NEWS & INSIGHTS

Up-to-date.

March 2025 – In February 2025, the Turkish Competition Authority (“TCA”) made headlines by imposing record fines in relation to investigations and obstructed on-site inspections. Furthermore, the TCA sought to clarify uncertainties surrounding its newly introduced regulation on fines by publishing comprehensive guidelines. The guidelines provided much-needed clarity on the new penalty policy, providing explanations and insights to businesses and legal experts about its potential impact. This newsletter provides an overview of significant developments in Turkish competition law during the month.

TCA issues Guidelines on the Regulation on Fines

The TCA published its Guidelines on the Regulation on Fines to Apply in Cases of Agreements, Concerted Practices, and Decisions Limiting Competition and Abuses of Dominance to provide clarity on its new penalty policy. You can read our analysis of the Guidelines here.

Dive into February case updates

1. TCA sanctions exclusivity practices in EV charging services

The TCA concluded its investigation into exclusivity practices in the electric vehicle (“EV”) charging service market on the Istanbul-Izmir Motorway, reaching a settlement with ZES (an electric vehicle charging station provider) and Oksijen (highway service station). ZES and Oksijen admitted to engaging in anticompetitive behaviour by granting ZES exclusive operating rights at Oksijen stations. Consequently, ZES was fined over TL 1.7 million (approx. EUR 44,946), and Oksijen was fined over TL 6 million (approx. EUR 158,571).[1]

Furthermore, the TCA also had concerns about Oksijen potentially abusing its dominant position through discriminatory practices towards other EV charging service providers. To address these concerns, Oksijen offered a commitment package, which the TCA accepted. This package includes:

• Eliminating exclusivity: Oksijen will refrain from entering into exclusive contracts with any EV charging service provider on the Istanbul-Izmir Motorway.
• Ensuring non-discrimination: Oksijen will implement fair and transparent practices, preventing discrimination among providers regarding fees, deposits, revenue sharing, and expense allocation in future agreements.
• Contractual compliance: Oksijen will amend existing contracts to align with these commitments.

2. TCA underscores policy of no tolerance for dawn raid obstruction with record fine on BİM and flurry of other obstruction decisions

On 19 February 2025, the Turkish Competition Authority (“TCA”) announced a significant administrative monetary fine of TL 1.3 billion (approx. EUR 34.2 million)[2] imposed on BİM Birleşik Mağazalar A.Ş. (“BİM”), Turkey’s largest discount store chain, for obstructing an on-site inspection. The TCA’s announcement states that during an inspection at BİM headquarters, a BİM manager deleted data after the inspection had commenced, thereby obstructing the process. This obstruction resulted in the substantial fine of 0.05% of their annual turnover.

In addition to the BİM decision, the TCA published five reasoned decisions[3] addressing challenges encountered during on-site inspections. Three of these decisions are important in certain respects:

• Contradictory information:[4] One of the decisions points out that inconsistent information provided by an employee to TCA experts regarding a mobile device during a raid is considered as obstructing the on-site inspection.
• Individual fine approach:[5] In a separate case, an association of undertakings was initially fined for obstructing an on-site inspection. This obstruction occurred because an owner of one of the association’s member companies refused to allow the inspection of their personal phone. Subsequently, this initial fine was overturned by the administrative court based on two key points: (i) the association had no connection to the personal phone in question; and (ii) there was no legal obligation for the association to ensure the inspection of its members’ personal devices. Following this court ruling, the TCA issued a new decision. This time, they directly fined the member undertaking whose owner had caused the obstruction during the on-site inspection.
• Economic unity evaluation:[6] Another decision shows that the TCA may apply the single economic entity doctrine when imposing a fine due to the obstruction of on-site inspections. Following the obstruction of the on-site inspection carried out in Biota, TCA explained that Biota, Derma-Cos İlaç and Derma-Cos Kozmetik are controlled by the same person, have the same management team and organisational chart, and use the same headquarters. Thus, based on the consistent decisional practice, the TCA considered the three companies to form a single economic unity, and calculated the fine based on their consolidated turnover.

3. Obilet to open source code for merger approval

The TCA published its reasoned decision of its Phase II investigation into Obilet’s acquisition of Biletall. The TCA greenlit Obilet’s acquisition of Biletall, a significant online bus ticket purchasing platform. This approval, however, comes with unprecedented conditions, which paves the way for similar potential remedies in digital economy mergers.[7]

Obilet, Turkey’s largest online bus ticket platform, secured clearance after submitting a comprehensive set of commitments, notably including the public release of Biletall’s ticketing software source code. This extraordinary measure, a departure from typical TCA precedents, aims to foster competition and reduce barriers to entry in the sector. Specifically, Obilet has pledged to:

• terminate Biletall’s existing ticketing software operations within three years of the acquisition;
• publicly share its software’s source code in a format that allows for copying and modification.

The TCA states that this measure is intended to ease the entry of competitors or those who want to provide ticketing software services, acknowledging the inherent complexity and minimum two-year development period for such software.

4. Sahibinden to halt data integration

The TCA published its reasoned decision concerning the interim measure levied on Sahibinden, Turkey’s largest online vehicle sales platform, due to concerns over its data consolidation practices.[8] The TCA found that Sahibinden’s integration of user data from its core listing services into its Otobid second-hand vehicle sales platform could create anticompetitive effects. Specifically, the TCA is concerned that Sahibinden’s leveraging of its extensive user data gives it an unfair advantage, potentially hindering market entry and limiting consumer choice. The interim measures mandate that Sahibinden:

• redesign its homepage to prevent Otobid promotions from overshadowing its listing services;
• cease redirecting individual users from its listing platform to Otobid during the listing process; and
• implement organisational and technical safeguards to prevent the use of data from its listing services in its second-hand vehicle sales market. This includes data segregation, separate data teams, and internal policies to ensure that data is not used to create competitive advantages.

____________________________________________