Gönenç Gürkaynak

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 franchisees. (...)

On May 3rd, 2019 the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) published its reasoned decision dated February 7th, 2019 and numbered 19-06/51-18 with respect to the hindering of the on-site inspection conducted in Ege Gübre Sanayii A.Ş. (“Ege Gübre”). The decision concerns the evaluation on whether Ege (...)

The Turkish Competition Board published its reasoned decision on an additional investigation on whether Turkcell İletişim Hizmetleri A.Ş. has violated the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition through resale price maintenance and exclusivity practices (19-03/23-10; 10.01.2019). The (...)

The Ankara 7th Administrative Court (“Court”) annulled the dismissal decision of the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) concerning the allegations that Mastervolt International Holding B.V. (“Mastervolt”) and its exclusive distributor in Turkey, Artı Marin Elektrik Dış Tic. Ltd. Şti. (“Artı Marin”), (...)

This case summary includes an analysis of the Turkish Competition Board’s (the “Board”) Sony decision (22.11.2018; 18-44/703-345) in which the Board evaluated the allegations concerning resale price maintenance (“RPM”) against Sony Eurasia Pazarlama A.Ş. (“Sony”) upon complaint of a former distributor (...)

This case note analyses the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) decision of 22 November 2018 numbered 18-44/702-344 in which the Board assessed the allegations that several undertakings–which are all active in the steel guardrail sector in Turkey and members of the Turkish Association of Steel (...)

The Turkish Competition Board (" Board ") assessed the creation of two separate JVs by General Electric Company (" GE "), Sumitomo Corporation (" Sumitomo "), Shikoku Electric (" Shikoku "), and Sharjah Asset Management Holding (“ Sharjah ”) for the wholesale trade of electric and the generation (...)

This case note analyses the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) recently published Sahibinden.com decision of October 1st, 2018 numbered 18-36/584-285 in which the Board assessed whether Sahibinden Bilgi Teknolojileri Paz. ve Tic. A.Ş. (“Sahibinden.com”) –an online platform which acts as an (...)

The Turkish Competition Board (“ Board ”) resolved that the transaction would not be deemed as a concentration requiring mandatory merger control filing before the Turkish Competition Authority (the “ Authority ”), given that the transaction would result in shifting alliances. To that end, the (...)

The Competition Board recently published its reasoned decision on the application filed by Vodafone Net İletişim Hizmetleri AŞ regarding an agreement signed with Superonline İletişim Hizmetleri AŞ. The agreement concerns Vodafone and Superonline granting each other access to their respective (...)

This case note analyses the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) recently published Enerjisa decision of 8 August 2018 numbered 18-27/461-224 in which the Board assessed whether Enerjisa and its subsidiaries, all active in the electricity sector in Turkey, violated Article 6 of Law No. 4054 (...)

Background The Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) initiated a preliminary investigation on March 8, 2018 (Decision No. 18-07/124-M), in the traffic signalization sector. Subsequently, the Turkish Competition Authority’s (“TCA”) case handlers conducted an on-site inspection on June 5, 2018, at the (...)

This case note analyses the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) Frito Lay decision, dated 12.06.2018 and numbered 18-19/329-163. The Board has recently published its reasoned decision regarding the preliminary investigation that was launched against Frito Lay Gıda San. Tic. A.Ş. (“Frito Lay”) (...)

This case note analyses the Turkish Competition Board’s (“ Board ”) decision of May 29th, 2018 numbered 18-16/293-146 in which the Board assessed the acquisition of Doğan Müzik Kitap Mağazacılık Pazarlama AŞ (“ D&R ” or “ Target ”) and its two subsidiaries, namely, Hür Servis Sosyal Hizmetler ve Tic (...)

The Turkish Competition Board (“ Board ”) granted conditional approval to the acquisition of sole control over Monsanto Company (“ Monsanto ”) by Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (“ Bayer ”), by way of taking into account the commitments submitted before the European Commission (“ Commission ”). This case (...)

This case summary includes an analysis of the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) TUÇEF and TURÇEF decision (03.05.2018; 18-13/230-105). The Board reviewed the allegations put forward by Berkay Gökçe, a real person, against TURÇEF Yeminli Çevirmenlik Federasyonu (“TURÇEF”) and TUÇEF Uluslararası (...)

A. Introduction The Competition Board (“Board”) has recently published its reasoned decision in its reassessment of the Turkish Pharmacists Association (Türk Eczacıları Birliği) (“TPA”) case, following the annulment decision rendered by the 13th Chamber of the High State Court (“High State Court”). (...)

