Gönenç Gürkaynak

(1) Introduction Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Competition Law”) has recently gone through the most comprehensive set of amendments since its initial adoption back in 1994. Law No. 7246 on Amendments to the Law on Protection of Competition (“Amendment Law”), which entered into (...)

After rounds of revisions and failed attempts of enactment over a span of several years, the proposal for an amendment to the Law No. 4054 on Protection of Competition (“Law no. 4054”) (“Amendment Proposal”) has finally been approved by the Turkish parliament, namely the Grand National Assembly of (...)

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s Baymak decision, which concerned an administrative monetary fine of TL 26,813,704.10 against Baymak Makina San. ve Tic. A.Ş. (“Baymak”) for the violation of Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”) through (...)

The world is clearly going through uncertain times as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. In Turkey, although at the moment there are significantly fewer confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Turkey as compared to the Western European countries and the UK, the COVID-19 pandemic outbrea k has also (...)

(1) Introduction The Turkish Competition Board’s (“ Board ”) Yozgat Ready Mixed Cement decision (“ Decision ”) was published on September 7, 2020. The Board concluded that certain ready mixed concrete producers operating in Yozgat province of Turkey entered into a cartel agreement by way of forming (...)

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 broadband (...)

The Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) concluded that Turkcell İletişim Hizmetleri A.Ş. (“Turkcell”) and/or Vodafone Telekomünikasyon A.Ş. (“Vodafone”) did not violate Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”) as their conduct did not amount to an anti- competitive constructive (...)

The Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) published its reasoned decision regarding its preliminary investigation pertaining to the allegations that Hayal Seramik Yapı ve Ürünleri San. Tur. ve Tic. A.Ş. (“Qua Granit”) violated Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. (...)

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) IGA Akaryakıt/THY/Total/Zirve decision, in which the Board evaluated the acquisition of joint control over IGA Havalimanı Akaryakıt Hizmetleri A.Ş.’s (“IGA Akaryakıt”) shares by Türk Hava Yolları A.O. (“THY”), Total Oil (...)

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) IGA Akaryakıt/THY/Total/Zirve decision, in which the Board evaluated the acquisition of joint control over IGA Havalimanı Akaryakıt Hizmetleri A.Ş.’s (“IGA Akaryakıt”) shares by Türk Hava Yolları A.O. (“THY”), Total Oil (...)

This case note analyses Ankara 6th Administrative Court’s (the “Administrative Court”) annulment judgment (18.12.2019; 2019/946 E., 2019/2625 K.) through which the Administrative Court reviewed the Turkish Competition Board’s (the “Board”) decision dated 01.10.2018 and numbered 18-36/584-285, (...)

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 annul (...)

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s Cinven/Vakıf/Barentz decision, in which the Board evaluated the acquisition of joint control over H.L. Barentz B.V. (“ Barentz ”) by (i) an investment fund, which was ultimately controlled by Cinven Capital Management (VI) General Partner (...)

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s CNNC Capital/Tongfang decision, regarding the acquisition of sole control over Tsinghua Tongfang Co. Ltd. (“Tongfang”) by China National Nuclear Corporation Capital Holdings Co. Ltd. (“CNNC Capital”). The Board assessed whether the parties, both (...)

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) Van Leeuwen/Benteler decision, in which the Board evaluated the acquisition of sole control over Benteler International Aktiengesellschaft’s (“ Benteler ”) business unit for the distribution of steel pipes (“ Target (...)

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 (...)

The articles in this Special Issue aim to demonstrate how the Turkish Competition Board (the “Board”) paved the way for the harmonization of the Turkish competition law regime with European Union law over the span of the past decade on various fronts. In a similar vein, these articles also intend to shed light on the contemporary approach adopted by the Board in cases concerning anticompetitive practices, unilateral practices and mergers.

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s PayU/iyzico decision, in which the Board analysed the parties’ market powers in the financial technology (“ FinTech ”) market by applying different market share calculation methods and established the general principles for the assessment of (...)

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) Saudi Aramco/Sabic decision, in which the Board focused on whether the two state-owned undertakings belonged to the same economic unit, while also analysing whether competition in the relevant product markets takes (...)

