THERE IS NO ROOM FOR COMPETITION IN PILOTAGE KILAVUZLUKTA REKABETE YER YOK

THERE IS NO ROOM FOR COMPETITION IN PILOTAGE KILAVUZLUKTA REKABETE YER YOK MEL KE ASLI fiah NSOY 040

zmit Körfezi nde verilen k lavuzluk ve römorkaj hizmetleri son 10 y ld r zaman zaman gündemi meflgul ediyor. Önceden devlet taraf ndan verilen k lavuzluk ve römorkaj hizmetlerinin özel firmalara aç lmas ile rekabet istekleri ortaya at ld. The pilotage and towing services provided at the Gulf of Izmit has been on the agenda from time to time in the last decade. With the passage of these services from the state to the private sector, the demands in competition came to the forefront. B ölgede daha önce hiçbir kurulufl olmad ve stanbul a da yak n oldu u için; gemilerin k lavuzluk ve römorkaj hizmetlerini, yanaflma, kalkma, girifl, ç k fl hizmetlerini TD veriyordu. 1990 l y llar n bafllar nda ise, özellikle zmit Körfezi nde özel r ht m ve iskeleler ço almaya bafllad. Oraya gelen gemilerin say s ve verilecek hizmet alanlar da artmaya bafllad. Konuyla ilgili olarak Dekafl (Deniz K lavuzluk A.fi.) n Genel Kurulu nda Yönetim Kurulu Baflkanl na yeniden getirilen Kaptan Aykut Erol ile görüfltük. Dekafl n kuruluflu nas l gerçekleflti anlat r m s n z? zmit Körfezi nde 1990 l y llarda k lavuzluk ve römorkaj hizmeti veren TD nin elindeki arac, gereci, pilot motoru, botu, tesisleri, römorkörü eskiydi ve yat r m yap lam yordu. Say lar azd, güçleri yetersizdi ve eski teknoloji ile donat lm flt. Dolay s yla, iskele ve r ht mlar da ço al nca, TD burada hizmetlere yetiflemez oldu. Bu da gemilerin beklemesi fleklinde yans d. Gemiyle birlikte r ht m, iskele, yükler, yük tafl y c lar, fabrikalar, hepsi bekliyor, u rad klar zaman ve para kay plar yüzünden hepsi zarar ediyorlard. Gemiler bekledi i zaman, ki zmit Körfezi ne gelen gemilerin hemen hemen % 85 i yabanc bayrakl gemilerdir, bir bekleme ücreti ödeniyordu. Böylece TD nin orada yeterli hizmet verememesi Türkiye ye y lda milyonlarca dolara mal oluyordu. Sonuçta bütün bu yük ve tesis sahipleri, acenteler ve armatörler bu iflten flikayetçi oldular ve Denizcilik Müsteflarl na baflvurdular. Bir çözüm aranmaya baflland. zmit Körfezi nde TD hizmet veriyordu ama oras kendi tekel alan de ildi. stanbul da hizmet veren TD, zmit Körfezi yak n oldu u için ve orada da bu ifli yapan bir kurulufl olmad için bölgeye davet edilmiflti. O s rada TD özellefltirme kapsam na al nd ve bünyesinde k lavuzluk da oldu u için, biz de k lavuz kaptanlar ve dernek olarak bu ifli inceledik. Avrupa daki yap y gözden geçirdik. Özellikle Almanya, talya, Hollanda ve Fransa daki k lavuzluk kanunlar n yeminli tercümanlara tercüme ettirdik, Müsteflarl a verdik. Mademki Türkiye AB ye kat lacak, oradaki yap n n Türkiye de de kurulmas gerekti ini söyledik. Hemen tüm dünyada her devlet bu konuda bir kanun yapm fl ve k - lavuz kaptanlar n kurdu u, yerine göre vak f, birlik, flirket, dernek fleklindeki kurulufllar k lavuzluk hizmetlerini veriyorlar ve ülke çap nda bir organizasyon olarak hareket ediyorlar. Biz de Özellefltirme daresi Baflkanl ve Denizcilik Müsteflarl na böyle bir talepte bulunduk. Özellefltirme daresi bu Aykut Erol yap y kendisinin kuramayaca n ancak, TD nin L acking an authority in the region and because of its proximity to Istanbul, pilotage and towing services for ships as well as berthing, departure, entry and exit services were provided by the Turkish Maritime Organizations (TDI). At the beginning of 1990s the number of piers and quays particularly at Izmit began to increase, as well as the number of ships that arrived there, not to mention the service areas and points. We spoke with Captain Aykut Erol who has again been appointed as the Chairman of Board of Directors of DEKAS (Deniz K lavuzluk A.fi.) by the DEKAS general assembly on this subject. Would you tell