463 / 516
• As a result of the examination conducted in response to the
claim that, despite the dealership agreement with BP Petrolleri
A.Ş. was terminated, usufruct rights were not deleted, the Board
decided that (a) The vertical agreement between Ağaoğlu
Akaryakıt Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. and BP Petrolleri A.Ş.,
consisting of the usufruct rights dated 15.06.2001 for a duration
of 15 years and the most recent dealership agreement with a
date of 21.03.2005, could benefit from the block exemption
under the Communiqué no 2002/2 until 18.09.2010 and it was
left out of the scope of the aforementioned block exemption
after this date, (b) An individual exemption could not be grant-
ed to the relevant agreement under article 5 of the Act no 4054,
(c) Therefore, under paragraph 3, article 9 of the Act no 4054,
the Presidency should be charged with rendering opinion to the
relevant undertakings, stating that they should terminate the
vertical agreement existing between the parties within 60
(sixty) days following the notification of the decision, and that
otherwise proceeding would be started under the Act no 4054.
(03.05.2012, 12-24/670-192)
• As a result of the investigation conducted in response to the
claim that Digital Platform Teknoloji Hizmetleri A.Ş./Digital
Platform İletişim Hizmetleri A.Ş. abused its dominant position
in the satellite platform operation sector by refusing to make an
agreement to the disadvantage of Cinebeş Filmcilik ve Yapım
A.Ş., the Board decided that (a) The relevant practices of Digital
Platform İletişim Hizmetleri A.Ş. and Digital Platform Teknoloji
Hizmetleri A.Ş. could not be constituted as an abuse of dominant
position under article 6 of the Act no 4054 on the Protection of
Competition, (b) Within this framework, imposing administra-
tive fines on the relevant undertaking under article 16 of the Act
no 4054 was not necessary. (03.05.2012, 12-24/710-198)
• As a result of the examination conducted in response to the
claim that public institutions’ practice of paying the salaries of
their employees via a single bank within the framework of the
protocols signed with banks, the Board decided that initiating
an investigation was not necessary and the complaint should be
rejected. (03.05.2012, 12-24/677-197)
LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS
449