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 (...)

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 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 (...)

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 (...)

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 (...)

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 (...)

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 (...)

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, (...)