The Turkish Competition Authority (“Authority”) completed its work in progress on revising the Guidelines on Vertical Agreements (“Guidelines”) that was issued based on the Block Exemption Communiqué on Vertical Agreements (“Communiqué No. 2002/2”). It took approximately 2 years for the Authority to (...)

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”) (...)

Upon a number of complaints, the Turkish Competition Board (the “Board”) opened an in-depth investigation against Akdeniz Elektrik Dağıtım A.Ş. (“Akdeniz Elektrik”), CK Akdeniz Elektrik Perakende Satış A.Ş. (“CK Akdeniz”) and AK DEN Enerji Dağıtım ve Perakende Satış Hizmetleri (“AK DEN”), which were all (...)

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 (...)

By way of taking into account another transaction realized by the same acquirer within the same relevant product market previously, the Turkish Competition Board (“ Board ”) resolved that the contemplated transaction is subject to a mandatory merger control filing, although it does not satisfy (...)

The Turkish Competition Board (“ Board ”) unconditionally approved the acquisition of sole control over Rockwell Collins, Inc. (“ Rockwell ”) by United Technologies Corporation (“ UTC ”) which will be realized by way of a reverse-triangular merger. This case summary concerns an analysis of the (...)

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 (...)

The Competition Board launched a fully-fledged investigation into 10 ready-mixed concrete companies active in the city of Izmir, which had been accused of undertaking a concerted practice for three months and thus violating Article 4 of Law 4054. Following a 16-month investigation, on August 22 (...)

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 (...)

This case note analyses the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) Çekok Gıda decision dated 03.07.2017 and numbered 17-20/318-140. The Board had initiated an ex-officio preliminary investigation and assessed allegations that eight undertakings operating in the Turkish wholesale market for fresh (...)

This case note analyses the Turkish Competition Board’s (the “ Board ”) Vive B.V./Toyota decision of 6 April 2017 numbered 17-12/143-63 regarding the transaction by which Toyota Industries Corporation (“ TICO ”), through its subsidiary Toyota Industries Europe AB (“ Toyota Europe ”) will acquire all (...)

“The Turkish Competition Board (“ Board ”) unconditionally approved the transaction concerning the acquisition of joint control over Cerba Healthcare (“ Cerba ”) by Public Sector Pension Investment Board (“ PSPIB ”) and Partners Group AG (“ Partners Group ”). To that end, the Board resolved that a (...)

Introduction The New Block Exemption Communique 2017/3 for Vertical Agreements in the Motor Vehicle Sector in Turkey was published in the Official Gazette on February 24 2017. Communique 2017/3 revoked the Block Exemption Communique 2005/4 for Vertical Agreements and Concerted Practices in the (...)

Communique 2017/2 on the Amendment of Communique 2010/4 on Mergers and Acquisitions Subject to the Approval of the Competition Board was published in the Official Gazette on February 24 2017 and entered into force the same day. This update outlines the substantive amendments introduced by (...)

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 (...)

Introduction The Competition Board recently published a reasoned decision (December 6 2016; 16-42/699-313) following its investigation into whether the Pharmacists’ Association (TEB) and the Pharmacists’ Association Commercial Enterprise (TEBII) had violated Article 6 of Law 4054 on the (...)

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 (...)

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 (...)

This case note analyses the Turkish Competition Board’s (“ Board ”) International Paper Company / Weyerhaeuser decision of 23 September 2016 numbered 16-31/519-233 on the transaction concerning the acquisition of Weyerhaeuser Company’s paper pulp business unit (“ WHPP ”) through the transfer of (...)

Introduction On April 20 2016 the Turkish Competition Board published reasoned Decision 16-14/205-89, following its preliminary investigation into allegations that Soda Sanayii AŞ had violated: Article 6 of Law 4054 on the Protection of Competition by abusing its dominant position in the basic (...)

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 (...)

The Turkish Competition Board’s (the " Board ") assessed the transaction concerning the acquisition of Pirelli Tyre SpA’s (“ Pirelli ”) steel tire cord business by NV Bekaert SA (" Bekaert ") in Turkey. During the Phase II review, the Board evaluated the parties’ market position and the potential (...)

Long-awaited amendments to the Law on Protection of Competition No. 4054 ("Competition Law") became a hot topic when the Turkish Parliament announced that the draft law containing the amendments ("Draft Law") was officially added to the drafts and proposals list. The Prime Ministry sent the (...)

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, (...)