ŞEMSİYE ETKİSİ NEDENİYLE ZARAR GÖRENLERİN TAZMİNAT TALEPLERİNİN AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ REKABET HUKUKU BAKIMINDAN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: KONE KARARININ YANSIMALARI

Yıl 2014, Sayı: 58, 89 - 126, 01.06.2014

Eda Şahin

Öz

Rekabet ihlalleri dağıtım zincirinin farklı kademelerinde yer alan pek çok kişinin zarar görmesine neden olduklarından yaygın bir zarara sebebiyet verirler. Bu husus tüm bu zarar görenlerin tazminat almaya hakkı olup olmadığına ilişkin soruyu da beraberinde getirir. Zarar görenlerin zararlarını ispat bakımından birbirinden farklı ve bazılarının diğerlerine göre daha zor koşullara tabi olması nedeniyle bu soruya cevap vermek kolay değildir. Özellikle zarar ile rekabet ihlali arasında illiyet bağının kurulması, ihlalden zarar görme şekillerine göre mağdurların tazminat elde etmede karşılaştıkları başlıca güçlüklerden birisidir. Rekabet ihlalinin oluşturduğu şemsiye etkisi nedeniyle zarar gören alıcı grubu, tam da bu noktada zararlarını tazmin etmede zorlanmaktadır. Avrupa Birliği rekabet kuralları çerçevesinde şemsiye etkisi nedeniyle zarar gören bu grubun tazminat hakkının olup olmadığına ilişkin tartışma, çok yakın bir zamanda Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanının verdiği kararla çözüme kavuşmuş görünmektedir. Bu bakımdan çalışmamız, söz konusu kararın şemsiye etkisinden kaynaklı zararların tazmin edilmesiyle ilgili zorlukları ne ölçüde aşabildiğini tartışacak ve söz konusu etki nedeniyle zarar görenlerin tazminat alma hakkı olduğunu belirtmenin pratikte yol açabileceği olası etkiler üzerinde duracaktır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Rekabet ihlalleri, tazminat talepleri, dava açma hakkı, illiyet bağı, şemsiye etkisi nedeniyle zarar gören alıcılar

THE ASSESSMENT OF UMBRELLA CLAIMS IN LIGHT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION COMPETITION RULES: REFLECTIONS ON THE KONE JUDGMENT

Öz

The fact that competition infringements cause a widespread harm gives rise to the issue that numerous persons who are at various levels of the distribution chain are affected. This poses the question whether all those harmed can be compensated for their loss. An answer to that question would not be easy when all those harmed are subject to different conditions in proving their claims and these conditions might be more difficult for some than for others. Depending on the way in which victims suffer from the infringement, showing the causal relationship between the loss and the infringement appears to be one of the obstacles to a successful damages action. This is where umbrella customers face the hardship in proving their cases to obtain compensation. The debate on whether umbrella customers have a right to damages in EU competition law seems to be settled with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Therefore, the article seeks to analyse the extent to which the judgment would overcome the difficulties in claiming umbrella damages and discuss the possible implications of granting standing to umbrella customers in practice

Anahtar Kelimeler

Competition law infringements, damage claims, standing to sue, the causal relationship, umbrella customers

