Tedarik\u00e7iler ve al\u0131c\u0131lar, ili\u015fkinin tek seferlik bir sat\u0131n al\u0131mdan \u00f6teye uzanmas\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc durumlarda, uzun vadeli bir i\u015f ili\u015fkisinin temel hususlar\u0131n\u0131 tek tip bir \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlemek amac\u0131yla genellikle \u00e7er\u00e7eve tedarik s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri \u00fczerinde anla\u015f\u0131rlar. Bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler genellikle \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin t\u00fcr\u00fc ve kalitesini, \u00f6deme ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131 da i\u00e7eren fiyatlar\u0131, kalite g\u00fcvencesi ve sorumluluk kurallar\u0131n\u0131 ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm mekanizmalar\u0131n\u0131 kapsar. Al\u0131c\u0131lar ayr\u0131ca, ideal olarak sabit veya \u00e7ok az dalgalanan fiyatlarla hammadde veya bitmi\u015f \u00fcr\u00fcn tedarikini g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na almaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r. Tedarik\u00e7iler ise ideal olarak sabit veya hatta artan sat\u0131\u015f hacimleriyle m\u00fc\u015fterilerini elde tutmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Piyasay\u0131 kapat\u0131c\u0131 etkileri olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece, uzun vadeli m\u00fcnhas\u0131r sat\u0131n alma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri genel \u015fart ve ko\u015fullarda bile ge\u00e7erli olabilir. Bu durum, D\u00fcsseldorf Y\u00fcksek B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi\u2019nin 17 May\u0131s 2017 tarihli karar\u0131nda (VI-U (Kart) 10\/16) teyit edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Tedarik s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde \u015fu h\u00fck\u00fcm yer al\u0131yordu:<\/p>\n
\u201cAl\u0131c\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fme s\u00fcresi boyunca Ek 1\u201dde listelenen s\u00f6zle\u015fme kapsam\u0131ndaki \u00fcr\u00fcnleri m\u00fcnhas\u0131ran tedarik\u00e7iden sat\u0131n almay\u0131 taahh\u00fct eder.\u201d<\/p>\n
S\u00f6zle\u015fme sekiz y\u0131ll\u0131k sabit bir s\u00fcreye sahipti ve alt\u0131 ayl\u0131k ihbar s\u00fcresi ile feshedilmedi\u011fi s\u00fcrece, her seferinde birer y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrelerle z\u0131mni olarak yenileniyordu. Bununla birlikte, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc y\u0131l\u0131ndan itibaren al\u0131c\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye konu \u00fcr\u00fcnleri \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc \u015fah\u0131slardan temin etmeye ba\u015flad\u0131. Bu nedenle tedarik\u00e7i, Alman Medeni Kanunu\u2019nun 280(1) ve 241(1) maddeleri uyar\u0131nca m\u00fc\u015fteriye kar\u015f\u0131 bilgi ve tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131. Hem B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi hem de Y\u00fcksek B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi, tedarik\u00e7i lehine karar verdi.<\/p>\n
M\u00fcnhas\u0131r sat\u0131n alma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ge\u00e7erliydi ve \u00f6zellikle, Almanya Rekabet K\u0131s\u0131tlamalar\u0131na Kar\u015f\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 1. maddesinde yer alan kartel yasa\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etmiyordu (21. ve sonraki paragraflar). M\u00fcnhas\u0131r sat\u0131n alma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, ancak rakiplerin aleyhine piyasay\u0131 \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kapatmas\u0131 halinde ge\u00e7ersiz say\u0131labilirdi. Bu davada durum b\u00f6yle de\u011fildi; aksine, m\u00fcnhas\u0131r sat\u0131n alma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc her iki tarafa da avantajlar sunuyordu: tedarik\u00e7i bir sat\u0131\u015f garantisi elde ederken, al\u0131c\u0131 da bir tedarik garantisi elde ediyordu. Ayr\u0131ca, tedarik\u00e7inin pazar pay\u0131 yaln\u0131zca yakla\u015f\u0131k %1% idi. Genel olarak mahkeme, rekabet hukuku itiraz\u0131n\u0131 temelsiz bulmu\u015f ve pazar tan\u0131m\u0131, pazar pay\u0131 ve pazara giri\u015f engelleri hakk\u0131nda bilgi bulunmamas\u0131 da dahil olmak \u00fczere ilgili iddialar\u0131 yetersiz g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
\u00d6zel sat\u0131n alma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, Alman Medeni Kanunu\u2019nun 307. maddesinin (1) ve (2) f\u0131kralar\u0131 uyar\u0131nca genel \u015fart veya ko\u015ful olarak da ge\u00e7ersiz say\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r; zira bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck, al\u0131c\u0131y\u0131 makul olmayan bir \u015fekilde dezavantajl\u0131 duruma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrmemi\u015ftir (27. ve sonraki f\u0131kralar, 35. ve sonraki f\u0131kralar). Bu sonu\u00e7, her iki taraf\u0131n menfaatlerinin kapsaml\u0131 bir \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilmesi sonucunda ortaya \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00d6zellikle, sat\u0131\u015f garantisi sa\u011flayan al\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n uzun vadeli m\u00fcnhas\u0131r sat\u0131n alma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, tedarik\u00e7inin uzun vadeli fiyat garantisi vermemesine ra\u011fmen, tedarik garantisi ile birlikte uygun veya en az\u0131ndan geleneksel ko\u015fullarda pazar eri\u015fimi dahil olmak \u00fczere tedarik\u00e7i taraf\u0131ndan sa\u011flanan \u00e7ok say\u0131da de\u011ferli hizmetle dengelenmi\u015ftir. Tedarik\u00e7i ayr\u0131ca, al\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n tesislerine \u00fccretsiz olarak ekipman kurmu\u015f ve bu ekipman\u0131, \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin kullan\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7in s\u00f6zle\u015fme s\u00fcresinin tamam\u0131 boyunca kullan\u0131ma sunmu\u015ftu. Buna ek olarak, tedarik\u00e7i \u00e7e\u015fitli \u00fccretsiz hizmetler de taahh\u00fct etmi\u015fti. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla al\u0131c\u0131, m\u00fcnhas\u0131r sat\u0131n alma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ba\u011fl\u0131yd\u0131 ve \u00f6nceki y\u0131llarda bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ihlal etti\u011fi i\u00e7in tazminat \u00f6demekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcyd\u00fc.