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s Akdağ Beton/Şenerler Beton/Saray Beton/Sarıkaya Beton/Üç Yıldırım decision, based on an investigation initiated due to a complaint filed with the Turkish Competition Authority against certain ready-mixed concrete companies that were active in Yozgat, (...)

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s Kerry Logistics/Asav HoldCo decision, where the Board, by taking into consideration the parties’ intention with regards to the acquisition of sole control, evaluated whether or not to tolerate an interim joint control period that would exceed (...)

This case summary includes an analysis of the Turkish Competition Board’s (the “Board”) Tuborg decision (20.06.2019; 19-22/335-152) in which the Board withdrew Tuborg Pazarlama A.Ş.’s (“Tuborg”) individual exemption granted to its agreements containing exclusivity clauses with sellers such as (...)

Background The Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) has recently published its reasoned decision on an exemption application by Platform Aracılık ve Danışmanlık Ltd. Şti. (“Platform Aracılık”) regarding its sample agreements (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”) with five fuel distributors (“Fuel (...)

This case summary includes an analysis of the Turkish Competition Board’s (the “Board”) Istanbul Customs Brokers Association decision (20.06.2019; 19-22/352-158) in which the Board evaluated the allegations raised by Ünsped Gümrük Müşavirliği ve Lojistik Hizmetleri A.Ş (a customs brokerage and logistics (...)

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s Nidec/Embraco decision, regarding the acquisition of sole control over the compressor manufacturing business (“ Embraco ”) of Whirlpool Corporation (“ Whirlpool ”) by Nidec Corporation (“ Nidec ”). Within the scope of its preliminary review (Phase (...)

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s Air France/Virgin Atlantic decision, in which the Board evaluated the acquisition of joint control over Virgin Atlantic Limited (“ VAL ”) by Air France-KLM S.A. (“ AFKL ”), Virgin Group Holding Limited (“ Virgin Group ”), and Delta Air Lines, Inc. (...)

Background Limar Liman ve Gemi İşletmeleri A.Ş. (“Limar”), which is controlled by Arkas Holding A.Ş. (“Arkas”) notified to the Turkish Competition Authority (the “Authority”) its acquisition of the sole control over Mardaş Marmara Deniz İşletmeciliği A.Ş. (“Mardaş” or the “Target”) operating the Ambarlı (...)

In a preliminary investigation in 2011 on the allegations that Abalıoğlu Yem Soya ve Tekstil A.Ş. (“ Abalıoğlu ”) had exclusivity clauses in its dealership agreements concerning the sales of chicken meat and eggs under “Lezita” brand, the Board had decided that Abalıoğlu had not violated the Law No. (...)

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 (...)

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s MP Hotel decision, in which the Board evaluated the acquisition of sole control over the (i) Magic Life Water World Imperial (“ Magic Life ”) in Antalya, (ii) TUI Blue Marmaris (“ TUI ”) in Muğla, (iii) Bodrum Imperial in Muğla, and (iv) Alaçatı (...)

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 summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s Jacobs decision, in which the Board evaluated the notification submitted by Jacobs TR, regarding the transaction by and between Jacobs Group, Kasap Family and Jacobs TR, a wholly owned subsidiary of Jacobs Group, which intended to acquire (...)

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 (...)

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) Luxottica/Essilor decision, in which the Board evaluated the transaction concerning the merger of Luxottica Group S.p.A. (“Luxottica”) and Essilor International Compagnie Générale d’Optique S.A. (“Essilor”). (...)

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 (...)

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s Thales/Gemalto decision regarding the acquisition of sole control over Gemalto N.V. (“Gemalto”) by Thales S.A. (“Thales”). The Board indicated that the aggregate market share of the parties would be relatively high in the enterprise key (...)

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 (...)

This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s Valeo/FTE Group decision, pertaining to the acquisition of sole control over FTE Group Holding GmbH (“FTE Group”) by Valeo Holding GmbH (“Valeo Germany”). The Board resolved that the transaction would result in a horizontally affected market in (...)

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, (...)