Kaynakça

• AB Komisyonu (1997), Notice on the definition of the relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law.
• AB Komisyonu (2005), Green Paper on damages actions for breach of EU antitrust rules.
• AB Komisyonu (2008a), White Paper on Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules.
• AB Komisyonu (2008b), Commission Staff Working Paper Accompanying The White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules.
• AB Komisyonu (2011), Draft Guidance Paper: Quantifying Harm in Actions for Damages Based on Breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union- Public Consultation.
• AB Komisyonu (2013a), 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.
• AB Komisyonu (2013b), Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment Report: Damages Actions For Breach of the EU Antitrust Rules Accompanying The Proposal for a Directive of the European Parlıament and of the Council.
• AB Komisyonu (2013c), Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment - Damages Actions for Breach of the EU Antitrust Rules.
• AB Komisyonu (2014), Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union, COM(2013)0404 – C7-0170/2013 – 2013/0185(COD).
• ALMUNIA, J. (2010), “Common standards for group claims across the EU”, University of Valladolid School of Law, SPEECH/10/554, http://europa.eu/ rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/554&format=HTML&ag ed=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en, Erişim Tarihi: 16.09.2014.
• AREEDA, P.E., H. HOVENKAMP, R.D. BLAIR ve C. P. DURRANCE (2006), Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application vol.IIA, Third edition, Aspen Publishers, New York, US.
• BASEDOW, J. (2007), “Introduction”, J. Basedow (der.), Private Enforcement of EC Competition Law içinde, s.1–5.
• BAŞ, K. (2011), “Türk Hukukunda Rekabet İhlallerine İlişkin Tazminat Davalarında Passing-On Savunması ve Dolaylı Alıcı Kuralının Uygulanması: ABD ve AB Uygulamaları Işığında Değerlendirme ve Öneriler”, Rekabet Dergisi, No: 12(4), s.3-74.
• BLAIR, R.D. ve R.E. ROMANO (1990), “Distinguishing Participants from Nonparticipants in a Price-Fixing Conspiracy: Liability and Damages”, American Business Law Journal, s.33-57.
• BUSSANI, M. ve V.V. PALMER (2003), “The Notion of Pure Economic Loss and its Setting”, M. Bussani ve V. V. Palmer (der.), Pure Economic Loss in Europe içinde, s. 3 - 24.
• Centre for European Policy Studies (2007), Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR) ve Luiss Guido Carli (LUISS), Report for the European Commission ‘Making Antitrust Damages Actions More Effective in the EU: Welfare Impact and Potential Scenarios’, Final Report, Centre for European Policy Studies.
• CONNOR, J.M. (2012), “Private Recoveries in International Cartel Cases Worldwide: What Do the Data Show?”, American Antitrust Institute Working Paper, No: 12-03, s.1–39.
• CONNOR, J.M. ve R.H. LANDE (2005), “How High Do Cartels Raise Prices? Implications for Reform of the Antitrust Sentencing Guidelines”, Tulane Law Review, No: 80, s.513–569.
• CONNOR, J.M. ve R.H. LANDE (2012), “Cartels as Rational Business Strategy: Crime Pays”, Cardozo Law Review, No:34, s.427–490.
• Court of Justice of the European Union (2014), Press Release No 79/14, (Luxembourg) (Kone basın bülteni), http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/ application/pdf/2014-06/cp140079en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 16.06.2014.
• CRAMER, L. ve D.C. SIMONS (2012), “Parties Entitled to Pursue a Claim”, A. A. Foer ve R. M. Stutz (der.), Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the United States: A Handbook içinde, s.64–94.
• CROSS, F.B. ve R.L. MILLER (2008), The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases - Ethical, Regulatory, Global, and Corporate Issues, Seventh Edition, South-Western Cengage Learning, US.
• DAVIS, J.P. (2014), “Classwide Recoveries”, The George Washington Law Review, s.890-950.
• European Group on Tort Law (2005), Principles of European Tort Law: Text and Commentary, Springer-Verlag, Wien, Austria.
• European Group on Tort Law, http://www.egtl.org/, Erişim Tarihi: 27.09.2014.
