Gönenç Gürkaynak

ELIG Gürkaynak (Istanbul)
Lawyer (Founding Partner)

Mr. Gönenç Gürkaynak is a founding partner of ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law, a leading law firm of 87 lawyers based in Istanbul, Turkey. Mr. Gürkaynak graduated from Ankara University, Faculty of Law in 1997, and was called to the Istanbul Bar in 1998. Mr. Gürkaynak received his LL.M. degree from Harvard Law School, and is qualified to practice in Istanbul, New York, Brussels and England and Wales (currently a non-practising Solicitor). Before founding ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law in 2005, Mr. Gürkaynak worked as an attorney at the Istanbul, New York and Brussels offices of a global law firm for more than eight years. Mr. Gürkaynak heads the competition law and regulatory department of ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law, which currently consists of 45 lawyers. He has unparalleled experience in Turkish competition law counseling issues with more than 20 years of competition law experience, starting with the establishment of the Turkish Competition Authority. Every year Mr. Gürkaynak represents multinational companies and large domestic clients in more than 20 written and oral defences in investigations of the Turkish Competition Authority, over 15 antitrust appeal cases in the high administrative court, and over 60 merger clearances of the Turkish Competition Authority, in addition to coordinating various worldwide merger notifications, drafting non-compete agreements and clauses, and preparing hundreds of legal memoranda concerning a wide array of Turkish and EC competition law topics. Mr. Gürkaynak frequently speaks at conferences and symposia on competition law matters. He has published more than 150 articles in English and Turkish by various international and local publishers. Mr. Gürkaynak also holds teaching positions at undergraduate and graduate levels at two universities, and gives lectures in other universities in Turkey.

Distinctions

Linked authors

Mayer Brown (Paris)
J. Sagar Associates
ASML
Scharf Banks Marmor (Chicago)
Baker McKenzie (Brussels)
British Competition Authority - CMA (London)
Rajah & Tann (Singapore)
Sari Eldin & Partners

Videos

Gönenç Gürkaynak
Gönenç Gürkaynak 28 October 2016 New York

Articles

2595 Bulletin

Gönenç Gürkaynak The Turkish Competition Board publishes a decision concerning resale prices and sales conditions of authorised dealers in the paint sector (Jotun Boya Sanayi / Ticaret AŞhad)

53

Introduction On May 5 2018 the Competition Board published its reasoned decision of February 15 2018 (18- 05/74-40) following its preliminary investigation into allegations that Jotun Boya Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞhad violated Article 4 of Law 4054 on the Protection of Competition. The allegations (...)

Eda Duru, Gönenç Gürkaynak The Turkish Competition Board decides not to open an investigation against a company active in online sales of flowers, edible flowers and gifts following allegations of predatory pricing (Çiçek Sepeti)

34

This case summary includes an analysis of the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Competition Board” or “Board”) Çiçek Sepeti decision (08.03.2018; 18-07/111-58). The Board reviewed the allegations put forward by Çiçek Satış A.Ş. (“Çiçek Satış”) against Çiçek Sepeti İnternet Hizmetleri A.Ş. (“Çiçek Sepeti”) (...)

Gönenç Gürkaynak The Turkish Competition Board concludes its preliminary investigation into possible abusive pricing policies in the furnishing sector (Doğtaş Kelebek Mobilya / Yataş Yorgan ve Yatak)

131

Introduction On January 9 2018 the Competition Board published a reasoned decision dated September 27 2017 (17-30/487-211) following its preliminary investigation into allegations by Doğtaş Kelebek Mobilya San ve Tic AŞ that Yataş Yorgan ve Yatak San ve Tic AŞ had violated Article 4 of Law 4054 on (...)

Gönenç Gürkaynak The Turkish Competition Board publishes a decision following its preliminary investigation on alleged restrictive practices by an undertaking and its retailers in a wide range of sectors (Doğtaş Kelebek Mobilya / Yataş Yorgan ve Yatak San ve)

81

Introduction On January 9 2018 the Competition Board published a reasoned decision dated September 27 2017
( 1 7-30/487-211) following its preliminary investigation into allegations by Doğtaş Kelebek Mobilya San ve Tic AŞ that Yataş Yorgan ve Yatak San ve Tic AŞ had violated Article 4 of Law 4054 on (...)

