4%B1%2fRK_16.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 07.06.2015.
• Rekabet Kurumunun 10.04.2015 tarihli açıklaması, “Yemek Sepeti Elektronik