BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

GELECEĞE YÖNELİK BİLGİ PAYLAŞIMININ REKABET HUKUKU KAPSAMINDA DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ VE REKABET KURUMUNUN BİLGİ PAYLAŞIMI KONUSUNA YAKLAŞIMI

Yıl 2012, Sayı: 51, 3 - 78, 01.09.2012

Ece Fatma Aslan

Öz

Rakipler arasında geleceğe yönelik bilgi paylaşımının rekabet hukuku kapsamında değerlendirilmesi oldukça tartışmalı bir konudur. Doktrinde ve uygulamada konuya ilişkin farklı görüşler olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Tartışmalar bu tip bilgi değişiminin amacı itibarı ile rekabeti sınırlandırıcı olup olmadığı ya da paylaşımın per se yasaklanmasının gerekip gerekmediği noktasında düğümlenmektedir. Çalışmamız neticesinde konuyla ilgili farklı görüşler incelenerek, geleceğe yönelik bilgi paylaşımının per se yasak ya da amaç yönünden rekabete aykırı sayılmaması gerektiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Kanımızca, diğer tip bilgi paylaşımlarında olduğu gibi, geleceğe yönelik bilgi paylaşımları da rekabet otoritelerince rekabet üzerindeki sınırlandırıcı etkileri çerçevesinde değerlendirilmelidir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Geleceğe Yönelik Bilgi Paylaşımı Kolaylaştırıcı Eylem