us how DEKAS was formed? The TDI had been providing pilotage and towing services in the 1990s at the Gulf of Izmit but its vehicles, equipment, pilot motors, boats, installations and tugboats were old and investments could not take place. Their numbers were small, their power was inadequate and they were equipped with older technology. Thus, when the number of piers and quays began to increase TDI s services couldn t keep up. Rapid service couldn t take place and this was reflected in ships waiting for service. In the end, along with ships, piers, quays, cargo, cargo carriers and plants were all waiting and their loss in time and money were all creating losses for them. Ships that waited - and about 85 percent of the ships that arrive at the Gulf of Izmit are foreign flag ships - were paid a waiting fee. Not being able to provide adequate services was costing Turkey millions of dollars a year. In the end, all cargo and installation owners, agencies and ship owners complained about this situation and applied to the Maritime Undersecretariat. In the end, a solution was sought. TDI was providing services at the Gulf of Izmit but this was not a monopoly area. Since the TDI was providing services in Istanbul and because Izmit Bay was close by and there was no agency to do this job, it was invited to this region. Because the TDI was within the privatization coverage at that time and because it provided pilotage services, we as pilot captains and as an association explored the situation. We reviewed the situation in Europe. In MARINE & COMMERCE AUGUST 2006 041

k lavuzluk hizmetlerini özellefltirme kapsam nda ihaleye ç kabilece ini söyledi. Bunun için bir flirket kurmam z öngördüler. Biz de TD de çal flan Türkiye deki tüm k lavuz kaptanlar n ortak oldu u Deniz K lavuzluk A.fi. yi, k sa ad yla DEKAfi kurduk. fiirketin geliflimi nas l oldu ve ne gibi dönüm noktalar yafland? 1995 te flirketi kurduk ve y l sonuna do ru da Müsteflarl k mevzuat de iflikli i yaparak zmit Körfezi nde özel flirketlerin de k lavuzluk ve römorkaj hizmetleri vermesi olana n yaratt. Baz flirketlerin baflvurdu unu duyunca, 1996 bafl nda biz de baflvuruda bulunduk ve izin istedik. Sonuçta Med Marine K lavuzluk ve Römorkaj Hizmetleri nflaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.fi. ile ortak bir izin ald k. lk kez böyle bir yap ya geçildi i için, Müsteflarl k bu tip bir hizmetin, önceki flikayetleri ortadan kald r p en iyi flekilde verilmesini amaçl yordu ve izin verme koflulu olarak kendi alanlar nda uzman olan iki flirket olarak, bizim bir araya gelmemizi istedi. Böylece izni ortak olarak ald k ve zmit te hizmetlere bafllad k. Daha sonra römorkörler, h zl ve güçlü, yeterli say da modern k lavuz motorlar ve murinbotlar yap ld. Daha önceki flikayetler de özel flirket anlay fl yla çal fl l nca ortadan kalkt ve herkes memnun oldu. Fakat aradan bir müddet geçtikten sonra, acentelerden bize indirim ve komisyon istekleri gelmeye bafllad. Bölgede TD görevdeyken, devlet kuruluflu oldu undan, acentelerin böyle bir flanslar yoktu, ama özel flirket görevde olunca indirimler istenmeye bafllad. Biz de kapasitesi yüksek olan önemli firmalara küçük indirimler yapmaya bafllad k. Ancak istekler sürekli artmaya devam etti ve karfl lanmas mümkün olmayan % 50-60 lara ç kt. Daha önce ülkemizde bu hizmetleri hep kamu kurulufllar verdi i için, bir mevzuat eksikli i söz konusuydu. Tüm dünyada, k lavuzluk hizmetlerinde bir bölgede bir flirkete izin verilip, rekabete izin verilmiyor. Örne in ABD Florida da, rekabetin bu iflin ruhuna ayk r oldu u kanunda örnekleri ve gerekçeleriyle aç klan yor. Rekabet oldu- u takdirde, bunun kamu yarar n n tersine iflledi i gösteriliyor. Diyelim ki, sis nedeniyle görüfl uzakl k s tlanm fl ve geminin normalde kamu menfaati aç s ndan, kaza olmamas için h z kesmesi