A. 8. Oct. 2, which is added to the Law No. 6563 with the Article. Examination of the First Sentence of Paragraph (1) of the Article and Subparagraph (a)
Sunday Decrees that electronic commerce intermediary service providers may not offer for sale or mediate the sale of goods bearing the trademark or trademark rights of themselves or persons in economic integrity in electronic commerce marketplaces where they offer intermediary services, may not offer access between these environments if these goods are offered for sale in different electronic commerce environment and may not promote each other.
The rules subject to the lawsuit restrict the freedom of enterprise by restricting electronic commerce intermediary service providers engaged in economic and commercial activities from conducting certain activities and performing related business and transactions in electronic commerce Sunday markets where they provide intermediary services. However, the limitation in question consists only of the fact that these goods cannot be offered for sale on the electronic commerce Sunday, which is under the control of the electronic commerce broker service provider. Accordingly, the freedom of the aforementioned enterprises to sell, mediate the sale or promote these goods has not been eliminated, and this freedom has not been significantly complicated. As a matter of fact, the electronic commerce vehicle service provider continues to have the opportunity to engage in economic and commercial activities. It is clear that this situation does not make the freedom of private enterprise of the electronic commerce intermediary service provider meaningless. Therefore, the restrictions stipulated by the rules will not unreasonably reduce the competitiveness of electronic commerce intermediary service providers and will not cause them to suffer a disproportionate loss from an economic point of view.
As a result, although a restriction has been imposed on the freedom of private enterprise by the rules, it has been understood that this does not impose an unreasonable burden on people, and within this framework, a reasonable balance that should exist between the public interest related to the goal to be achieved by the rules and the personal benefit related to the freedom of private enterprise has been taken into account. Dec. In this respect, it has been assessed that the rules do not cause a disproportionate limitation and therefore do not impose an immeasurable limitation on the freedom of private enterprise.
The Constitutional Court decided that the rules are not contrary to the Constitution on the grounds explained and rejected the request for their cancellation.
B. 10 Of the Law. Oct. 4, which is added to the Law No. 6563 with its Article. Examination of the Phrases “…net transaction volumes …” Contained in the First and Third Sentences of Paragraph (4) of the Article
Oct. 4 added to the Law. in the first sentence of paragraph (4) of article, it is stipulated that net transaction volumes and transaction numbers of electronic commerce vehicle service providers in economic integrity will be taken into account when determining whether the thresholds in this article have been exceeded; in the third sentence, it is stipulated that the license fee will be charged from electronic commerce vehicle service providers at the rate of net transaction volumes realized in their electronic commerce Sunday in the previous calendar year. The phrases “…net transaction volumes …” contained in the first and third sentences of the said paragraph are the rules subject to litigation.
Oct. 4 of the said Law. in the article, it is clearly and clearly regulated in which cases electronic commerce brokerage service providers will be obliged to pay the license fee, when the license fee will be collected, and at what rates the license fee will be calculated based on which criteria.
In this respect, it has been understood that the provisions to be applied in the license fee transactions subject to the rules, license fee payers, subject, basis, rate and payment time are clearly, clearly, comprehensively, applicable and objectively regulated, as well as what should be understood from the concept of net transaction volume, the general framework of this concept has been drawn and the basic principles have been determined. For this reason, it has been concluded that the rules restricting the right to property and the freedom of enterprise are specific, achievable and predictable in a way that does not allow arbitrariness and provides the criterion of legality.
The Constitutional Court decided that the rules are not contrary to the Constitution on the grounds explained and rejected the request for their cancellation.