Kaynakça

  • ALLEN&OVERY (2010), Response To The European Commission, Draft revised rules for the assessment of horizontal co-operation agreements, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_horizontals/allen_overy_en. pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • ASLAN, E. F. (2009), “Rekabet Hukuku Uygulamasında Bilgi Değişimi”
  • Rekabet Dergisi, 10 (3), s.7-66. ASLAN, İ. Y. (2007), Rekabet Hukuku, Ekin Kitabevi, Bursa.
  • ASSOCIATION DES AVOCATS PRATIQUANT LE DROIT DE LA CONCURRENCE (2010), Response to the European Commission’s
  • Consultation on the Current Regime for the Assessment of Horizontal Cooperation Agreements, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_horizontals/ABADc_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • BELLAMY, C. ve G. CHILD (2008), European Community Law of
  • Competition, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, US. BENNETT, M. ve P. COLLİNS (2010), “The Law and Economics of
  • Information Sharing”, European Competition Journal, Volume 6, No:2. CAMESASCA, P. D., A. K. SCHMİDT ve M. J. CLANCY (2010), “The EC
  • Commission’s Draft Horizontal Guidelines: Presumed Guilty when Having a Chat”, Journal of European Commission Law&Practice, Oxford University Press, 2010, http://jeclap.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/5/405.abstract, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • CAPOBIANCO, A. (2010), “Background Paper”, OECD Policy Roundtables
  • Information Exchanges Between Competitors under Competition Law, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/52/48379006.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012, s.1-59.
  • Archive, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15900/2/MPRA_paper_15900.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • EUROPEAN COMPETITION LAWYERS FORUM (ECLF) (2010), Comments on the Draft Guidelines on the Applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to Horizontal Co-operation Agreements, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_horizontals/eclf_en.pdf
  • GILES, M. (2006), “The OFT finds that an exchange of information on independent school fees violates national competition provisions but accepts a
  • “structured settlement” (Independent Schools)”, e-Competitions, No 12743, http://www.concurrences.com/revue_bib_rdr.php3?id_article=12743&lang=en, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • JONES, A. (2005), “The OFT proposes for the first time a settlement in order to cease information exchanges and price-fixing (Independent Schools)”, e-Competitions, No 684., http://www.concurrences.com/abstract_bulletin_web.php3?id_article=684&lang =fr, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • JONES, A. ve B. SUFRİN (2008), EC Competition Law, Third Edition, Oxford
  • University Press, New York, US. KEKEVİ, G., B. CAN ve Z. ŞENGÖREN (2011), “Uyumlu Eylem Karineleri
  • Mitler ve Gerçekler”, Rekabet Hukukunda Güncel Gelişmeler Sempozyumu IX. KESİM, H. (2011) “Rekabet Hukukunda Kolaylaştırıcı Eylemler ve Mukayeseli
  • Uygulama”, Rekabet Hukukunda Güncel Gelişmeler Sempozyumu IX, s.63-110. KHUN, K. U. (2010), “Designing Competition Policy towards Information
  • Exchanges - Looking Beyond the Possibility Results”, OECD Policy Roundtables: Information Exchanges Between Competitors under Competition Law, s. 416- 432. OECD (2007), Policy Roundtables: Facilitating Practices in Oligopolies, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/44/41472165.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • OECD (2010), Policy Roundtables: Information Exchanges Between
  • Competitors under Competition Law, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/52/48379006.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • OĞUZMAN, K. ve N. BARLAS (2002), Medeni Hukuk, Beta Basım, İstanbul, s.45 vd.
  • PADILLA, J. (2010), “The elusive challenge of assessing information sharing among competitors under the competition laws”, OECD Policy Roundtables
  • Information Exchanges Between Competitors under Competition Law, s.434 vd. THE CITY OF LONDON LAW SOCIETY COMPETITION LAW COMMITTE (2010), Comments on the Draft EU Guidelines on Horizontal Co- operation Agreements and Related Block Exemptions, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_horizontals/clls_en.pdf