Eda Duru, Gönenç Gürkaynak The Turkish Competition Board publishes its reasoned decision on the preliminary investigation on the allegations that a white goods manufactuer restricted online sales of its dealers (BSH)

127

This case summary includes an analysis of the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) BSH decision (22.08.2017; 17-27/454-195). The Board reviewed the allegations put forward by Ersan Pazarlama Tic. Ltd. Şti. (“Ersan Pazarlama”) against BSH Ev Aletleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (“BSH”). The Board assessed (...)

Eda Duru, Gönenç Gürkaynak The Turkish High State Court annuls the Competition Board’s decision concerning parallel export restrictions in a vertical agreement (Roche / Corena)

156

This case summary includes an analysis of the annulment decision of 13th Chamber of the High State Court (2010/4617 E., 2016/4241 K) (“High State Court”). The High State Court cancelled the Turkish Competition Board’s (the “Board”) decision on parallel export restrictions in vertical agreements. In (...)

Ceren Özkanlı, Gönenç Gürkaynak The Turkish Competition Board publishes its reasoned decision on the investigation conducted against upon allegations of resale price fixing on the auto gas market (Aygaz)

169

This case note analyses the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) Aygaz decision dated 16.11.2016 with No. 16-39/659-294. The Board assessed allegations that Aygaz and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Mogaz A.Ş. (“Mogaz”), had engaged in resale price maintenance (“RPM”). Background The Board initiated (...)

Gönenç Gürkaynak The Turkish Competition Board imposes administrative monetary fine on an expo centre operator for abuse of dominance through refusal to deal (Congresium)

184

This case note analyses the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) Congresium ATO decision dated 27.10.2016 and numbered 16-35/604-269. The Board’s decision comes following the judgment of the Ankara 3rd Administrative Court which annulled the Board’s previous decision with respect to the same case (...)

Ceren Özkanlı, Gönenç Gürkaynak The Turkish Competition Board concludes that a new turnover rebate system does not constitute an abuse of dominance in the fuel wholesale market (Tüpraş / Ader)

259

This case note analyses the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) TÜPRAŞ decision of 16.03.2016, No. 16-10/159-70. The Board reviewed the allegations of abuse put forward by Akaryakıt Ana Dağıtım Şirketleri Derneği (“ADER”) against Türkiye Petrol Rafinerileri A.Ş. (“TÜPRAŞ”). TÜPRAŞ allegedly abused its (...)

Ceren Özkanlı, Gönenç Gürkaynak The Turkish Competition Board indicates that the geographical scope of an ancillary restraint should be limited geographically to the “area of operation of the seller before the transaction and its natural sales hinterland" (Cementeire Aldo Barbetti/Çimko)

46

In Turkey, non-compete obligations may be evaluated under the scope of “agreements that restrict competition” or “abusive conducts of dominant undertakings” (Article 4 and 6 of Law No. 4054 on Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”), akin to Article 101 and 102 of TFEU, respectively). However, (...)

2252 Review

Ahmet Buğra Aydın, Akira Inoue, Amanda Bodger, Arti Raghavan, Bilal Shaukat, Bill Batchelor, Chang-Sik Hwang, David Tadmor, Douwe Groenevelt, Farhad Sorabjee, Gillian Sproul, Gönenç Gürkaynak, Gustavo Flausino Coelho, Jean-Maxime Blutel, Kala Anandarajah, Khaled Attia, Kylie Sturtz, Madeleine Renaud, Marilyn Leblanc, Mario Vogl, Martin Nedelka, Matthew F. Jones, Nathalie Jalabert-Doury, Reeti Choudhary, Shai Bakal, Simon Albert, Simone Evans, Theodore L. Banks, Zeynep Ortaç Best practices for compliance programs: Results of an international survey

1788

All companies should employ competition law compliance progams in an attempt to ensure their their employees will follow these complicated laws. Yet, enforcers’ support for competition law compliance programs is wildly inconsistent. A few provide guidance about compliance, and will consider a (...)

Send a message