00-e.erdem-hukuk postasi ingiliz.indd

NEWS LETTER 2 0 1 0

inform the parties of the negative effects of the concerned operation on the

competition with a view to permit them to submit commitments

Commitments Submitted to the Board

Concerning the proposed acquisition,Mey İçki submitted commitments

to the Board including principally the condition of the divestiture of the

Votka 1967 trademark on June 25, 2010

. The submitted commitments are

structural commitments and thus include a change of title on the property

of the parties which are parties to the acquisition. As also stated in Article

15 of the Notice, structural commitments are preferred because they

require short-term monitoring measures and they permit more efficiently

the protection of a competitive environment.

Conditional Authorization Decision

The Board decided that, even though the commitments submitted

by Mey İçki are in principle capable of preventing the undertaking from

obtaining dominance in the vodka market following the acquisition, the

ancillary provisions of the commitments raise concerns as to the timely

realization of the commitments so as to ensure that the assets will not

lose their value and competition will not be restricted. Therefore the

commitments fall short of eliminating the infringement of Article 7 of the

Act No. 4054. As also mentioned in Article 9 of the Notice, the submitted

commitments may eliminate the competition concerns entirely from all

points of view

. In case of doubt, the Commission will reject the submitted

commitments and not authorize the said operation. Thus, the decision of

the Board is correct.

Nevertheless, theBoard, savingtheotherconditionsof thecommitments,

decided that the said operation of acquisition will be authorized since it

would not result in the creation or strengthening of a dominant position as

3 To consult the Notice, see the following link:

do?uri=OJ:C:2008:267:0001:0027:FR:PDF.

4 The justified decision being not published yet, other submitted commitments are not examined

under this article.

5 The justified decision being not published yet, the content of commitments cannot be entirely

observed. For that reason, our comments are generally related not to the content of commit-

ments but to the commitments themselves.

6 As stated in the decision Cementbouw / Commission of the Court of First Instance dated Feb-

ruary 23, 2006 and numbered T-282/2, commitments shall be

“complete and efficient”