Previous Page  435 / 469 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 435 / 469 Next Page
Page Background

LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS

421

Dağıtım ve Ticaret A.Ş. and closed points of sales, revised under

the obligations introduced by the Board decision numbered 11-

42/911-281 in order to grant a certificate of negative clearance/

exemption to the Agreement as well as to determine the

compliance of the contract with the aforementioned decision, the

Board decided that obligations specified by the Board decision

numbered 11-42/911-281 were implemented by Efes Pazarlama

Dağıtım ve Ticaret A.Ş., and a certificate of negative clearance

should be issued for the notified agreement since it did not include

any provisions which could fall under articles 4, 6 and 7 of the Act

no 4054. (17.11.2011, 11-57/1474-530)

• As a result of the examination conducted based on the claim

that Mey İçki San. ve Tic. A.Ş. complicated the operation of its

competitors within the market through its practices, abused its

dominant position, and signed exclusive contracts with open

points of sales, the Board decided that initiating an investigation

was not necessary under the Act no 4054 and the complaint should

be rejected. (17.11.2011, 11-57/1476-532)

• As a result of the examination conducted based on the claim that

Trakya Cam Sanayii A.Ş. violated competition by complicating

the operations of competing companies through various means

such as undertaking all or part of freight costs against commercial

custom and implementing predatory and selective pricing practices

via various discounts and by forcing double-glaze producing

companies to make exclusive glass purchases from Trakya Cam

Sanayii A.Ş. through the authorized manufacturer system it

established, the Board decided that initiating an investigation was

not necessary under the Act no 4054 and the complaint should be

rejected. (17.11.2011, 11-57/1477-533)

• As a result of the examination conducted based on the claim that

Turkcell İletişim Hizmetleri A.Ş. restricted the competition by

taking advantage of its dominant position on the GSM services

market and imposed restrictions on the distributors on the

distribution network, conducted discriminatory practices between

those undertakings, determined fixed prices and profit margins