424 / 469
NEWSLETTER 2011
410
• As a result of reassessing the subject matter of the file upon the
annulment by the Council of State of the Board decision taken
on 19.09.2007 with regard to detecting whether Istanbul Chamber
of Jewellers infringed article 4 of the Act on the Protection of
Competition No. 4054 by means of determining the buying and
selling price of gold; the Board decided that due to the fact that
Istanbul Chamber of Jewellers infringed the Act No. 4054 by
means of determining the buying and selling price of gold, an
administrative fine of TL 5800 be imposed on it, which was the
minimum amount of penalty in accordance with the Communiqué
No. 2005/2 that was in force as of the date of opening the
investigation, having regard to article 16 of the Act and regulations
that were in favour in a penalty. (02.06.2011, 11-33/712-219 )
• As a result of the examination performed upon the claim that
Peyman Kuruyemiş Gıda Aktariye Kimyevi Maddeler Tarım
Ürünleri San. ve Tic. A.Ş. prevented the applicant from making
dry fruit sales from the points referred to by means of extending
financial support to the points of sale; the Board decided that; 1- in
relation to the claims which were the subject of the file, opening
an investigation was not required, 2- however, as to the Exclusive
Distribution Contract signed between Peyman Kuruyemiş Gıda
Aktariye Kimyevi Maddeler Tarım Ürünleri San. ve Tic. A.Ş.
and its distributors a) its articles containing expressions that had
the nature of being likely to lead to the practice of price fixing
directly or indirectly be arranged such that they shall not prevent
retailers from determining at their free will their own sale prices
and similar elements likely to affect this, b) and its articles related
to the duration of the non-compete obligation be arranged such
that it be limited to a maximum of five years as regards the non-
compete obligation to be applied as long as the contract would be
in force and to a maximum of one year as regards the non-compete
obligation to be applied from the end of the contract, the contract
referred to would benefit from an exemption within the scope of
the Block Exemption Communiqué on Vertical Agreements dated
2002/2. (09.06.2011, 11-36/745-232 )