343 / 391
MONTHLY LEGAL DEVELOPMENT S
329
Hava Yolları made “confidential seat sales agreements” with Akın,
Side and Yılmaz Traval Agencies based in that city concerning its
Vienna-Istanbul Flights fort he June-September period of each year
since 2004, that in this way approximately 17% of seasons tickets
were given to the aforementioned agencies without any notice
beforehand, that this practice harmed the other agencies and led
to unfair competition, that no investigation was necessary under
Article 41 of the Act No. 4054. (12.05.2010; 10-36/578-208)
•
The Competition Board re-evaluated the file following the decision
of the 13th Chamber of the Council of State of the Board decision
dated 04.10.2007 and numbered 07-77/950-M concerning the
claim that Mediamarkt Media-Saturn Yönetim Hizmetleri Ltd.
Şti, established on 25.09.2007, implemented low prices. The
Competition Board, as a result of the re-evaluation, decided that no
investigation was necessary under Article 41 of the Act No. 4054
and that the complaint should be rejected. (12.05.2010; 10-36/575-
205)
•
The Competition Board, as a result of the examination conducted
based on the request for the authorization for the joint venture
established by S&BEndüstriyel Mineraller A.Ş., PabalkMaden San.
ve Tic. A.Ş. and real persons Orca Kırker and Bülent İper to operate
within the perlite market, decided that the joint venture established
through the Shareholders Agreement dated 14.01.2010 by Pabalk
Maden San. ve Tic. A.Ş. and real persons Orca Kırker and Bülent
İper to operate within the perlite market did not fall under Article 7
of the Act No. 4054 and Article 2 of the Communiqué No. 1997/1
that was issued based on the aforementioned Communiqué and
that it was not possible to grant negative clearance certificate under
Article 8 of the Act No. 4054 to the relevant transaction since the
aforementioned joint venture agreement had goals or effects limiting
the competition between the parties. However, the Competition
Board decided that individual exemption should be granted to the
aforementioned transaction since it fulfilled all conditions set out in
Article 5 of the Act. (27.05.2010; 10-38/657-224)
•
The Competition Board, as a result of the examination conducted
based on the claim that Turkcell İletişim Hizmetleri A.Ş. abused its
dominant position in the market for the retail and wholesale markets