gerek. Buna karfl l k armatörün menfaati ise gemisinin bir an önce yanaflmas oluyor. Orada armatör ve kamu menfaati çat fl yor. Dolay s yla bu ifller rekabete aç lamaz, armatörler taraf ndan k lavuzluk yap lamaz. Acenteler aç s ndan da durum ayn flekilde. Çünkü acente, armatörün hakk n üçüncü kiflilere karfl koruyan bir temsilci ve bu konumdayken gemiye hizmet veren ifli yaparsa, hem kendini düflünecek, hem de armatörün hakk n koruyacak; bu olamaz. Dolay s yla armatör ve acentelerin k lavuzluk yapma ifli dünyada yasaklanm flt r. 1996 da Müsteflarl k hem bize izin verdi, hem de TD ayn anda orada çal fl yordu. Biz düzgün bir flekilde ve h zla çal fl nca bütün müflteriler bize yöneldi ve dolay s yla TD nin grafi i h zla düfltü. Zarar etme dönemine girince, 1997 de TD bölgeden ç kt. 1998 de de Müsteflarl k durumu inceledi ve mevzuat eksikli ini gidererek K lavuzluk ve Römorkaj Hizmetleri Hakk nda Teflkilat Yönetmeli i ni ç kard. Buna göre dünyadaki uygulamalara uygun olarak bir bölgede sadece bir flirketin olmas öngörüldü. TÜRK YE DE KILAVUZLUK H ZMETLER Türkiye de k lavuzluk hizmetlerini di er ülkelerle karfl laflt rd n zda neler düflünüyorsunuz? Tüm dünyada ve AB ülkelerinde bu konuda her devlet bir kanun yapm fl ve k lavuzluk hizmetlerini k lavuz kaptanlara b rakm fl. Ama particular we had certified translators translate the pilotage laws in Germany, Italy, Holland and France and gave them to the Maritime Undersecretariat. We said that since Turkey is to join the European Union, the structure there must also apply in Turkey as well. In almost all the world all the states have a law on this subject and, depending on the location, foundations, unions, companies and associations that have been established by pilot captains provide pilotage services and act as an organisation throughout the country. We also made a similar request to the Privatization Administration and the Maritime Undersecretariat. The Privatization Administration said that they could not create such a structure but that the TDI s pilotage services could be put to tender within the coverage of privatization. They required that we form a company for this purpose. So we formed the Sea Pilotage Corporation or DEKAS for short, from all the pilot captains throughout Turkey that worked at the TDI as members. How did the company develop and what were the turning points? We established the company in 1995 and towards the end of the year the Undersecretariat changed the legislation and provided the opportunity for private companies to carry out pilotage and towing services at the Gulf of Izmit. When we heard that certain companies had applied we applied as well at the beginning of 1996 and asked for permission. In the end, together with Med Marine Pilotage and Towing Services Building Industries and Commerce Corporation we received joint permission. Since this was the first time this structure was being established, the Undersecretariat s objective was that with this service previous complaints would be eliminated and the best service provided and required that as two companies who are specialized in their area get together as a condition to give permission. We jointly received the permission and started services at Izmit. Later,tugboats, faster and more powerful and an adequate number of pilotage and marine boats were built. Working with a private sector attitude, complaints ceased and everyone was satisfied with our services. But a short time later requests started coming in from agencies for discounts and commissions. When TDI was responsible for these services in this region, and because it was a state agency, they had no opportunity but once private companies assumed responsibility they started to ask for discounts. So we started to make small deductions to important companies that