{"id":153948,"date":"2025-11-28T12:55:34","date_gmt":"2025-11-28T09:55:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/paksoy.av.tr\/?p=153948"},"modified":"2025-11-28T17:33:23","modified_gmt":"2025-11-28T14:33:23","slug":"turkish-competition-law-newsletter-2025-autumn-issue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/paksoy.av.tr\/en\/2025\/11\/turkish-competition-law-newsletter-2025-autumn-issue\/","title":{"rendered":"Turkish Competition Law Newsletter – 2025 Autumn Issue"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Welcome to the 2025 Autumn edition of the Paksoy Turkish Competition Law Newsletter series. As the Turkish competition landscape continues to develop with landmark decisions and evolving enforcement priorities, this issue offers a concise yet comprehensive overview of the most significant developments shaping antitrust practice in T\u00fcrkiye. In this edition, we explore major precedents at the intersection of intellectual property and competition law, the Authority\u2019s expanding scrutiny of labour market conduct, the growing sophistication of behavioural remedies in merger control and key enforcement trends across several industries.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

We begin with an in-depth look at the Turkish Competition Board\u2019s notable Tetra Pak decision, a rare example highlighting the fine balance between protecting intellectual property rights and safeguarding competitive market structures. Turning to labour markets, we examine the Authority\u2019s landmark investigation in the pharmaceutical sector, an especially impactful case given the industry\u2019s reliance on highly specialised, non-transferable expertise. The investigation, which initially covered nineteen undertakings and assessed potential no-poach arrangements and exchanges of sensitive information, demonstrates the Authority\u2019s commitment to treating labour market restrictions with the same seriousness as traditional product market infringements.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Shifting to merger control, we analyse the Board\u2019s Borusan\/CEVA decision, which stands out as one of the most detailed and implementation-focused behavioural remedy cases in recent years. This reflects a wider trend in which behavioural commitments are being increasingly accepted as credible and enforceable tools for addressing competition concerns. We also review the Authority\u2019s decisions imposing administrative fines on Novo for abuse of dominance in the industrial enzymes market, obstruction of on-site inspection and the submission of incomplete and misleading information, as well as significant enforcement against \u015ei\u015fecam and its subsidiary for commitment breaches that resulted in approximately TRY 3 billion in fines.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

On the broader enforcement front, we look at the Board\u2019s continued active stance on resale price maintenance throughout 2025, with several notable decisions underscoring its treatment of RPM as a by-object infringement irrespective of actual market effects. We also highlight the Board\u2019s Samsung Electronics decision, which provides a comprehensive treatment of obstruction of on-site inspections and reinforces the importance of data integrity and accessibility in competition law enforcement.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Finally, we examine the Board\u2019s conditional clearance of Dilek G\u0131da\u2019s acquisition of Ontex T\u00fcrkiye, a transaction representing a significant vertical integration in the Turkish FMCG sector. The case raised both horizontal and vertical concerns and ultimately resulted in the submission of commitments to secure a timely Phase I clearance.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

In summary, this Autumn issue provides an overview of the key developments and significant Board precedents shaping the Turkish antitrust landscape. We hope you enjoy this issue and find it both useful and informative.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Togan Turan<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

A Holistic Approach to Obstruction under Competition Law: The Samsung Electronics Case<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

On 20\u00a0October\u00a02025, the Turkish Competition Authority (\u201cAuthority<\/strong>\u201d) published the Turkish Competition Board (\u201cBoard<\/strong>\u201d) decision dated 10\u00a0April\u00a02025 and numbered 25-14\/330-157 concerning allegations that Samsung Electronics Istanbul Pazarlama ve Ticaret Limited \u015eirketi (\u201cSamsung T\u00fcrkiye<\/strong>\u201d or the \u201cCompany<\/strong>\u201d) obstructed or hindered an on-site inspection conducted on 4\u00a0March\u00a02025 as part of a preliminary investigation. This decision highlights a fundamental tension in competition law enforcement between protecting the integrity of on-site inspections and establishing clear standards for what constitutes obstruction.<\/p>\r\n

 <\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"\"<\/figure>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

 <\/p>\r\n

Factual Background<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The Board initiated a preliminary investigation on 27\u00a0February\u00a02025 to determine whether Apple Teknoloji ve Sat\u0131\u015f Limited \u015eirketi, along with various other undertakings operating in the consumer electronics market, violated Article\u00a04 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (\u201cLaw No. 4054<\/strong>\u201d) by fixing resale prices for Apple-branded products and coordinating buy-back prices.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

On 4\u00a0March\u00a02025, the Authority case handlers authorised to conduct the relevant on-site inspection arrived at Samsung’s premises. During the inspection, the case handlers examined Knox Teams, an internal company messaging application used by Samsung T\u00fcrkiye, and discovered that certain employees had left several work groups on 4\u00a0March\u00a02025. Upon recording the correspondences in these groups to determine the timing of departures, it was established that the departures from the groups occurred after the inspection has started. Company officials confirmed that when users exit groups in the Knox Teams application, the relevant groups are automatically deleted from the departing individuals\u2019 devices.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Legal Background<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Samsung T\u00fcrkiye\u2019s legal representatives argued in the on-site inspection minutes that the employees merely exited the Knox Teams groups and did not delete any data, and therefore the mere act of exiting these groups could not legally be interpreted as data deletion or obstruction of the on-site inspection. They emphasised that Samsung T\u00fcrkiye provided full and active support to the case handlers and they were able to access all correspondences in the relevant Knox Teams groups through other group participants\u2019 devices, and these correspondences were submitted to the Authority on the day of the on-site inspection, which meant that the data integrity was not compromised. Furthermore, they contended that the warning notice regarding the rules to be followed during the on-site inspection, including the commencement of the inspection and the necessity of not deleting any data was sent to employees after the on-site inspection has started, whereas the group exit actions occurred prior to the commencement of the said on-site inspection, which meant that the employees had no knowledge of the inspection at the time of their departure.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

As stated in the Dissenting Opinions of the Board\u2019s Epson Italia\u00b9<\/em>\u00a0and Koyuncu Elektronik\u00b2 <\/em>decisions, in cases outside of cartels, instances where employees, due to personal reasons and panic, digitally deleted certain data without the intent to conceal or destroy evidence have, in recent years, been subject to the Board\u2019s discretionary assessment. In this context, the Board has approached cases (files) holistically, evaluating the entire process from the beginning to the end of the on-site inspection, and in non-cartel cases, has refrained from imposing excessive penalties. While exercising this discretionary power, the Board has particularly taken into account the following factors: the magnitude of the potential violation, the scale and competition law history of the party, the social and cultural context, the sequence of events and the rationale behind the deletion, whether the data was recoverable, and the content of the deleted data. In this regard, the Dissenting Opinions emphasized the following points:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n