  • VAN BAEL, I. ve J. F. BELLIS (2010a), “Draft R&D Block Exemption
  • Regulation, Draft Specialisation Block Exemption Regulation, Draft Horizontal Guidelines; Observations of Van Bael& Bellis”, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_horizontals/vanbaelbellis_e n.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • VAN BAEL, I. ve J. F. BELLIS (2010b), Competition Law of the European
  • Community, Fifth Edition, Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands, WHISH, R. (2006), “Information Agreements”, Swedish Competition Authority
  • (der.), Pros and Cons of Information Sharing içinde, s.19-42. WHISH, R. (2009), Competition Law, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, US.
  • ABD Yüksek Mahkeme Kararları American Column and Lumber Co v. US, 257 US 377 (1921).
  • US v American Linseed Oil Co, 262 US 371 (1923). http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._American_Linseed_Oil_Compa ny/Opinion_of_the_Court Erişim Tarihi: 11.05.2012
  • Cement Mfrs. Protective Ass’n v. United States, 268 U.S. 588 (1925). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=268&invol=588 Erişim Tarihi: 11.05.2012.
  • Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association v. US, 268 US 563 (1925).
  • US v. Container Corporation of America et al, 393 US 333 (1969).
  • US v. United States Gypsum Co. et al., 438 US 422 (1978).
  • ABD Federal Ticaret Komisyonu Kararları In re Valassis Communications, Inc., FTC No.C-4160 (April 19, 2006) (consent order), http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0510008/0510008c4160ValassisDecisionand
  • Order.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • In re Stone Container Corporation, FTC No. C-3806. http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/06/9510006.do.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • ABD Adalet Bakanlığı Kararları United States v. Airline Tariff Publishing Co., 1994-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,687
  • (D.D.C. Aug. 10, 1994), http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/dir23.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • Fransa Rekabet Otoritesi Kararları Esso, Total, BP and Shell v Minister of the Economy, Finanace and Industry, judgment of 9 December 2003, BOCCRF no.2 of 12 March 2004, [2005] ECC , further appeal to the Cour de Cassation dismissed as inadmissible: judgment of 15 January 2005.
  • Conseil de la Concurrence, November 25th 2005, decision O5-D-64, regarding
  • Parisian Luxry Hotels. Conseil de la Concurrence, November 30th 2005, decision O5-D-65, regarding mobile telecommunication operators.
  • Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı Kararları Joined Cases 40/73 to 48/73, 50/73, 54/73 to 56/73, 111/73, 113/73 and 114/73, Suiker Unie and others vs. Commission, [1975] ECR 1663.
  • Joint Cases C-89/85 and others, A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v. Commission [1993] ECR I- 1307.
  • Case C-7/95 P, John Deere Ltd. vs. Commission, [1998] ECR I-3111 [1998] 5 CMLR.
  • Case C-8/95 P, New Holland Ford vs. Commission, [1998] ECR I-3175.
  • Case C-199/92 P, Hüls AG v. Commission, [1999] ECR I-4287.
  • Case C-49/92 P, Anic Partezipazioni, [1999] ECR I-4125.
  • Case C-194/99 P, Thyssen stahl AG v. Commission [2003] ECR I-11005.
  • Case C-238/05, Asnef-Equifax/Ausbanc, [2006] ECR I-11125, [2007] 4 CMLR 6.
  • Joined Cases C-403/04, Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd. v. Commission, [2007] ECR I-729.
  • Joined Cases C-501/06 P and others, GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v. Commission, 06 October 2009.
  • Case C-8/08, T-Mobile Netherlands and others, [2009] ECR I-4529.
  • Press Release No 47/09, 4 June 2009, Judgement of the Court of Justice in Case
  • C- 8/08, http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp09/aff/cp090047en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012, s. 2, 3.
  • Genel Mahkeme Kararları Case T-35/92, John Deere Ltd. vs. Commission, [1994] ECR II-957.
  • Case T-34/92, Fiatagri and New Holland Ford vs. Commission, [1994] ECR II
  • Case T-141/94, Thyssen stahl AG v. Commission [1999], ECR II-347, [1999] 4 CMLR 810.
