The Relevant Articles of the Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce are Not Unconstitutional
A. 8 To the Law No. 6563. Oct. 2, Added with the Article. Examination of the First Sentence of Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (a) of the Article
In the rules subject to the lawsuit, it is regulated that electronic commerce intermediary service providers may not offer for sale or mediate the sale of goods bearing the trademark or trademark usage right belonging to themselves or persons with whom they are in economic integrity on electronic commerce marketplaces. they provide brokerage services, and if these goods are offered for sale in different electronic commerce environments, they may not be able to provide access between these environments and promote each other. Dec.
The rules subject to the lawsuit limit the freedom of commitment by restricting electronic commerce intermediary service providers engaged in economic and commercial activities from engaging in certain activities and conducting related business and transactions in the electronic commerce marketplaces where they provide brokerage services. However, the restriction in question consists only of the fact that these goods cannot be offered for sale on the electronic commerce Sunday under the control of the electronic commerce broker service provider.
Accordingly, the freedom of undertaking of the mentioned enterprises to sell, sell or mediate the promotion of these goods has not been eliminated and this freedom has not been significantly restricted. As a matter of fact, the electronic commerce brokerage 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 brokerage service provider meaningless. Therefore, the restrictions stipulated by the rules will not unreasonably reduce the competitiveness of electronic commerce brokerage service providers and will not cause them to suffer a disproportionate economic loss.
As a result, although a restriction has been placed on the freedom of private enterprise by the rules, it is understood that this does not impose an unreasonable burden on individuals, and within this framework, a reasonable balance has been observed between the public interest and the purpose of achieving the goal. Dec. the rules related to the freedom of private enterprise and personal benefit are taken into account. In this regard, it has been assessed that the rules do not lead to a disproportionate limitation and therefore do not impose an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of private enterprise.
The Constitutional Court rejected the cancellation request, deciding that the rules were not Unconstitutional for the reasons described above.
B. The “…net transaction volumes” contained in the first and third sentences of the paragraph (4) of Oct. 4, which was added to the Law No. 6563 with Article 10 of the Law on the Examination of Statements, are “…net transaction volumes …”
In the first sentence of paragraph (4) of October supplementary article 4 added to the law, it was stipulated whether the net transaction volumes and transaction volumes of electronic commerce brokerage service providers should be taken into account in economic integrity. exceeding the threshold values in this Article; in the third sentence, it is stipulated that the license fee from electronic commerce broker service providers will be charged at the rate of net transaction volumes performed in electronic commerce Sunday markets 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.
October paying the license fee Additional Article 4 of the aforementioned Law clearly and clearly regulates in which cases the electronic commerce vehicle 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. Criteria.
In this respect, it is understood that the provisions to be applied in transactions related to the license fee, license fee payables, subject matter, base, rate and payment time subject to the rules are clearly and clearly regulated. it has been clearly stated what should be understood from the concept of net transaction volume in an understandable, applicable and objective way, the general framework of this concept has been drawn and the basic principles have been determined. Therefore, it has been concluded that the rules restricting the right to property and freedom of enterprise are specific, accessible and predictable in a way that does not allow arbitrariness and meets the criterion of legality.
The Constitutional Court rejected the cancellation request, deciding that the rules were not Unconstitutional for the reasons described above.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.