2016.ANA METIN ingilizce.01

133 / 522

However, on 1985, Mitsubishi2 case adopted a more liberal approach
vis-à-vis international commercial arbitration and ruled that statutory
rules may also be subject to arbitration when the dispute has an
international character. The Supreme Court underlined that the nation-
al courts are entitled to refuse the enforcement of the arbitral award on
the grounds of inconsistency with the public policy in accordance with
the Art. V(2)(b) of the 1958 NewYork Convention on the Recognition
and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards; therefore made a difference
between the arbitrability of the competition law disputes and the
enforcement of the relevant arbitral awards3 . At the enforcement stage,
another question is to determine to what extent the national courts may
control the substance of the arbitral award. In Mitsubishi the Supreme
Court stated4 that “while the efficacy of the arbitral process requires
that substantive review at the award-enforcement stage remain mini-
mal, it would not require intrusive inquiry to ascertain that the tribunal
took cognizance of the antitrust claims and actually decided them.”
The so-called Second Look Doctrine raise the question of the control
of the application of the competition rules by the arbitral tribunal, and
the extent of such control is also discussed in the future decisions5.
Mitsubishi case was a milestone for the question of arbitrability of the
competition law disputes, and had a significant impact on internation-
al practice.
EU Law
Under the EU law, the arbitrability of the competition law disputes
was accepted by the Eco Swiss6 case. However, the Court stated that
COMPETITION LAW 117
2 Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. 614 (1985)
Access Date: 04.12.2015).
3 Mitsubishi Motors, 638.
4 Mitsubishi Motors, 638.
5 Didem Uluç, Rekabet Hukukunda Tahkim Uygulamaları, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri
Serisi No:132, Ankara 2012, p. 19.
Please see:
%25c4%25b1k%2BTezi%2F10didemulucmiz.pdf (Access Date: 04.12.2015).
6 Eco Swiss v. Benetton International, European Court of Justice, C-126/97 (1999)
Please see:
(Access Date: 04.12.2015).