  • Joined Case T-25/95 and others, Cimenteries CBR SA, [2000] ECR II-491, 5 CMLR 204.
  • Joined Cases T-202/98 and others, Tate& Lyle v Commission, [2001] ECR II
  • Avrupa Birliği Komisyonu Kararları VVVF, in [1969] OJ L 168.
  • IFTRA-Flat Glass Containers [1974] OJ L 160.
  • IFTRA-Aluminium, [1975] OJ L 228. Copelba/VNP, [1977] OJ L 242/10.
  • Vegatable Parchment, [1978] OJ L 70/54.
  • TEKO, OJ 1990 L 13/34, [1990] 4 CMLR 957.
  • Commission Decision, UK Agricultural Tractor Exchange, [1992] OJ L 68/19.
  • Commission decision, Cartonboard, [1994] OJ L 243/1.
  • Case No. IV/33.815, 35.842- EUDIM in Commission’s Notice pursuant to Artcile 19.3 of the Regulation 17, [1996] OJ C 111/8.
  • Commission decision, Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, [1998] OJ L 1/10.
  • İngiltere Adil Ticaret Ofisi Kararı Schools: Exchange of information on future fees, No. CA98/05/2006, November 2006, http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/ca98_public_register/decisions/schools.pdf;js essionid=9BD92B23924FB5D3B95DFE7D7DF443F6, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • Decision of the Office of Fair Trading No. CA98/05/2006, Exchange of information on future fees by certain independent fee-paying schools 20 November 2006, (Case CE/2890-03).
  • RBS Agrees to pay £28.5 million penalty for disclosing pricing information to competitor, Press Release, 34/10, 30 March 2010, http://www.oft.gov.uk/news- and-updates/press/2010/34-10, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • Rekabet Kurulu Karar ve Görüşleri Rekabet Kurulunun 15.05.1998 tarihli ve 1054 sayılı Türkiye Çimento
  • Müstahsilleri Birliği (TÇMB) Görüşü Rekabet Kurulunun 02-06/51-24 sayılı, 01.02.2002 tarihli İç Anadolu, Akdeniz
  • Marmara Bölgeleri Çimento (OYSA I) Kararı Rekabet Kurulunun 02-07/57-26 sayılı, 08.02.2002 tarihli Gübre Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 02-45/530-219 sayılı, 25.07.2002 tarihli Reklamcılar Derneği Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 02-53/685-278 sayılı, 06.09.2002 tarihli ve 03-12/135-63 sayılı 25.02.2003 tarihli Yonga ve Lif Levha Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 04-26/287-65 sayılı, 15.04.2004 tarihli Otomotiv
  • Distribütörleri Derneği (ODD 1) Kararı Rekabet Kurulunun 05-68/958-259 sayılı, 14.10.2005 tarihli Uzun Demir Çelik Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 06-29/355-87 sayılı, 24.04.2006 tarihli Seramik Karteli Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 06-65/1202-365 sayılı, 28.12.2006 tarihli Ortak Havacılık
  • Operasyon Sözleşmesine İlişkin Kararı Rekabet Kurumu Petrol Piyasasında Uygulanacak Fiyatlandırma Sistemi Hakkında Görüş (2007)
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 07-31/325-120 sayılı, 11.04.2007 tarihli Work and Travel (WAT) Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 07-42/466-178 sayılı, 23.05.2007 tarihli Türkiye Hazır
  • Beton Birliği Kararı Rekabet Kurulunun 07-56/672-209 sayılı, 04.07.2007 tarihli Emaye Bobin Teli Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 07-64/794-291 sayılı 03.08.2007 tarihli Seramik 2 Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 07-76/907-345 sayılı, 20.09.2007 tarihli Petrol Sanayi
  • Derneği (PETDER) Kararı Rekabet Kurulunun 09-28/600-141 sayılı, 16.06.2009 tarihli Erdemir
  • ArcelorMittal ve Borçelik Kararı Rekabet Kurulunun 09-41/998-255 sayılı, 09.09.2009 tarihli ODD 2 Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 09-57/1393-362 sayılı, 25.11.2009 tarihli Beyaz Et Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 10-10/94-42 sayılı, 28.01.2010 tarihli Uluslararası
  • Nakliyeciler Derneği (UND) Kararı Rekabet Kurulunun 11-12/226-76 sayılı, 03.03.2011 tarihli Özel Okullar Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 11-24/464-139 sayılı, 18.04.2011 tarihli otomotiv sektöründe faaliyet gösteren çeşitli teşebbüsler hakkında Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 11-43/916-285 sayılı, 14.07.2011 tarihli ODD 3 Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 11-48/1215-428 sayılı, 22.09.2011 tarihli PETDER 2 Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 12-13/389-118 sayılı, 21.03.2012 tarihli UND 2 Kararı

