STANDARD OF PROOF IN TURKISH COMPETITION LAW

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 187 - 201, 31.12.2024

Murat Balcı , Muhammet Emirhan Havan

Öz

Since the parties of a dispute shall prove their allegations in order to render them legally effective, rules on proving regime plays a critical role both in public law and private law proceedings. Proving rules are principally composed of two complementary instruments: standard of proof and burden of proof. Standard of proof relates to the threshold to be met to for a particular allegation to be deemed to have been successfully established. Standard of proof plays a crucial role in competition law disputes as well because of its double-sided engagement with the presumption of innocence and an effective enforcement of competition law. Under this submission, we will discuss the implications of standard of proof in Turkish competition law by comparing analogous examples from the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Anahtar Kelimeler

competition law, standard of proof, presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial

TÜRK REKABET HUKUKUNDA İSPAT STANDARDI

Öz

Bir uyuşmazlığın tarafları iddialarına hukuki bir etki tanımak için bunları ispatlamak zorunda oldukları için ispat kuralları gerek kamu hukuku gerek de özel hukuk alanlarında önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. İspat kuralları temel olarak ispat standardı ve ispat yükü olmak üzere iki birbirini tamamlayan araçtan oluşmaktadır. İspat standardı, belirli bir iddianın başarılı biçimde ortaya konulmuş sayılması için karşılanması gereken ispat eşiğine işaret eder. İspat standardı rekabet hukuku uyuşmazlıklarında da masumiyet karinesi ve rekabet hukukunun etkin biçimde uygulanması üzerinden iki taraflı ilişkisi yüzünden önemli bir rol oynar. Bu çalışma altında Türk rekabet hukukundaki ispat standardı uygulamaları Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı (ABAD) nezdindeki benzer davalar ile karşılaştırmalı biçimde incelenecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

