BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

REKABET İHLALLERİNDEN DOĞAN ZARARIN HESAPLANMASI: AB UYGULAMASI BAĞLAMINDA GENEL YAKLAŞIMLAR

Yıl 2012, Sayı: 49, 51 - 102, 01.03.2012

Öz

Rekabet ihlali gerçekleştiren teşebbüslerin caydırılmasında ve ihlalden olumsuz yönde etkilenenlerin zararlarının karşılanmasında idari yaptırımların yanında özel hukuk yaptırımlarının ve bu kapsamda tazminat ödemelerinin önemli bir yeri bulunmaktadır. Bu bakımdan tazminat davalarının yaygınlaşması, rekabet hukukunun gelişmesine de katkı sağlayacaktır. Dolayısıyla tazminat davaları teşvik edilmeli ve kişilerin tazminat davası açmalarının önündeki engeller kaldırılmalıdır. Bu engeller arasında tazminat tutarının hesaplanması önemli bir yere sahiptir. Zira kişiler ihlal nedeniyle uğradıkları zararları tam olarak hesaplayamadıklarında dava açma güdüleri azalmakta, diğer taraftan zarar hesabı hâkimlerin uzmanlık alanı olmadığından, olması gerekenden daha yüksek veya daha düşük tutarda tazminata hükmedilebilmektedir. Bu nedenle zararın hesaplanması tazminat davası sürecinde önemli bir yere sahiptir. Bu öneme binaen çalışmada; rekabet ihlallerinden doğan zararın hesaplanmasında kullanılabilecek yöntemler genel hatları ile anlatılacak, farklı ihlal türlerine göre ne tür zararların doğabileceğine değinilecektir

Kaynakça

  • AKSOY, N. (2004), Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanuna Aykırılığın Özel Hukuk Alanındaki Sonuçları, Rekabet Kurumu, Ankara.
  • AREEDA, P., R. D. BLAIR ve H. HOVENKAMP (2000), Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application, Volume II, Second Edition, Aspen Publishers, USA.
  • ASHURST (2004a), Study on the Conditions of Claims for Damages in Case of Infringement of EC Competition Rules: Comparative Report, Brussels.
  • ASHURST (2004b), Study on the Conditions of Claims for Damages in case of İnfringement of EC Competition Rules: Analysis of Economic Models for the Calculation of Damages, Brussels
  • BUCCIROSSI, P. (2010), “Quantification of Damages in Exclusionary Practice Cases”, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Vol 1, No. 3
  • CABRAL, L.M.B. (2000), Introduction to Industrial Organization, MIT Press, Cambdrige, Massachusetts.
  • CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES (2007), Making Antitrust Damages Actions More Effective In the EU: Welfare İmpact And Potential Scenarios, Report for the European Commission.
  • DAVIS, P. ve E. GARCÉS (2010), Quantitative Techniques for Competition and Antitrust Analysis, Princeton University Press., Princeton.
  • DELGADO, J. ve E.P. ASENJO (2010), “Quantification of Damages from Competition Infringements in Spain”, Note Prepared for the Workshop on the “Quantification of Harm in Damages Actions for Antitrust Infringements” organised by the European Commission, Brussels.