had a large capacity. However, their requests continually increased and rose to 50-60 percent, which was impossible for us to meet. Since these services in the past were provided by public agencies, a lack in legislation was in question. In all countries a permit is given for pilotage services to one company in a region and competition is not allowed. For example in Florida in the U.S., they state that competition is against the soul of this business with examples and justifications. It has to be pointed out that when there is competition this works against the public interest. To give an example, when visibility is limited due to fog the ship should, in the interest of the public and to avoid an accident, cut its speed but the shipowner s interest is for that ship to dock as soon as possible. Here the shipowner s and the public s interest collide. Therefore, this business cannot be opened to competition, shipowners cannot undertake pilotage services. The same situation 042

hukuksal yap lar ülkeye göre de iflebiliyor. Bize en uygun olan Hollanda, talya ve Almanya da uygulanan sistemlerin bir kar fl m olabilir. Temel olarak, k lavuzluk hizmetlerinin k lavuz kaptanlara b - rak lmas ve bu sistemin hukuki altyap s n n kurulmas laz m. Biz zaman nda Türkiye yi de bu sisteme dahil etmek amac yla gerekli mercilere baflvurduk, ancak çeflitli nedenlerle gerçekleflemedi. Özellefltirme daresi Baflkanl elindeki limanlar ihaleye açt ve özellefltirdi. O zaman K lavuzluk Kanunu nun henüz ç kamad n ve biraz daha beklenmesinin uygun olaca n dile getirmifltik, ancak bu yap - lamad. Özelleflen limanlar, k lavuzluk da dahil, 30 ar y ll na verildi. Ayr ca Müsteflarl k taraf ndan da bize verilen izin gibi, verilen yirmi y ll k 10 izin daha var. Bizim iznimiz skenderun ve zmit i kaps yor. Onun d fl nda Ambarl da Arpafl a, Tuzla da Gisafl a, Nemrut ta Uzmar gibi firmalara 20 fler y ll na izinler verildi. Bu nedenle Türkiye nin AB standartlar ndaki yap ya ulaflmas nda zorluklar var. Ancak ileriyi de düflünerek, en az ndan ilerideki y llar için bu hizmetlerin ve alanlar n düzenlenmesinde fayda var. Biz Dekafl olarak 122 ortakla ifle bafllad k ve daha sonra, gelen k lavuz kaptanlar da flirkete hissedar olarak ald k. Yeni kat l mlar ile de son ortak say m z 212. Yak nda 22 k lavuz kaptan daha ortakl a alaca z. Biz kendi içimizde, flirket olarak Avrupa daki yap y kurmak ve Türkiye ye de bunu yaymak istiyoruz. 1998 y l nda acenteler bizden yüksek komisyon alamay nca, do rudan bu gelire ortak olmak istediler. Böylece Marin Römorkör ve K - lavuzluk A.fi. kuruldu. San r m o zaman 71 ortak vard ; acente ve armatörlerden olufluyordu. Dünyada acente ve armatörlerin bu iflleri yapmas n n yasaklanm fl oldu unu göz önünde bulundurursak, bu ifl bafl ndan yanl fl bafllad. Türkiye de hukuksal altyap ihtiyaçlar n biraz gerisinde kald için bu flekilde geliflti. Biz 1996 da ilk izni ald k ve 2016 ya kadar iznimiz var. 1998 de kurulan Marin Römorkör izin için baflvuru yapt ve yönetmeli e göre izin alamad. Bunun üzerine Dan fltay a, bölgede bir tekel var, bu durum ve yönetmelik anayasaya ayk r d r, ortadan kalkmal diye dava açt lar ve Rekabet Kurumu na da flikayette bulundular. Fakat davalar n hepsinde, bu yap n n dünyadaki yap ya uygun oldu u, bunun gerçek tekel olis also true for agencies. Because the agency is a representative that protects the rights of shipowners against third parties and in this situation if it provides the services for that ship it has to think of its own interests as well as those of the shipowner - this can t be done. Consequently, pilotage and towing services are banned throughout the world for shipowners and agencies alike. In 1996, the Undersecretariat gave us permission to work while the TDI continued working there as well. When we started to work in a proper