EVALUATION OF INFORMATION SHARING ABOUT FUTURE PLANS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF COMPETITION LAW AND THE APPROACH OF THE TURKISH COMPETITION AUTHORITY ON INFORMATION EXCHANGES

Yıl 2012, Sayı: 51, 3 - 78, 01.09.2012

Ece Fatma Aslan

Öz

The assessment of the exchange of information regarding future prices and commercial strategies between competitors is a very controversial subject within the scope of the competition law. The literature and the practice involve different opinions about the matter. The focal point of the discussions is whether this type of information sharing restricts the competition by its object or shall it be determined as per se illegal. After examining the distinct views on the subject, our study concludes that, the information sharing on future plans doesn’t restrict the competition by its object and the effects of such an exchange on the competition shall be considered by the competition authorities like other types of information exchanges

Anahtar Kelimeler

Information Sharing on Future Plans Facilitating Practices

Kaynakça

  • ALLEN&OVERY (2010), Response To The European Commission, Draft revised rules for the assessment of horizontal co-operation agreements, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_horizontals/allen_overy_en. pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • ASLAN, E. F. (2009), “Rekabet Hukuku Uygulamasında Bilgi Değişimi”
  • Rekabet Dergisi, 10 (3), s.7-66. ASLAN, İ. Y. (2007), Rekabet Hukuku, Ekin Kitabevi, Bursa.
  • ASSOCIATION DES AVOCATS PRATIQUANT LE DROIT DE LA CONCURRENCE (2010), Response to the European Commission’s
  • Consultation on the Current Regime for the Assessment of Horizontal Cooperation Agreements, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_horizontals/ABADc_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • BELLAMY, C. ve G. CHILD (2008), European Community Law of
  • Competition, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, US. BENNETT, M. ve P. COLLİNS (2010), “The Law and Economics of
  • Information Sharing”, European Competition Journal, Volume 6, No:2. CAMESASCA, P. D., A. K. SCHMİDT ve M. J. CLANCY (2010), “The EC
  • Commission’s Draft Horizontal Guidelines: Presumed Guilty when Having a Chat”, Journal of European Commission Law&Practice, Oxford University Press, 2010, http://jeclap.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/5/405.abstract, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • CAPOBIANCO, A. (2010), “Background Paper”, OECD Policy Roundtables
  • Information Exchanges Between Competitors under Competition Law, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/52/48379006.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012, s.1-59.
  • Archive, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15900/2/MPRA_paper_15900.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • EUROPEAN COMPETITION LAWYERS FORUM (ECLF) (2010), Comments on the Draft Guidelines on the Applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to Horizontal Co-operation Agreements, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_horizontals/eclf_en.pdf
  • GILES, M. (2006), “The OFT finds that an exchange of information on independent school fees violates national competition provisions but accepts a
  • “structured settlement” (Independent Schools)”, e-Competitions, No 12743, http://www.concurrences.com/revue_bib_rdr.php3?id_article=12743&lang=en, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • JONES, A. (2005), “The OFT proposes for the first time a settlement in order to cease information exchanges and price-fixing (Independent Schools)”, e-Competitions, No 684., http://www.concurrences.com/abstract_bulletin_web.php3?id_article=684&lang =fr, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • JONES, A. ve B. SUFRİN (2008), EC Competition Law, Third Edition, Oxford
  • University Press, New York, US. KEKEVİ, G., B. CAN ve Z. ŞENGÖREN (2011), “Uyumlu Eylem Karineleri
  • Mitler ve Gerçekler”, Rekabet Hukukunda Güncel Gelişmeler Sempozyumu IX. KESİM, H. (2011) “Rekabet Hukukunda Kolaylaştırıcı Eylemler ve Mukayeseli
  • Uygulama”, Rekabet Hukukunda Güncel Gelişmeler Sempozyumu IX, s.63-110. KHUN, K. U. (2010), “Designing Competition Policy towards Information
  • Exchanges - Looking Beyond the Possibility Results”, OECD Policy Roundtables: Information Exchanges Between Competitors under Competition Law, s. 416- 432. OECD (2007), Policy Roundtables: Facilitating Practices in Oligopolies, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/44/41472165.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • OECD (2010), Policy Roundtables: Information Exchanges Between
