ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law (Istanbul)

Ceren Özkanlı Samlı

ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law (Istanbul)
Attorney

Ms. Ceren Özkanlı Samlı is a competition lawyer with ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law and is based in Istanbul. She graduated from Başkent University, Faculty of Law in 2008. She obtained her LL.M. degree in International Trade Law and Business Law from Liverpool John Moores University in 2010. She was admitted to the Istanbul Bar in 2011. Ceren has extensive experience in all areas of competition law including merger control and cartel investigations conducted by the Turkish Competition Board. Ceren has represented various multinational and national companies before the Turkish Competition Authority in their mergers and acquisitions filings and cartel investigations concerning various sectors. She is fluent in English.

Linked authors

ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law (Istanbul)
ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law (Istanbul)
ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law (Istanbul)
ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law (Istanbul)
ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law (Istanbul)

Articles

4538 Bulletin

Gönenç Gürkaynak, Ceren Özkanlı Samlı, Büşra Kirişçioğlu, Ece Cebecioğlu, Merve Öner Kabadayı The Turkish Administrative Court issues noteworthy judgements setting the standard of proof for abuse of dominance (Sahibinden.com) (Enerjisa)

203

In 2019 and 2020, Turkish administrative courts handed down noteworthy judgments concerning two particular decisions of the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”). In both of these cases, namely the (i) Sahibinden Bilgi Teknolojileri Pazarlama ve Tic. A.Ş. (“Sahibinden”) judgment rendered by the (...)

Gönenç Gürkaynak, Ceren Özkanlı Samlı, Sinem Ugur The Turkish Competition Authority re-examines allegations of exclusionary practices in the healthcare sector (Siemens)

163

Upon the Ankara 7 th Administrative Court’s annulment its 2016 decision , the Competition Board (“Board”) re-examined the allegations against Siemens Healthcare Sağlık A.Ş. (“Siemens”) concerning abuse of dominance by way of excluding the competitors, engaging in discriminatory practices, (...)

Gönenç Gürkaynak, Ceren Özkanlı Samlı The Turkish Competition Authority finds allegations of abuse of dominance against an automobile services company groundless and does not initiate a full-fledged investigation (Samuklar / Brisa)

139

On February 13, 2020, the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) initiated a preliminary investigation upon the complaints received from Samuklar Motorlu Araçlar Madencilik İnş. San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti.’s (“Samuklar”), which previously worked as the dealer of Brisa Bridgestone Sabancı Lastik San. (...)

Gönenç Gürkaynak, Ceren Özkanlı Samlı The Ankara Administrative Court reassesses the Competition Authority’s decision on price squeezing allegations in the telecommunications sector (Türk Telekom / TTNET)

355

Background In 2012, the Board launched a full-fledged investigation against Türk Telekom and TTNET upon the complaints of certain Internet service providers (“ISP”), alleging that Türk Telekom and TTNET had abused their dominant positions in the wholesale and retail markets for fixed (...)

Gönenç Gürkaynak, Ceren Özkanlı Samlı The Turkish Council of State rejects an appeal request made by a cement producer concerning the Regional Administrative Court’s decision which imposed a monetary fine for engaging in concerted practices with its competitors, increasing prices and territorial allocation (Batısöke)

94

This case summary includes an analysis of 13th Chamber of the Council of State’s (“Council of State”) decision (E. 2019/1035, K. 2019/4253, 11.12.2019) concerning the last stop of the judicial review. In the judicial review process, Batisöke Söke Çimento Sanayii T.A.Ş. (“Batısöke”) filed to (...)

Gönenç Gürkaynak, Ceren Özkanlı Samlı The Turkish Administrative Court in Ankara annuls a decision of the Competition Authority in the electronic communications sector due to incomplete examination of anticompetitive infringement (Dogan / Cisco)

104

This case summary includes an analysis of Ankara 11th Administrative Court’s (the “Administrative Court”) decision (24.10.2019, E. 1315, K. 2115) in which the Administrative Court annulled the Turkish Competition Board’s (the “Board”) decision (15-28/317-95, 07.07.2015) due to the incomplete (...)

Gönenç Gürkaynak, Ceren Özkanlı Samlı The Turkish Competition Authority finds no-poach clauses in a gym company’s franchising agreements to be against competition law (BFIT)

494

This case summary includes an analysis of Turkish Competition Board’s (the “Board”) BFIT preliminary investigation decision (07.02.2019, 19-06/64-27) in which the Board evaluated non-compete and no-poaching obligations imposed by Bfit Sağlık ve Spor Yatırım ve Tic. A.Ş. (“BFIT”) to its (...)

Ceren Özkanlı Samlı, Gönenç Gürkaynak The Turkish Competition Authority publishes its reasoned decision on the investigations conducted upon the allegation of resale price fixing in the auto gas market (Aygaz)

547

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 (...)

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

660

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 (...)

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

1779

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). (...)

Statistics


4538
Total visits

453.7
Number of readings per contribution

10
Number of contributions

Author's ranking
972th
In number of contributions
1857th
In number of visits
4267th
In average number of visits
Send a message