  • FRIEDRISZICK, H.W. ve L.H. RÖLLER (2010) “Quantification of Harm in Damages Actions for Antitrust Infringements -Insight from German Cartel Cases”, European School of Management and Technology (ESMT), Working Paper, No. 10-001.
  • FUMAGALLI, C., J. PADILLA ve M. POLO (2010), “Damages for Exclusionary Practices: a Primer”, Competition Law and Enforcement of Article 102 içinde, Oxford University Press.
  • HALL, R.E. ve V.A. LAZEAR (2000), “Reference Guide on Estimation of Economic Losses in Damages Awards”, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Second Edition içinde, Federal Judicial Center.
  • HOVENKAMP, H. (2010), A Primer on Antitrust Damages
  • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1685919
  • MARTINEZ, M. ve G.G. SIOTIS (2010), “Sabotaging Entry: An Estimate of Damages in the Directory Enquiry Services Market”, Review of Law & Economics 6:1.
  • MOLYNEAUX, M. (2003), “Quality Control of Economic Expert Testimony: The Fundemental Methods of Proving Antitrust Damages, Arizona. St. L. J., 35:1049.
  • O’DONOGHUE, R. ve A.J. PADILLA (2006), The Law and Economics of Article 82 EC, Hart Publishing, Oxford.
  • OECD (2011), Quantification of Harm to Competition by National Courts and Competition Agencies, OECD, Paris.
  • http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/9/48849122.pdf
  • OXERA ve A. KOMNINOS (2009), Quantifying Antitrust Damages: Towards Non-Binding Guidance for Courts, Study Prepared for the European Commission,Luxembourg.
  • PROSPERETTI, L. (2009), “Estimating Damages to Competitors from Exclusinary Practices in Europe: A Review of the Main Issues in the Light of National Courts’ Experience”
  • http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/prosperetti.pdf.
  • SANLI, K.C. (2003), “Türk Rekabet Hukukunda Haksız Fiil Sorumluluğu”, Rekabet Hukukunda Güncel Gelişmeler Sempozyumu-I içinde, Rekabet Kurumu, Ankara.
  • SANLI, K.C. (2007), Haksız Fiil Hukukunun Ekonomik Analizi: Hukuk ve Ekonomi Öğretisi, Arıkan Yayınları, İstanbul.
  • ŞAHBAZ, A. U. (2008), ABD Uygulaması Işığında Rekabet İhlallerinden Doğan Zararların Tayini ve Tazmini, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi No:88, Ankara
  • ÜNAL, Ç. (2009), Aşırı Fiyat Kavramı ve Aşırı Fiyatlama Davranışının Rekabet Hukukundaki Yeri, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi, No:103, Ankara.
  • ÜNAL, Ç. (2010), “Rekabet Hukukunda Tek Taraflı Sömürücü Davranışlar”, Rekabet Dergisi, No: 11(4)
  • VAN DIJK, T. ve F. VERBOVEN (2005), “Quantification of Damages”, Issues in Competition Law and Policy içinde, ABA Publications in Antitrust.
  • VAN DIJK, T. ve F. VERBOVEN (2010), “A Practical Guide to Computing Cartel Damages in Private Actions”, Prepared for DG Competition’s Expert Workshop on the Quantification of Antitrust Damages, Brussels.