• European Group on Tort Law, Principles of European Tort Law, http://www.egtl. org/Principles, Erişim Tarihi: 27.09.2014.
• General Court of the European Union (2011), Press Release No 72/11 (Luxembourg), http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-07/cp110072en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 16.06.2014.
• GERBER, D.J. (2007), “Private enforcement of competition law: a comparative perspective”, T.M.J. Möllers ve A. Heinemann (der.), The Enforcement of Competition Law in Europe içinde, s.431-452.
• HANSBERRY, D., C. HUMMER, M. LE BERRE ve M. LECLERC (2014), “Umbrella Effect: Damages Claimed by Customers of Non-cartelists Competitors”, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, No:5(4) s.196- 205.
• HENRY, D., M. MAIER ve P. WERNER (2014), “EU’s top court rules cartel victims can claim damages from cartelists despite no contractual link”, http://www.lexology. com/library/detail.aspx?g=fdc7a0ae-a3a2-437e-9fb8-b7ddfa753bc3&utm_so urce=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+- +general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_conte nt=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2014-06-11&utm_term, Erişim Tarihi: 16.06.2014.
• HOVENKAMP, H. (2011), Federal Antitrust Policy: Law of Competition and its Practice, Fourth Edition, West, US.
• INDERST, R., F. MAIER-RIGAUD ve U. SCHWALBE (2013), “Umbrella Effects”, IESEG School of Management Working Paper, No.2013-ECO-17, s.1–22. JONES, C.A. (1999), Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the EU, UK and USA, First Edition, Oxford University Press, UK.
• JONES, C.A. (2012a), “Opting-in to Opting-out: Why Collective Redress in Europe Should Adopt the Opt-out Approach to Class Actions”, Foreword - Concurrences Journal, s.1–3.
• JONES, C.A. (2012b), “Deterrence and Compensation in New Competition Regimes: The Role of Private Enforcement”, R. Whish ve C. Townley (der.), New Competition Jurisdictions: Shaping Policies and Building Institutions içinde, s.167–182.
• KIRWAN, K. (2012), “Debunking the “Umbrella Theory” of Antitrust Standing”, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=47c9ad69-0334-4b02-a4be- 6f89746a5c71,Erişim Tarihi: 16.06.2014.
• LAITENBERGER, U. ve F. SUMDA (2013), “Estimating Consumer Damages in Cartel Cases”, ZEW Discussion Papers, No. 13-069, http://www.econstor.eu/ bitstream/10419/83472/1/769011144.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.06.2014.
• LANDE, R.H. (1993), “Are Antitrust “Treble” Damages Really Single Damages?”, Ohio State Law Journal, No:54, s.115–174.
• LAVE, J.M. (2003), “Umbrella Standing: The Trade-off between Plaintiff Suit and Speculative Claims”, Antitrust Bulletin, No:48, s.223-269.
• MACKENRODT, M-O. (2010), “Private Incentive, Optimal Deterrence and Damage Claims for Abuses of Dominant Positions - The Interaction between the Economic Review of the Prohibition of Abuses of Dominant Positions and Private Enforcement”, M-O. Mackenrodt, B. C. Gallego ve S. Enchelmaier (der.), Abuse of Dominant Position: New Interpretation, New Enforcement Mechanisms? içinde, s.165–189.
• NEBBIA, P. (2008), “Damages Actions for the Infringement of EC Competition Law: Compensation or Deterrence?”, European Law Review, No: 33(1), s. 23–43. PAGE, W.H. (1985) “The Scope of Liability for Antitrust Violations”, Stanford Law Review, No:37(6), s.1445-1512.
• RUSSELL, T.L. (2010), “Exporting Class Actions to the European Union”, Boston University International Law Journal, No:128, s.141–180.
• ÖZKAN, Z. (2014), “Amerikan Haksız Fiil Hukukunda Nedenselliğin Tesisi Çerçevesinde Gerçek Neden ve İspatı”, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, No: 26(110), s.33-56.
• SANLI, K.C. (2008), “Rekabet Hukukunun İhlalinden Doğan Haksız Fiil Sorumluluğuna Ekonomik bir Bakış”, Perşembe Konferansları, s.3-21.
• Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online (2010), “Antitrust Cases Filed in U.S. District Courts”, http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t5412010.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 10.06.2013.
• STEVANOVIĆ, D. (2012), Damages Actions for Breach of Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty: A More Economic Approach, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Central European University, Budapest.
• UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) (2012), Private actions in competition law - a consultation on options for reform, BIS, London.
• VAN ACKER, J. ve V. LEFEVER (2013), “Advocate General Opens Door to Umbrella Claims in Cartel Damages Cases”, Competition Policy International, s.1-5. VAN UYTSEL, S. (2012), “Collective Actions in a Competition Law Context - Reconciling Multilayer Interests to Enhance Access to Justice”, S. Wrbka, S. Van Uytsel ve M. Siems (der.), Collective Actions: Enhancing Access to Justice and Reconciling Multilayer Interests? içinde, s.57-92.
• VEENBRINK, M. ve C.S. RUSU (2014), “Case Comment – Case C-557/12 Kone AG and Others v ÖBB Infrastruktur AG”, Competition Law Review, No:10(1), s.107-115.
• WAELBROECK, D. ve D. SLATER (2006), “The Commission’s Green Paper on Private Enforcement: “Americanization” of EC Competition Law Enforcement?”, European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, 2006 EU Competition Law and Policy Workshop/Proceedings içinde, s.1–17.
• WAELBROECK, D., D. SLATER ve G. EVEN-SHOSHAN (2004), Study on the Conditions of Claims for Damages in Case of Infringement of EC Competition Rules, Comparative Report (Ashurst Study), s.1-136.
• WAGNER, G. (2011), “Collective Redress – Categories of Loss and Legislative Options”, Law Quarterly Review, No:127, s.55–82.
• YAHYA, M.A. (2005), “Can I Sue Without Being Injured: Why the Benefit of the Bargain Theory for Product Liability is Bad Law and Bad Economics”, Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, No:3, s.83–131. AB: Davalar
• C-453/99 Courage Ltd. v Bernard Crehan, ECR [2001] I-6927.
• AG in Courage, Opinion of AG Mischo Delivered on 22 March 2001 in Courage. Joined Cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P Aalborg Portland A/S and Others v Commission [2004] ECR I-123.
• Joined Cases C-295/04 and C-298/04 Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA [2006] ECR I-06619.
• Case COMP/E-1/38.823, Commission Decision PO/Elevators and Escalators C (2007) 512 final.
• Joined Cases T-141/07, T-142/07, T-145/07 and T-146/07 General Technic-Otis and Others v European Commission [2011] OJ/C 269.
• Case C-199/11 Europese Gemeenshcap v Otis NV and Others [2012] (henüz yayınlanmadı), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=129323 &doclang=EN, Erişim Tarihi: 22.06.2014.
• Case C-536/11 Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Donau Chemie AG and Others [2013] ECR I-0000.
• Opinion of AG Kokott Delivered on 30 January 2014 Case C-557/12 KONE AG and Others (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) [2014] OJ C 129/8, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document. jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30dcbe11e9c22b934a58bfbb96a04e4feee6.e34KaxiLc 3qMb40Rch0SaxuMc3j0?text=&docid=147064&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN &mode=lst&dir=&occ=first%26%238706%3B=1&cid=89784, Erişim Tarihi: 16.06.2014.
• Case C-557/12 Kone AG and Others v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG (henüz yayınlanmadı) (Kone Kararı), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid =153312&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&c id=251767, Erişim Tarihi: 16.06.2014. ABD: Davalar
• State of Washington v American Pipe & Construction Co. 280 F. Supp. 802 (1968).
• Hawaii v Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251 (1972).
• Illinois Brick Co. v Illinois 431 U.S. 720 (1977).
• Brunswick Corp. v Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc, 429 U.S. 477 (1977).
• Mid-West Paper Products v Continental Group, 596 F.2d 573 (3d Cir. 1979).
• In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, 600 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir. 1979).
• Blue Shield of Virginia v McCready, 457 U.S. 465 (1982).
• In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation 691 F.2d 1335 (9th Cir. 1982).
• Associated General Contractors v Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983).
• Cargill, Inc. v Monfort of Colo., Inc., 479 U.S. 104, (1986).