and rapid way all the customers came to us and consequently TDI s performance rapidly declined. Once it entered a period of losses, it left the region in 1997. In 1998 the Maritime Undersecretariat studied the situation and corrected the deficiencies in the legislation and issued a communique on the Regulations Pertaining to the Organization of Pilotage and Towing Services. Accordingly, only one company was to be present in a region in step with world practises. PILOTAGE SERVICES IN TURKEY What are your thoughts when you compare pilotage services in Turkey with other countries? Every country throughout the world and in the European Union has issued a law on this subject and has left pilotage services to pilot captains although the legal structure may change according to the individual country. The best suited to us may be a combination of the systems in Holland, Italy and Germany. Basically, pilotage services should be left to pilot captains and the legal basis of the system should be established. In time we applied to the appropriate authorities in order to include Turkey into this system but this could not be realized for various reasons. The Privatization Administration opened tenders for ports in its portfolio and privatized them. We stated at that time that the pilotage law has not been passed and that this should wait for a short time, however this did not take place. The privatized ports including pilotage services were leased for 30 years. In addition, the Undersecretariat, as was the case with us, issued 10 other permits for a period of 20 years. Our lease covers Iskenderun and Izmit. Ambarl was leased out to Arpafl, Tuzla to Gisafl and Nemrut to Uzmar and to other companies for 20 years. For this reason there are difficulties for Turkey to obtain a structure of EU standards. However, bearing in mind the future, there is a benefit in organizing the services and areas covered at least for the next few years. We as DEKAS started out with 122 partners and pilot captains that came later also became shareholders. With recent participants our total partnership stands at 212 and very soon we will add another 22 pilot captains. As a company we want to have a structure that exists in Europe and expand this throughout Turkey. In 1998 when agencies couldn t receive high commissions from us they wanted to be directly involved in this business and Marin Tugboat and Pilotage Corporation was established. I think there were 71 partners at that time and consisted of agencies and shipowners. If we bear in mind that agencies and shipowners are banned from these services around the world, this business started off at the wrong foot. Because Turkey was a little behind the basic legal requirements it unfolded in this way. We received our first 044

may p, hizmetin kamu güvenli ine dayanan özelli inden ötürü do al tekel oldu u aç kland. Zaten tekel olmak için, bir alanda hem tek olacaks n z, hem de fiyat kendiniz belirleyeceksiniz, ancak o zaman gerçek tekelden bahsedilebilir. Bizim durumumuzda, ücretleri Denizcilik Müsteflarl belirliyor, biz belirlemiyoruz. Med Marine ile olan konsorsiyumun bozulmas nda neler etkili oldu? 2003 y l nda Denizcilik Müsteflarl tarife yay nlad nda bir madde koydu ve hizmetleri veren firman n faturan n tamam n kesece ini öngördü. Müsteflarl k Dekafl-Med Marine konsorsiyumuna izin vermiflti, iki flirket de iki hizmeti verebilir durumdayd. Biz, Med Marine ile iki ayn tip hizmeti verirsek kaos ve kaynak israf olur diyerek aram zda uzmanl k alanlar m za göre ifl ayr m na gittik. Med Marine römorkörcülükte, biz de k lavuzlukta hizmet verecektik. Ancak k lavuzluk hizmeti y lda 10 birim kazan rken, römorkaj hizmeti 3 birim kazan yordu. Bu nedenle, iki flirketin izni ortak oldu undan, haks zl k olmamas aç s ndan, toplam brüt geliri bölüflme