QUANTIFICATION OF ANTITRUST DAMAGES: GENERAL APPROACHES IN THE LIGHT OF EU EXPERIENCE

Yıl 2012, Sayı: 49, 51 - 102, 01.03.2012

Öz

Besides administrative antitrust enforcement, private damages actions have a fundamental role in deterrence of infringing parties and compensating the losses of the victim of a violation. In this regard, the spread of the action for damages will also contribute to the development of competition law. Thus, people who sue for compensation cases have to be encouraged and the obstacles behind private actions have to be removed. Quantification of damages is one of the biggest obstacles since people who suffered from an antitrust violation may lose their litigation motives when they could not quantify their exact damages. On the other hand, since the judges are not specialized on quantification, they may rule a damage, which may be more or less than the real amount of harm. Therefore quantification of damages has a vital role in action for damages. Owing to that vital role, quantification methods and types of damages from different types of violations will be discussed in this study

Kaynakça

  • AKSOY, N. (2004), Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanuna Aykırılığın Özel Hukuk Alanındaki Sonuçları, Rekabet Kurumu, Ankara.
  • AREEDA, P., R. D. BLAIR ve H. HOVENKAMP (2000), Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application, Volume II, Second Edition, Aspen Publishers, USA.
  • ASHURST (2004a), Study on the Conditions of Claims for Damages in Case of Infringement of EC Competition Rules: Comparative Report, Brussels.
  • ASHURST (2004b), Study on the Conditions of Claims for Damages in case of İnfringement of EC Competition Rules: Analysis of Economic Models for the Calculation of Damages, Brussels
  • BUCCIROSSI, P. (2010), “Quantification of Damages in Exclusionary Practice Cases”, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Vol 1, No. 3
  • CABRAL, L.M.B. (2000), Introduction to Industrial Organization, MIT Press, Cambdrige, Massachusetts.
  • CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES (2007), Making Antitrust Damages Actions More Effective In the EU: Welfare İmpact And Potential Scenarios, Report for the European Commission.
  • DAVIS, P. ve E. GARCÉS (2010), Quantitative Techniques for Competition and Antitrust Analysis, Princeton University Press., Princeton.
  • DELGADO, J. ve E.P. ASENJO (2010), “Quantification of Damages from Competition Infringements in Spain”, Note Prepared for the Workshop on the “Quantification of Harm in Damages Actions for Antitrust Infringements” organised by the European Commission, Brussels.
  • FRIEDRISZICK, H.W. ve L.H. RÖLLER (2010) “Quantification of Harm in Damages Actions for Antitrust Infringements -Insight from German Cartel Cases”, European School of Management and Technology (ESMT), Working Paper, No. 10-001.
  • FUMAGALLI, C., J. PADILLA ve M. POLO (2010), “Damages for Exclusionary Practices: a Primer”, Competition Law and Enforcement of Article 102 içinde, Oxford University Press.
  • HALL, R.E. ve V.A. LAZEAR (2000), “Reference Guide on Estimation of Economic Losses in Damages Awards”, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Second Edition içinde, Federal Judicial Center.
  • HOVENKAMP, H. (2010), A Primer on Antitrust Damages
  • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1685919
  • MARTINEZ, M. ve G.G. SIOTIS (2010), “Sabotaging Entry: An Estimate of Damages in the Directory Enquiry Services Market”, Review of Law & Economics 6:1.
  • MOLYNEAUX, M. (2003), “Quality Control of Economic Expert Testimony: The Fundemental Methods of Proving Antitrust Damages, Arizona. St. L. J., 35:1049.
  • O’DONOGHUE, R. ve A.J. PADILLA (2006), The Law and Economics of Article 82 EC, Hart Publishing, Oxford.
  • OECD (2011), Quantification of Harm to Competition by National Courts and Competition Agencies, OECD, Paris.
  • http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/9/48849122.pdf
  • OXERA ve A. KOMNINOS (2009), Quantifying Antitrust Damages: Towards Non-Binding Guidance for Courts, Study Prepared for the European Commission,Luxembourg.
  • PROSPERETTI, L. (2009), “Estimating Damages to Competitors from Exclusinary Practices in Europe: A Review of the Main Issues in the Light of National Courts’ Experience”
  • http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/prosperetti.pdf.
  • SANLI, K.C. (2003), “Türk Rekabet Hukukunda Haksız Fiil Sorumluluğu”, Rekabet Hukukunda Güncel Gelişmeler Sempozyumu-I içinde, Rekabet Kurumu, Ankara.
  • SANLI, K.C. (2007), Haksız Fiil Hukukunun Ekonomik Analizi: Hukuk ve Ekonomi Öğretisi, Arıkan Yayınları, İstanbul.
  • ŞAHBAZ, A. U. (2008), ABD Uygulaması Işığında Rekabet İhlallerinden Doğan Zararların Tayini ve Tazmini, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi No:88, Ankara
  • ÜNAL, Ç. (2009), Aşırı Fiyat Kavramı ve Aşırı Fiyatlama Davranışının Rekabet Hukukundaki Yeri, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi, No:103, Ankara.
  • ÜNAL, Ç. (2010), “Rekabet Hukukunda Tek Taraflı Sömürücü Davranışlar”, Rekabet Dergisi, No: 11(4)
  • VAN DIJK, T. ve F. VERBOVEN (2005), “Quantification of Damages”, Issues in Competition Law and Policy içinde, ABA Publications in Antitrust.
  • VAN DIJK, T. ve F. VERBOVEN (2010), “A Practical Guide to Computing Cartel Damages in Private Actions”, Prepared for DG Competition’s Expert Workshop on the Quantification of Antitrust Damages, Brussels.
Toplam 29 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Research Article
Yazarlar

Hale Gündüz Bu kişi benim

Sinan Bozkuş Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Mart 2012
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2012 Sayı: 49

Kaynak Göster

APA Gündüz, H., & Bozkuş, S. (2012). REKABET İHLALLERİNDEN DOĞAN ZARARIN HESAPLANMASI: AB UYGULAMASI BAĞLAMINDA GENEL YAKLAŞIMLAR. Rekabet Dergisi(49), 51-102.