ANA METIN ingilizce.17

matter of fact, it is commonly agreed that an undertaking is in domi-

nant position in the primary market because it may control the eco-

nomical parameters in that market. However, this decision introduces

a completely new perspective and reveals that an undertaking, despite

not being in dominant position in the primary market, may be in dom-

inant position in the secondary market.

This possibility was also examined in 1995 within the Pelikan /

Kyocera case

in the European Union. Even though the Commission

decided with this case that Kyocera was not in dominant position in the

primary market, it stated that an undertaking not in dominant position

in the primary market may be in dominant position in the secondary

market and determined the criteria to be taken into account within the

examination.

As it can be seen from the decision, in order for the competition to

be fully protected in the relevant market, the dominant position evalu-

ation shall be made in two steps. The dominant position shall first be

examined in the primary market, then in the secondary market. The

sole evaluation of the dominant position in the primary market may

result in a deficient investigation and result in consequences disrupting

the competition.

Finally, it shall be indicated that explanations stated in the said

decision are extremely poor and do not permit a good understanding of

the subject matter. Nevertheless, important decisions such as this deci-

sion should have been drafted in more detail by the Board.

COMPETITION LAW

177

See § 85 – 86 of the Commission Report. The Commission also analyzed this subject respec-

tively in Info-Lab/Ricoh, Hugin Kassaregister AB and Hugin Case Register Ltd, Hilti AG and

Tetra Pak International AG cases. For detailed information, see.

Van Beal, Ivo / Van Bael &

Bellis

, Competition Law of the European Community, The Hague 2005, p. 149, fn. 526,

%26+Bellis&hl=tr&sa=X&ei=b0tLT4HfDIry8QPa78XbCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Peli

kan&f=false.