rekabet hukuku, ispat standardı, masumiyet karinesi, adil yargılanma hakkı

Kaynakça

• Ardıyok Ş, ‘Rekabet Kurulu Kararlarının Yargısal Denetiminde Milat: Danıştay 13. Dairesi’nin Henkel Kararı’ (Rekabet ve Regülasyon, 23 September 2021) <https:// www.rekabetregulasyon.com/rekabet-kurulu-kararlarinin-yargisal-denetiminde-milat-danistay-13-dairesinin-henkel-karari/> s.e.t. 19 May 2024.
• Bengtsson C, Carpi Badia JM and Kadar M, ‘Mergers’ in Jonathan Faull, Ali Nikpay and Deirdre Taylor (eds), Faull & Nikpay: the EU law of competition (Third edition, Oxford University Press 2014).
• Bronckers M and Vallery A, ‘No Longer Presumed Guilty? The Impact of Fundamental Rights on Certain Dogmas of EU Competition Law’ (2011) 34 World Competition 535.
• Broulík J, ‘Predictability: A Mistreated Virtue of Competition Law’ [2023] Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 1.
• Budak AC, ‘AT Konsey ve Komisyonunun Yeni Rekabet Tüzükleri ve Rekabet Kanunu’nda Yapılan Değişiklikler Işığında Delillerin Toplanması ve İspat’, Perşembe Konferansları (Rekabet Kurumu 2004) <https://www. rekabet.gov.tr/Dosya/persembe-konferanslari-yayinlari/perskonfyyn10.pdf>.
• Can B, ‘Rekabet Hukukunda Kartellere İlişkin İspat Standardı’ (Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu 2012) <https:// www.rekabet.gov.tr/Dosya/uzmanlik-tezleri/136-pdf>.
• Canbeyli A and Serter S, ‘Rekabet Hukukunda İspat Standardı: Temel Prensipler ve Güncel Uygulama Eğilimleri’ in Kerem Can Şanlı and Dilan Alma (eds), Uygulamalı Rekabet Hukuku Seminerleri 2020 (1. baskı, On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2021).
• Colomo PI, ‘The Commission Sends Amazon an SO: The Rise of Common Carrier Antitrust’ (2020) <https:// chillingcompetition.com/2020/11/10/the-commission-sends-amazon-an-so-the-rise-of-common-carrier-antitrust/>.
• Ezrachi A, EU Competition Law: An Analytical Guide to the Leading Cases (Seventh edition, Hart 2021). Faull J and others, ‘Article 101’ in Jonathan Faull, Ali Nikpay and Deirdre Taylor (eds), Faull & Nikpay: the EU law of competition (3rd ed, Oxford University Press 2014).
• Fernández C, ‘Presumptions and Burden of Proof in EU Competition Law: The Intel Judgment’ (2019) 10 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 448.
• Fountoukakos K and Puech-Baron C, ‘Towards a Higher Standard of Proof and a More Interventionist Judicial Review in Antitrust Cases Involving Complex (Economic) Assessments Following CK Telecoms ?’ (2020) 11 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 460.
• Gippini-Fournier E, ‘The Elusive Standard of Proof in EU Competition Cases’ (2010) 33 World Competition 187. Gürkaynak G and others, ‘Türk Rekabet Hukukunda Uyumlu Eylemlerin İspatı Odaklı İspat Tartışmaları’ [2011] Rekabet Dergisi 75.
• Hovenkamp H, ‘The Pleading Problem in Antitrust Cases and Beyond’ [2010] Iowa Law Review Bulletin <https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1811>.
• Kelvin Hiu Fai Kwok, ‘The Standard of Proof in Civil Competition Law Proceedings’ (2016) 132 Law Quarterly Review 541.
• Kornezov A, ‘Judicial Review of Commission Decisions and Judicial Protection’ in Ekaterina Rousseva (ed), Eu antitrust procedure (First edition, Oxford University Press 2020).
• ‘Kurul Kararlarının Kapsam, Nitelik ve Sonuçlarına Göre Dağılımı-1 (Ocak-Aralık 2023)’ (Rekabet Kurumu 2023) Karar İstatistikleri <https://www. rekabet.gov.tr/Dosya/2023-yili-karar-istatistikleri-20240125134258896.pdf>. Mungan MC and Wright J, ‘Optimal Standards of Proof in Antitrust’ (2022) 71 International Review of Law and Economics 106083.
• Parret L, ‘Sense and Nonsense of Rules on Proof in Cartel Cases’ [2008] TILEC Discussion Paper No. 2008-004 <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1088959> s.e.t. 12 May 2024.
• Ritter C, ‘Presumptions in EU Competition Law’ (2018) 6 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 189.
• Ritter L and Braun WD, European Competition Law: A Practitioner’s Guide (3rd edn, Kluwer Law Internat 2005).
• Volpin C, ‘The Ball is in Your Court: Evidential Burden of Proof and the Proof-Proximity Principle in EU Competition Law’ (2014) 51 Common Market Law Review 1159.
• Whish R and Bailey D, Competition Law (10th ed, Oxford University Press 2021).
• Wils WPJ, Principles of European Antitrust Enforcement (Hart Publishing 2005).
• Yeung J and Yeung AC, ‘The Neglected Nexus between Competition Law and Human Rights: Standard of Proof for Pecuniary Penalties’ (2021) 41 Legal Studies 336.
• A Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and others v Commission of the European Communities [1993] ECJ Joined cases C-89/85, C-104/85, C-114/85 C-116/85 C-117/85 C-125/85 to C-129/85.
• Aalborg Portland A/S (C-204/00 P), Irish Cement Ltd (C205/00 P), Ciments français SA (C-211/00 P), Italcementi - Fabbriche Riunite Cemento SpA (C-213/00 P), Buzzi Unicem SpA (C-217/00 P) and Cementir - Cementerie del Tirreno SpA (C-219/00 P) v Commission of the European Communities [2004] ECJ Joined cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P C-213/00 P C-217/00 P C-219/00 P.
• ABB Ltd and ABB AB v European Commission [2019] ECJ Case C-593/18 P.
• Bell Atlantic Corp v Twombly [2007] Supreme Court of The United States No. 05-1126.
• BPB plc v Commission of the European Communities [2008] GC Case T-53/03.
• Case of a Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l v Italy [2011] ECtHR Application no. 43509/08.
• Case of Engel and others v the Netherlands [1976] ECtHR Application no. 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72.
• CK Telecoms UK Investments v Commission [2020] GC (First Chamber, Extended Composition) T-399/16 RENV.
• Commission v CK Telecoms UK Investments [2023] ECJ C-376/20 P.
• Compagnie Royale Asturienne des Mines SA and Rheinzink GmbH v Commission of the European Communities [1984] ECJ Joined cases 29/83 and 30/83.
• Dresdner Bank AG and Others v Commission of the European Communities [2006] GC Joined cases T-44/02 OP, T-54/02 OP, T-56/02 OP T-60/02 OP T-61/02 OP.
• ‘Eturas’ UAB and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba [2016] ECJ Case C-74/14.
• Fuji Electric Co Ltd (anciennement Fuji Electric Holdings Co Ltd) v European Commission [2011] GC Case T-132/07.
• Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Commission of the European Communities [1979] ECJ Case 85/76.
• HSBC Holdings plc and Others v European Commission [2019] GC Case T-105/17.
• HSBC Holdings plc and Others v European Commission [2023] ECJ Case C-883/19 P.
• Hüls AG v Commission of the European Communities [1999] ECJ Case C-199/92 P.
• In Re: Flat Glass Antitrust Liıtigation (MDL No 1200) [2004] United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit No. 03-2920. International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) v European Commission [2013] GC Case T-442/08.
• Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co, Ltd v Zenith Radio Corp [1986] US Supreme Court No. 83-2004.
• Montecatini SpA v Commission of the European Communities [1999] ECJ Case C-235/92 P.
• Nichicon Corporation v European Commission [2023] ECJ Case C-757/21 P.
• Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation v European Commission [2023] ECJ Case C-759/21 P.
• Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 19 February 2009 T-Mobile Netherlands BV, KPN Mobile NV, Orange Nederland NV and Vodafone Libertel NV v Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit (ECJ).
• Schindler Holding Ltd and Others v European Commission [2013] ECJ Case C-501/11 P.
• Silec Cable and General Cable Corp v European Commission [2019] ECJ Case C-599/18 P.
• The Goldman Sachs Group Inc v European Commission [2021] ECJ Case C-595/18 P.
• Theatre Enterprises v Paramount Distributing [1954] US Supreme Court No. 19.
• Toys Us Inc V Federal Trade Commission [2000] United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit No. 98-4107.
• United Brands Company and United Brands Continentaal BV v Commission of the European Communities [1978] ECJ Case 27/76.
• Volkswagen AG v Commission of the European Communities [2000] GC Case T-62/98.
• Volkswagen AG v Commission of the European Communities [2003] ECJ Case C-338/00 P.
• Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings 2016.
• Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2012 (OJ C).