karar ald k. 13 ü ikiye bölüp her iki flirket in 6.5 almas n sa layacak flekilde Med Marine e k lavuzluk hizmetlerinden %35 in aktar lmas na karar veren bir sözleflme yapt k ve 2003 e kadar bu devam etti. 2003 te o zamanki Dekafl yönetimi Müsteflarl n koydu u maddeye dayanarak faturay tam kesme yoluna gitti ve Med Marine e %35 lik pay vermemeye karar verdi. Bu çok büyük bir yanl flt, çünkü ortada bir centilmenlik anlaflmas vard ve iznimiz ortakt. Med Marine de bunun üzerine k lavuz kaptanlar bularak k lavuzluk ifline bafllad. Bizim flirket in o zamanki yöneticileri de bu kez römorkaj hizmeti vermeye bafllad. Bunun için de Dekafl, Marin Römorkör ü tafleron olarak ald. Biz Nisan ay bafl nda yönetime geldikten sonra, o zamanki Dekafl yönetimi ile Marin Römorkör aras nda imzalanan sözleflmenin tamamen Marin Romörkör ün lehine, Dekafl n aleyhine imzalanm fl oldu- unu gördük. Örne in, Dekafl n o s rada elinde bulunan bir römorkör ve infla edilen 2 römorkör Marin Römorkör e sat lm fl, maliyetinin alt nda yap lan sat fl n da 8 sene vade ile ödemesi planlanm fl. K - zaktan inmifl yepyeni römorkörün tanesi ayda 16,660 dolara sat l - yor, onu kiraya bile verseniz size 40,000 dolar kira geliri getirebilir. Bu, hediye etmek gibi bir fley, tabii Dekafl zarara u ram fl. Sat fl peflin olmad için para kasaya girmiyor ve olas faizler de kaybediliyor; yine zarara giriliyor. Bu durumu yönetim de ifltikten sonra, ba- ms z denetim ve mali müflavirlik firmas getirtip incelettik. Bu arada, Marin Römorkör ün, römorkörleri sat n almadan önce kira ödemeden çal flt rmaya bafllad n ve para kazand n da gördük. Sat fl 8 ay sonraya yap lm fl ve o zamana kadar kira ödenmemifl. Bunlardan baflka, firman n hem bölgede izni yok, tafleron olarak çal fl yor, hem de ana firmaya hiçbir ücret ödemiyor. Normal flartlarda tafleron firmalar, ana firmaya, kazanc üzerinden belli bir yüzde öder. Bir de devlete ödenen % 6.5 lik bir pay var. Verilen hizmetlerden al nan miktardan o pay düflülür ve geri kalandan belli bir yüzde ödenir. Marin Römorkör 100 lira kazan yor diyelim, bunun hepsini kendisi al - yor ve devlete ödenecek %6.5 i de Maliye ye Dekafl ödüyor. Ayr ca, Marin Römorkör bu 100 liradan Dekafl a hiçbir fley ödemiyor. Römorkajda diyelim %10 indirim yap lm fl, onun %5 ini de Marin Röpermission in 1996 and it runs through 2016. Marin Tugboat, which was formed in 1998, applied for permission and did not receive it according to the regulations. They took the case to the Council of State stating that there is a monopoly in the region, this situation and the regulations are in violation of the Constitution and should be stricken. They also took their case to the Competition Board. But in all these cases it was disclosed that this arrangement took place throughout the world and that this was not a real monopoly but that based on public interest security a natural monopoly. Besides, in order to be a monopoly you have to be active in one area, be the only company and set the fees ourself, only then you can talk about a real monopoly. In our situation the fees are set by the Maritime Undersecretariat, not us. What were the reasons that effected the breakup in the consortium with Med Marine? In 2003 when the Maritime Undersecretariat issued its fee structure it added an article stating that the company providing these services bill for the whole amount. The Undersecretariat had given permission to the DEKAS-Med Marine consortium and both companies could provide the two services. We thought that if we and Med Marine provided the two services at the same time chaos and a waste in resources would ensue and so we divided our work according to our area of expertise. Med Marine would provide towing services while we would provide pilotage services. However, while pilotage services earned 10 units