251 / 521
that only the persons who suffered damages shall receive compensa-
tion.
The Act does not provide such a detailed provision. Although
Articles 12 and 13 of the Directive could be seen as part of the proof
of damages, or calculation of the compensation, it will certainly aid
civil law judges on compensation awards. Therefore, a new provision
to be included in the Draft Law would be helpful.
Consensual Dispute Resolution
Out-of-court resolutions to establish compensation can often be
easier and less expensive. This is the main reason behind the regulation
of consensual dispute resolutions in the Directive. Article 18 of the
Directive provides for suspension of limitation periods to allow parties
to settle through consensual dispute resolution, without losing their
right to commence court proceedings. National courts can suspend
their proceedings for up to two years. As a result of a consensual set-
tlement, the claim of the injured party shall be reduced by the share of
the co-infringer. The remaining claims of the injured party shall be
brought against co-infringers who do not settle.
Although the Act does not prevent the parties from a consensual
dispute resolution, neither does it encourage them. Incentives in favor
of consensual dispute resolution are good examples for the Turkish
legislator to implement, as well.
Conclusion
The detailed provisions of the Directive will certainly influence the
Competition Authority and its practice. In spite of the fact that the Act
contains provisions regarding the private law consequences of compe-
tition infringement, the Competition Authority does not closely moni-
tor problems arising out of these provisions. The Directive now gives
the opportunity to the Competition Authority to reconsider this posi-
tion. It is time to include more detailed provisions in the Draft Law,
and complete these provisions through a Communiqué and Guide.
COMPETITION LAW
235