460 / 516
• As a result of the re-evaluation of the subject of the file follow-
ing 13th Chamber of the Council of State decision dated
12.12.2007 and numbered 2006/1941 E., annulling the Board
decision dated 05.01.2006 and numbered 06-02/47-8 which
was taken in relation to the claim that Türk Telekomünikasyon
A.Ş. abused its dominant position in the market for the infra-
structure necessary for the provision of Internet access services
both within these markets and in the Internet access services
markets; the Board decided to impose an administrative fine of
TL 1,136,376.80, calculated at five per ten thousand, by discre-
tion, of the gross income of the Türk Telekomünikasyon A.Ş. as
generated at the end of the year 2000 and in consideration of the
article 16 of the Act no 4054 as amended by the Act dated
23.1.2008 and numbered 5728. (08.03.2012, 12-10/328-98)
• As a result of the examination conducted in response to the
claim that ADSL service prices provided by TTNet A.Ş. and
Superonline İletişim Hizmetleri A.Ş. were similar and these
undertakings did not make changes to their pricing due to an
agreement they signed, the Board decided that initiating an
investigation was not necessary under the Act no 4054 and the
complaint should be rejected. (14.03.2012, 12-11/366-101)
• As a result of the examination conducted in response to the
claim that companies bidding in the wind power plant connec-
tion point tenders initiated by Türkiye Elektrik İletim A.Ş. vio-
lated the Act no 4054 by colluding to allocate the transmission
capacity and submit low contribution bids, the Board decided
that initiating an investigation was not necessary under the Act
no 4054. (14.03.2012, 12-11/370-105)
• As a result of the examination conducted in response to the
claim that Akbank T.A.Ş., Finans Bank A.Ş., Türkiye Garanti
Bankası A.Ş. and Türkiye İş Bankası A.Ş. granted the opportu-
nity to provide sales on credit with credit cards for up to 12
months without implementing a commission but demanded 1.5-
2% commissions from the small business owners, thereby caus-
ing unfair competition, the Board decided that initiating an
investigation under the Act no 4054 was not necessary.
(14.03.2012, 12-11/374-109)
446
NEWSLETTER 2012