342 / 391
NEWS LETTER 2 0 1 0
328
•
The Competition Board, as a result of the examination conducted
based on the claim that turnip juice producing firms collusively set
the prices of turnip juice excessively above cost and this situation
was disadvantageous fort he consumer, decided that no investigation
was necessary under Article 41 of the Act No. 4054 and that the
complaint should be rejected. (06.05.2010; 10-34/547-195)
•
The Competition Board, as a result of the examination conducted
based on the claims that Nuh Çimento Sanayi A.Ş. violated Article
6 of the Act No. 4054 by refusing to supply cement to Detaş Beton
Sanayi A.Ş., decided that no investigation was necessary under
Article 41 of the Act No. 4054. (06.05.2010; 10-34/541-193)
•
The Competition Board, as a result of the examination conducted
based on the claims that, concerning those subscribers who
cancelled their subscription with TTNet A.Ş. and wished to get
service from another internet service provider, the ports were not
released for four to five days after the cancellation of their internet
connection by TTNet, thereby complicating their cancellation of
the subscription and getting service from another internet service
provider, decided that no investigation was necessary under Article
41 of the Act No. 4054. (06.05.2010; 10-34/540-192)
•
The Competition Board, as a result of the examination conducted
based on the claims that, owning to the password implementations
adopted in Vestel Angel security systems, monitoring services
could only be provided from MGİ Elektronik Cihazlar ve Kimyevi
Ürünler San. Tic. A.Ş., decided that no investigation was necessary
under Article 41 of the Act No. 4054. (06.05.2010; 10-34/539-191)
•
The Competition Board, as a result of the examination conducted
on the claims that Kanuf İnşaat ve Yapı Elemenları San. ve Tic.
A.Ş. and Dalsan Alçı San. ve Tic. A.Ş., in order to prevent the sales
of plasterboard at reasonable prices, gave notices to Oskay Yapı
Malzemeleri İnş. San. Paz. Tic. Ltd. Şti. not to use their brands and
logos, decided that no investigation was necessary under Article
41 of the Act No. 4054 and that the complaint should be rejected.
(06.05.2010; 10-34/538-190)
•
The Competition Board, as a result of the examination conducted
based on the claims that,
via
its coordinator in Vienna, Pegasus