per year, towing services earned 3 units. For this reason, since the two companies had a joint permit and in order to be fair, we decided to divide the total gross earnings into two. We divided the 13 units into two so that each company would receive 6.5 and thus Med Marine would receive 35 percent from pilotage services and signed a contract to that effect. This arrangement continued until 2003. In 2003, then DEKAS management, based on the article of the Undersecretariat, decided to bill services for the whole amount and relinquish paying the 35 percent to Med Marine. This was a grave mistake because a gentleman s agreement had been made and our permit was joint. Whereupon Med Marine found pilot captains and started pilotage services. Our company s management at that time began providing towing services and employed DEKAS Marin Tugboat as a sub-contractor. When we took over the management at the beginning of April, we saw that the contract signed at that time between the management of DEKAS and Marin Tugboat was completely in favor of Marin Tugboat and against DEKAS. For example, a tugboat of DEKAS and two other tugboats built were sold to Marin Tugboat at below the cost to be paid back in 8 years. A brand new tugboat off the slipway is sold for 16,660 dollars each month, even if you lease it out it can bring 40,000 dollars. This is like give it away and of course DEKAS has sustained a loss. Since it was not a cash sale there was no money in the bank and any interest that could be made didn t take place and again there was a loss. After management changed we brought in an independent audit and financial consultant firm and had the books audited. At the same time we noticed that prior to buying the tugboats, Marin Tugboat was operating the boats without paying a leasing fee and earning money. MARINE & COMMERCE AUGUST 2006 045

morkör ad na Dekafl ödüyor. Biz bu durumlar n tamamen tek tarafl ve Dekafl n aleyhine oldu unu mali raporda gördük. Sözleflmeyi hukuksal aç dan da incelettik ve onun da tek tarafl oldu unu gördük. Bunun üzerine dava açt k. Marine Römorkör ile çal flmay durdurduk. Yönetime geldi imiz zaman gördük ki, geçen sene flirketimiz 2.6 trilyon zarar etmifl. Öz varl klar m za bakt m zda, asl nda bu zarar n 6 trilyon oldu unu fark ettik, çünkü römorkörler de öz varl klar m zdan ç km flt ve flirketin geliri giderini karfl lam yordu. Yönetime gelince, indirimleri kald rd k, kald rmasak flirketi kapatmam z gerekirdi. Marin Römorkör ile olan sözleflmeyi bitirdik. Marin Römorkör ün bafl nda olan kifliler, ayn zamanda Deniz Ticaret Odas n n bafl nda olan kifliler ve flimdi daha önceki y llarda oldu u gibi; verilmifl Dan fltay ve Rekabet Kurulu kararlar na ra men, tekrar burada bir tekel var diye görüfller öne sürüyorlar. Bu son iki senedir Marin Römorkör burada çal fl rken ve acenteler de komisyon al rken niçin kimsenin sesi ç kmad peki? Bir tekel söz konusuysa, 1998 den beri var. Ama olmad bu konuda Dan fltay a ve dare Mahkemelerine aç lan davalarla ortaya ç kt. Verilen kararlarda tekel olmad belgelendi. 1995 te acentelere yapt m z geri ödemelerin toplam 3 trilyon. ndirim yap ld, ama asl nda bu indirimler gerçek sahiplerine yans mad. ade faturas yla bu paralar ço- unlukla acenteler do rudan kendileri ald lar, herhalde bir bu kadar da Med Marine den alm fllard r. Geçen sene aktar lan para 6 trilyon, o zaman tekel var demeyenler komisyonlar kalk nca flimdi tekel var diyorlar. Bizim gibi izin alm fl ve çal flan 10 tane baflka firma daha var ayn flekilde faaliyet gösteren, niye onlarla u rafl lm yor peki? Tekel var ise onlarda da var. Yine daha önce Dan fltay ve Rekabet Kurulu kararlar ortada oldu u halde bizi Rekabet Kurumu na flikayet etmifller. Olmayan tarife üzerinde tarife uyguluyorlar diye as ls z flikayetler de var. Oysa öyle bir fley