  • Competitors under Competition Law, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/52/48379006.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • OĞUZMAN, K. ve N. BARLAS (2002), Medeni Hukuk, Beta Basım, İstanbul, s.45 vd.
  • PADILLA, J. (2010), “The elusive challenge of assessing information sharing among competitors under the competition laws”, OECD Policy Roundtables
  • Information Exchanges Between Competitors under Competition Law, s.434 vd. THE CITY OF LONDON LAW SOCIETY COMPETITION LAW COMMITTE (2010), Comments on the Draft EU Guidelines on Horizontal Co- operation Agreements and Related Block Exemptions, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_horizontals/clls_en.pdf
  • VAN BAEL, I. ve J. F. BELLIS (2010a), “Draft R&D Block Exemption
  • Regulation, Draft Specialisation Block Exemption Regulation, Draft Horizontal Guidelines; Observations of Van Bael& Bellis”, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_horizontals/vanbaelbellis_e n.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • VAN BAEL, I. ve J. F. BELLIS (2010b), Competition Law of the European
  • Community, Fifth Edition, Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands, WHISH, R. (2006), “Information Agreements”, Swedish Competition Authority
  • (der.), Pros and Cons of Information Sharing içinde, s.19-42. WHISH, R. (2009), Competition Law, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, US.
  • ABD Yüksek Mahkeme Kararları American Column and Lumber Co v. US, 257 US 377 (1921).
  • US v American Linseed Oil Co, 262 US 371 (1923). http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._American_Linseed_Oil_Compa ny/Opinion_of_the_Court Erişim Tarihi: 11.05.2012
  • Cement Mfrs. Protective Ass’n v. United States, 268 U.S. 588 (1925). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=268&invol=588 Erişim Tarihi: 11.05.2012.
  • Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association v. US, 268 US 563 (1925).
  • US v. Container Corporation of America et al, 393 US 333 (1969).
  • US v. United States Gypsum Co. et al., 438 US 422 (1978).
  • ABD Federal Ticaret Komisyonu Kararları In re Valassis Communications, Inc., FTC No.C-4160 (April 19, 2006) (consent order), http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0510008/0510008c4160ValassisDecisionand
  • Order.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • In re Stone Container Corporation, FTC No. C-3806. http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/06/9510006.do.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • ABD Adalet Bakanlığı Kararları United States v. Airline Tariff Publishing Co., 1994-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,687
  • (D.D.C. Aug. 10, 1994), http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/dir23.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • Fransa Rekabet Otoritesi Kararları Esso, Total, BP and Shell v Minister of the Economy, Finanace and Industry, judgment of 9 December 2003, BOCCRF no.2 of 12 March 2004, [2005] ECC , further appeal to the Cour de Cassation dismissed as inadmissible: judgment of 15 January 2005.
  • Conseil de la Concurrence, November 25th 2005, decision O5-D-64, regarding
  • Parisian Luxry Hotels. Conseil de la Concurrence, November 30th 2005, decision O5-D-65, regarding mobile telecommunication operators.
  • Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı Kararları Joined Cases 40/73 to 48/73, 50/73, 54/73 to 56/73, 111/73, 113/73 and 114/73, Suiker Unie and others vs. Commission, [1975] ECR 1663.
  • Joint Cases C-89/85 and others, A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v. Commission [1993] ECR I- 1307.
  • Case C-7/95 P, John Deere Ltd. vs. Commission, [1998] ECR I-3111 [1998] 5 CMLR.
  • Case C-8/95 P, New Holland Ford vs. Commission, [1998] ECR I-3175.
  • Case C-199/92 P, Hüls AG v. Commission, [1999] ECR I-4287.
  • Case C-49/92 P, Anic Partezipazioni, [1999] ECR I-4125.
  • Case C-194/99 P, Thyssen stahl AG v. Commission [2003] ECR I-11005.
  • Case C-238/05, Asnef-Equifax/Ausbanc, [2006] ECR I-11125, [2007] 4 CMLR 6.
  • Joined Cases C-403/04, Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd. v. Commission, [2007] ECR I-729.
  • Joined Cases C-501/06 P and others, GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v. Commission, 06 October 2009.
  • Case C-8/08, T-Mobile Netherlands and others, [2009] ECR I-4529.
  • Press Release No 47/09, 4 June 2009, Judgement of the Court of Justice in Case
  • C- 8/08, http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp09/aff/cp090047en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012, s. 2, 3.
  • Genel Mahkeme Kararları Case T-35/92, John Deere Ltd. vs. Commission, [1994] ECR II-957.
  • Case T-34/92, Fiatagri and New Holland Ford vs. Commission, [1994] ECR II