\nPratik Notlar:<\/p>\n
Bu dava, m\u00fcnhas\u0131r sat\u0131n alma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerinin ilke olarak kartel yasa\u011f\u0131ndan muaf tutulabilece\u011fi ve be\u015f y\u0131ldan uzun s\u00fcreli olmalar\u0131 durumunda bile ge\u00e7erli olabilece\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki mevcut yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 teyit etmektedir. Dikey Blok Muafiyet T\u00fcz\u00fc\u011f\u00fc\u2019n\u00fcn 5. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki blok muafiyetinin \u00f6tesinde, bu durum TFEU\u2019nun 101. maddesinin (3) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca m\u00fcnferit bir de\u011ferlendirme konusu te\u015fkil etmektedir.<\/p>\n
Soyut bir bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131yla, belirleyici soru, m\u00fcnhas\u0131r sat\u0131n alma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn piyasay\u0131 \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kapat\u0131c\u0131 bir etkiye sahip olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. Bu husus, 1996 y\u0131l\u0131nda Avrupa Birli\u011fi \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi\u2019nin Langnese-Iglo davas\u0131nda verdi\u011fi me\u015fhur dondurma karar\u0131nda zaten belirtilmi\u015fti (8 Haziran 1995 tarihli karar, T-7\/93 say\u0131l\u0131 dava, 99 ve devam\u0131 ile 133 ve devam\u0131). S\u00f6z konusu davada, Avrupa Komisyonu ve AB mahkemeleri, ortalama s\u00f6zle\u015fme s\u00fcresi sadece 2,5 y\u0131l olan bir m\u00fcnhas\u0131r sat\u0131n alma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki nedenlerle hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulmu\u015ftur: (i) tedarik\u00e7inin pazar pay\u0131 'in \u00fczerindeydi, yani bu durum De Minimis Bildirimi kapsam\u0131na girmiyordu; (ii) al\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131n taleplerinin 'inden fazlas\u0131n\u0131 tedarik\u00e7iden kar\u015f\u0131lamalar\u0131 gerekiyordu; ve (iii) pazara giri\u015f \u00f6n\u00fcnde \u00f6nemli ek engeller mevcuttu. Perakendecilerin %\u2019sinden fazlas\u0131 tedarik\u00e7iye, %\u2019sinden fazlas\u0131 ise di\u011fer b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00fcreticiye ba\u011fl\u0131yd\u0131; tedarik\u00e7i, dondurucu dolaplar\u0131n\u0131 yaln\u0131zca kendi \u00fcr\u00fcnleri i\u00e7in kullanma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6d\u00fcn\u00e7 vermi\u015f, m\u00fcnhas\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131 sa\u011flamak i\u00e7in indirimler sunmu\u015f ve talep olduk\u00e7a par\u00e7alanm\u0131\u015f durumdayd\u0131.<\/p>\n
Pratik a\u00e7\u0131dan, m\u00fcnhas\u0131r sat\u0131n alma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerinin ge\u00e7erli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirleyen iki kriter \u00f6zellikle \u00f6ne \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r: s\u00f6zle\u015fme s\u00fcresi ve y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn kapsad\u0131\u011f\u0131 al\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n talebinin oran\u0131 (bkz. Dikey Blok Muafiyet T\u00fcz\u00fc\u011f\u00fc\u2019n\u00fcn 5. maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131 ve TFEU\u2019nun 101. maddesinin 3. f\u0131kras\u0131). Genel bir kural olarak, m\u00fcnhas\u0131r sat\u0131n alma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri, s\u00fcreleri ne kadar k\u0131sa ve kar\u015f\u0131lanan talep pay\u0131 ne kadar d\u00fc\u015f\u00fckse, ge\u00e7erli olma olas\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 o kadar y\u00fcksektir.<\/p>\n
Bu karar, tedarik\u00e7ilerin al\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131 i\u00e7in m\u00fcnhas\u0131r sat\u0131n alma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerini d\u00fczenlerken sahip olduklar\u0131 takdir yetkisini teyit etmektedir. \u00d6zellikle, y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn s\u00fcresi be\u015f y\u0131l\u0131 a\u015fabilir; al\u0131c\u0131ya bu s\u00fcre boyunca sabit fiyatlar garanti edilmesi zorunlu de\u011fildir; ve bu t\u00fcr bir m\u00fcnhas\u0131r sat\u0131n alma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc genel \u015fartlar ve ko\u015fullarda da kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131labilir.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Suppliers and purchasers often agree on framework supply agreements where the relationship is intended to go beyond a one-off purchase, in order to regulate the fundamental issues of a long-term business relationship in a uniform manner. These typically include the type and quality of the products, prices including payment terms, quality assurance and liability rules, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":29,"featured_media":55267,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55264","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t