Previous Page  349 / 391 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 349 / 391 Next Page
Page Background

MONTHLY LEGAL DEVELOPMENT S

335

Madencilik Ticaret A.Ş. should pay an administrative fine of TRY

20,369.24. (02.09.2010, 10-57/1141-430)

The Competition Board concluded on 03.09.2010 the investigation

initiated on 13.04.2009 concerning Aras Kargo, Yurtiçi Yurtdışı

Taşımacılık A.Ş. - Fillo Ürün Odaklı Taşımacılık A.Ş., MNG

Kargo Yurtiçi ve Yurtdışı Taşımacılık A.Ş. and Yurtiçi Kargo

Servisi A.Ş. and announced the decision on 07.09.2010. As a

result of the investigation, the Board decided unanimously that

the aforementioned companies had violated Article 4 of Act no

4054 on the Protection of Competition between 2006 and 2008 by

making agreements with anti-competitive goals and effects;that an

individual exemption may not be granted to the aforementioned

agreement since it did not fulfill the conditions listed in Article 5

of Act no 4054; and decided by a majority on administrative fines

of TRY 6,530,799.79 for Aras Kargo Yurtiçi Yurtdışı Taşımacılık

A.Ş. - Fillo Ürün Odaklı Taşımacılık A.Ş. Economic entity, TRY

2,999,930.70 for MNG Kargo Yurtiçi ve Yurtdışı Taşımacılık A.Ş.

and TRY 7,031,630.38 for Yurtiçi Kargo Servisi A.Ş. (03.09.2010,

10-58/1193-449)

The Competition Board concluded the investigation initiated on

25.02.2009 concerning some dealers of Citroen (Baylas Otomotiv)

on 23.09.2010. Within the framework of the investigation, it

was established that some Citroen dealers collusively set and

implemented prices for new vehicles, including accessories, during

2007 and 2008. As well, it was determined that the same dealers

had price fixing agreements concerning spare parts, maintenance,

and repair services. Within the framework of the Competition

Board decision, a total of TRY 1,688,572 in administrative fines

was imposed on the 13 dealers.

The Competition Board decided, in its meeting of 26.09.2010

to initiate an investigation concerning the Central Association

of Agricultural Milk Producers. The investigation was initiated

based on the claim that the Central Association of Agricultural

Milk Producers “took a decision stating that all milk producers’

associations should use a previously designated computer program”.