  • Case T-141/94, Thyssen stahl AG v. Commission [1999], ECR II-347, [1999] 4 CMLR 810.
  • Joined Case T-25/95 and others, Cimenteries CBR SA, [2000] ECR II-491, 5 CMLR 204.
  • Joined Cases T-202/98 and others, Tate& Lyle v Commission, [2001] ECR II
  • Avrupa Birliği Komisyonu Kararları VVVF, in [1969] OJ L 168.
  • IFTRA-Flat Glass Containers [1974] OJ L 160.
  • IFTRA-Aluminium, [1975] OJ L 228. Copelba/VNP, [1977] OJ L 242/10.
  • Vegatable Parchment, [1978] OJ L 70/54.
  • TEKO, OJ 1990 L 13/34, [1990] 4 CMLR 957.
  • Commission Decision, UK Agricultural Tractor Exchange, [1992] OJ L 68/19.
  • Commission decision, Cartonboard, [1994] OJ L 243/1.
  • Case No. IV/33.815, 35.842- EUDIM in Commission’s Notice pursuant to Artcile 19.3 of the Regulation 17, [1996] OJ C 111/8.
  • Commission decision, Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, [1998] OJ L 1/10.
  • İngiltere Adil Ticaret Ofisi Kararı Schools: Exchange of information on future fees, No. CA98/05/2006, November 2006, http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/ca98_public_register/decisions/schools.pdf;js essionid=9BD92B23924FB5D3B95DFE7D7DF443F6, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • Decision of the Office of Fair Trading No. CA98/05/2006, Exchange of information on future fees by certain independent fee-paying schools 20 November 2006, (Case CE/2890-03).
  • RBS Agrees to pay £28.5 million penalty for disclosing pricing information to competitor, Press Release, 34/10, 30 March 2010, http://www.oft.gov.uk/news- and-updates/press/2010/34-10, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2012.
  • Rekabet Kurulu Karar ve Görüşleri Rekabet Kurulunun 15.05.1998 tarihli ve 1054 sayılı Türkiye Çimento
  • Müstahsilleri Birliği (TÇMB) Görüşü Rekabet Kurulunun 02-06/51-24 sayılı, 01.02.2002 tarihli İç Anadolu, Akdeniz
  • Marmara Bölgeleri Çimento (OYSA I) Kararı Rekabet Kurulunun 02-07/57-26 sayılı, 08.02.2002 tarihli Gübre Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 02-45/530-219 sayılı, 25.07.2002 tarihli Reklamcılar Derneği Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 02-53/685-278 sayılı, 06.09.2002 tarihli ve 03-12/135-63 sayılı 25.02.2003 tarihli Yonga ve Lif Levha Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 04-26/287-65 sayılı, 15.04.2004 tarihli Otomotiv
  • Distribütörleri Derneği (ODD 1) Kararı Rekabet Kurulunun 05-68/958-259 sayılı, 14.10.2005 tarihli Uzun Demir Çelik Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 06-29/355-87 sayılı, 24.04.2006 tarihli Seramik Karteli Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 06-65/1202-365 sayılı, 28.12.2006 tarihli Ortak Havacılık
  • Operasyon Sözleşmesine İlişkin Kararı Rekabet Kurumu Petrol Piyasasında Uygulanacak Fiyatlandırma Sistemi Hakkında Görüş (2007)
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 07-31/325-120 sayılı, 11.04.2007 tarihli Work and Travel (WAT) Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 07-42/466-178 sayılı, 23.05.2007 tarihli Türkiye Hazır
  • Beton Birliği Kararı Rekabet Kurulunun 07-56/672-209 sayılı, 04.07.2007 tarihli Emaye Bobin Teli Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 07-64/794-291 sayılı 03.08.2007 tarihli Seramik 2 Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 07-76/907-345 sayılı, 20.09.2007 tarihli Petrol Sanayi
  • Derneği (PETDER) Kararı Rekabet Kurulunun 09-28/600-141 sayılı, 16.06.2009 tarihli Erdemir
  • ArcelorMittal ve Borçelik Kararı Rekabet Kurulunun 09-41/998-255 sayılı, 09.09.2009 tarihli ODD 2 Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 09-57/1393-362 sayılı, 25.11.2009 tarihli Beyaz Et Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 10-10/94-42 sayılı, 28.01.2010 tarihli Uluslararası
  • Nakliyeciler Derneği (UND) Kararı Rekabet Kurulunun 11-12/226-76 sayılı, 03.03.2011 tarihli Özel Okullar Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 11-24/464-139 sayılı, 18.04.2011 tarihli otomotiv sektöründe faaliyet gösteren çeşitli teşebbüsler hakkında Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 11-43/916-285 sayılı, 14.07.2011 tarihli ODD 3 Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 11-48/1215-428 sayılı, 22.09.2011 tarihli PETDER 2 Kararı
  • Rekabet Kurulunun 12-13/389-118 sayılı, 21.03.2012 tarihli UND 2 Kararı
Toplam 99 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Research Article
Yazarlar

Ece Fatma Aslan Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Eylül 2012
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2012 Sayı: 51

Kaynak Göster

APA Aslan, E. F. (2012). GELECEĞE YÖNELİK BİLGİ PAYLAŞIMININ REKABET HUKUKU KAPSAMINDA DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ VE REKABET KURUMUNUN BİLGİ PAYLAŞIMI KONUSUNA YAKLAŞIMI. Rekabet Dergisi(51), 3-78.