ANA METIN ingilizce.17

In the present case, Samsung transfers the control over HDD busi-

ness to Seagate with an agreement. Therefore, the transaction between

the Parties is considered as a merger or an acquisition transaction pur-

suant to the Communiqué No. 2010/4. Moreover, this transaction is

also subject to the authorization of the Board since the thresholds stat-

ed above are exceeded.

Investigation of the Transaction by the Board

Merger or acquisition transactions: which (1) create or strengthen

a dominant position (2) result in significant lessening of the competi-

tion in the relevant product market are illegal and prohibited under the

Turkish competition law.

For that reason, in order to determine whether the transaction

between the Parties is prohibited under Turkish competition law, the

Board conducts the following steps of investigation:

(i) The Board determines the relevant product market effected

by the transaction;

(ii) The Board examines whether the said transaction will create

a dominant position or strengthen a dominant position in the

relevant market (first test);

(iii) The Board determines whether the transaction will signifi-

cantly lessen the competition in the relevant market as a

result of creating or strengthening a dominant position in that

market (second test).

Thus, the Board has separately applied, within this case, both tests

foreseen under competition law; although it normally does not strictly

apply the tests. Indeed, Board decisions generally do not include con-

crete facts related to these tests. Moreover, in some decisions, the cre-

ation or strengthening of a dominant position is considered, without

any justification, as the “significant lessening of competition”. For

instance, the Board, in its decision dated 08.07.2010 and numbered 10-

49/900-314 related to the acquisition by Mey İçki Sanayi ve Ticaret

A.Ş. (“Mey İçki”) of Burgaz Alcoholic Beverages Commercial and

Economic Union, which the Saving Deposit Insurance Fund offered

for sale, decided that Mey İçki was in dominant position in the markets

COMPETITION LAW

167