On 09.09.2019, the Turkish Competition Authority ("TCA") published its reasoned decision1 in which it granted individual exemption to the Facility Consolidation Cooperation Agreement ("Agreement") signed between Vodafone, TT Mobil and Turkcell, the only three mobile operators in Turkey. The concerned decision is important to illustrate the potential approach to be pursued by the TCA with regard to the cooperation agreements between mobile telecommunications service providers.
In May 2019, Turkish Competition Authority (“TCA”) has published two reasoned decisions, namely Bfit Decision and Minikoli Decision, in which it assesses the resale price maintenance (“RPM”) activities of the concerned undertakings. These decisions bear significance since they represent the TCA’s unstable approach towards RPM activities. In the aforementioned cases, the TCA adopted an effect-based analysis, as it generally did in the past. However, the TCA had displayed a deviation from the said approach in its previous two decisions; Sony Decision and Henkel Decision and adopted a by object analysis. Therefore, Bfit and MinikoliDecisions show this unstable approach.
On 21 December 2018, Turkish Competition Authority (“TCA”) published its decision regarding the investigation conducted against TTNET A.Ş. (“TTNET”), the leading internet service provider in Turkey, which is vertically integrated with the incumbent wholesale broadband access provider, Turk Telekom. The decision comprises of TCA’s assessment as to whether TTNET had abused its dominant position, in violation of article 6 of the Law No. 4054 on Protection of Competition (“Competition Law”), via certain types of bundled sales of fixed broadband internet and pay TV services.
Shortly after its establishment with the Turkish Data Protection Law No. 6698 (“Law”), the Turkish Data Protection Authority (“DPA”) has started to observe the data protection ecosystem of Turkey. In this regard, the DPA has been focusing on the areas, where data protection concerns are perceived more concentratedly. One of the instruments that the DPA has been putting to use is adopting resolutions, where the violation is prevalent. It is worth to note that “resolutions” are different than “decisions” in nature within the meaning of the Law.
After three years of investigation, on July 18, 2018, The European Commission (“Commission”) issued its decision on the well-known Android case and fined Google LLC (“Google”) an astounding €4.34 billion for abusing its dominant position. The Commission held that “since 2011, Google has imposed illegal restrictions on Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators to cement its dominant position in general internet search”. The fine imposed to Google is the biggest of all times. The decision also opens the door to civil actions under which affected parties may claim compensation for damages incurred due to Google’s abusive conduct.
Actecon is reporting that the 10th Administrative Court of Ankara in Turkey has accepted its arguments on behalf of GOLTAS Cement and annulled the a penalty of TRY 14.5 million levied by the Turkish Competition Authority against it and five other cement producers operating in the Aegean Region of Turkey.
Parallel to the European Union Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, Article 9 (3) of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Competition Law”) regulates “termination of infringements” as “the Board, prior to taking a decision (…) shall inform in writing the undertaking or associations of undertakings concerned of its opinions concerning how to terminate the infringement”.