söz konusu olamaz, biz Denizcilik Müsteflarl n n tarifesini uyguluyoruz. Asl nda flu an her fley yoluna girdi ve düzenli bir flekilde ilerleyecek. Baz lar Türkiye de dünyaya ayk r ifller yapt rmaya kalksa da baflaramayacak. Bizim hedefimiz hizmetleri en iyi flekilde vermek ve dünya seviyesine, hatta üzerine ç karmak. & The sale had taken place 8 months later and no leasing fee had been paid in the meantime. Aside from all this, the company has no permit in the region, it operates as a sub-contractor and pays no fee to the main company. Normally sub-contractors pay a certain percentage from their earnings to the main company. In addition, there is the 6.5 percent share paid to the state. This share is deducted from the earnings received for the services provided and a certain percentage is paid to the main company. Let s say Marin Tugboat is earning 100 liras, it keeps the whole amount and the 6.5 percent that is supposed to be paid to the state is paid to the Treasury by DEKAS. In addition, Marin Tugboat pays nothing to DEKAS from this 100 liras. On top of which, let s say a 10 percent discount has been made in towing, 5 percent of that is paid by DEKAS on behalf of Marin Tugboat. We saw that these situations were completely one-sided and against DEKAS in the financial report. We also had the contract reviewed from a legal stand point and saw that it too was one-sided as well. Based on this we went to court. We stopped working with Marin Tugboat. When we took over the management we saw that the company had made a loss of 2.6 trillion liras last year. When looking at our own assets this loss in fact was 6 trillion because the tugboats were no longer our own assets and the company s earnings couldn t meet is expenditures. As to the management, we discontinued the discounts for if we didn t we would have had to close the company. We ended our contract with Marin Tugboat. The people who head Marin Tugboat are at the same time at the head of the Chamber of Shipping and as in previous years, despite the decisions adopted by the Council of State and the Competition Board, they still claim that there is a monopoly. Why is it that in the last two years while Marin Tugboat was working here and agencies were receiving commission no one spoke out? If it was a question of a monopoly it exists since 1998. But that a monopoly didn t exist was seen in the cases that went before the Council of State and administrative courts. In the decisions ruled by these courts it was written that a monopoly did not exist. The back payments that we made to agencies in 1995 totaled 3 trillion liras. Discounts were made but these did not reflect on their true owners for most of this money with return invoices went directly to agencies and no doubt they received an equivalent amount from Med Marine. Last year 6 trillion was transferred and those that claimed that there was no monopoly at that time are now saying there is a monopoly when commissions have stopped coming in. There are 10 other firms that have received permission and that operate in the same way as we do, why aren t they being pursued? If there is a monopoly, these other companies are a monopoly as well. While the Council of State and the Competition Board s decisions are known they have again complained against us. There are also unfounded complaints that we are applying a fee structure that does not exist. But in fact there is no such thing, for we are applying the fee structure set by the Maritime Undersecretariat. In actual fact everything is going well now and we are moving forward in an organized way. While some may undertake activities in Turkey that are contrary to world practises they won t succeed. Our objective is to provide the best possible service and to reach global standards and even beyond. & 046