353 / 391
MONTHLY LEGAL DEVELOPMENT S
339
that infringe EPDK Communiqués on subscriber connection fees,
decided that an investigation was not required to be opened in
accordance with Act No. 4054. (21.10.2010; 10-66/1401-522)
•
The Competition Board, as a result of the examination made upon
the claim that the usufruct and dealership contracts signed by Pet-
Or Salıpazarı Petrol Orman Ürünleri Nakliyat İnşaat Tic. Ltd. Şti.
and Petrol Ofisi A.Ş. were contrary to Communiqué No. 2002/2,
decided that concerning the vertical agreement consisting of the
liquid fuel dealership contract, protocol, and the formal deed of
usufruct rights, thewill of the partieswas renewedwith the dealership
contract dated 01.05.2006, the protocol dated 07.09.2006, and the
establishment of usufruct rights on 03.08.2006, and that the vertical
agreement was within the scope of the block exemption for 5 years
following the dealership contract of 01.05.2006. (27.10.2010; 10-
67/1419-536)
•
The Competition Board, as a result of the evaluation made upon the
request that the price policy which Domino’s Pizza Restaurantları
A.Ş. (Domino’s Pizza Restaurants Inc.) applied within a period of
one week be examined within the scope of Act No. 4054 on the
Protection of Competition and that due action be taken, decided
that no investigation need be opened under Act No. 4054, and the
complaint was dismissed. (04.11.2010; 10-69/1458-557)
•
The Competition Board, as a result of the examination conducted
based on the claims that the prices of plans and text messages
have been increased and pricing periods have been extended by
GSM operators collusively, decided that no investigation need to
be opened under Act No. 4054, and the complaint was dismissed.
(04.11.2010; 10-69/1451-551)
•
The Competition Board, as a result of the examination conducted
based on the request that a negative clearance document be given to
the transaction allowing the retail-level internet service provided by
TTNet A.Ş. (TTNet Inc.), an affiliate of Türk Telekomünikasyon
A.Ş. (Turk Telecom Inc.), and at the same time be provided by Türk
Telekomünikasyon A.Ş., decided that the transaction allowing the
retail-level internet access service currently provided by TTNet
A.Ş., an affiliate of Türk Telekomünikasyon A.Ş., and at the same