Previous Page  474 / 516 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 474 / 516 Next Page
Page Background

• The Board granted an individual exemption to the “Exclusive

Tender Warehouse Contract,” which was signed between

GlaxoSmithKline İlaçları San. ve Tic. A.Ş. and Abay Ecza

Deposu Tic.A.Ş., Akgün Ecza Deposu San. ve Tic. A.Ş., Aksel

Ecza Deposu Tic. A.Ş., İmtaş Ecza Deposu ve Gereçleri San. ve

Tic. Ltd. Şti., Yeni Dicle Ecza Deposu Medikal Tic. Ltd. Şti.,

and which conferred regional exclusivity for product distribu-

tion purposes to the aforementioned warehouse, since this

agreement fulfilled all of the conditions listed in Article 5 of Act

no 4054. (06.11.2012,12-54/1522-540)

• The Board authorized the provision of compulsory traffic insur-

ance sales services by TÜVTURK Kuzey Taşıt Muayene İsta-

syonları Yapım ve İşletim A.Ş. and TÜVTURK Güney Taşıt

Muayene İstasyonları Yapım ve İşletim A.Ş. (06.12.2012, 12-

60/1616-593)

• As a result of the examination conducted in response to the

request for the grant of a certificate of negative clearance to the

Professional Classification Draft Recommendation and the

Communiqué on the Structure and Work Principles and

Procedures of the Fictitious Transaction Evaluation Committee,

prepared by the Banks Association of Turkey and Participation

Banks Association of Turkey in order to prevent fictitious trans-

actions, the Board decided that no action was necessary under

the Act no 4054. (13.12.2012, 12-64/1640-602)

• As a result of the examination conducted in response to the

claim that the Act no 4054 and the Communiqué no 2002/2

were violated by Opet Petrolcülük A.Ş. through vertical agree-

ments and various practices, the Board decided that; 1- The ver-

tical relationship established with various contracts signed

between Pendik Petrol Ürünleri İnşaat Turizm Gıda San. ve Tic.

Ltd. Şti., Mustafa YILMAZ and Opet Petrolcülük A.Ş. benefit-

ed from the block exemption granted by the Communiqué no

2002/2 until 08.07.2012; and that it was out of the scope of the

block exemption after that date; that the relationship did not fall

under the exception provision in article 5/a of the same

Communiqué; 2- However, due to the fact that under the rele-

460

NEWSLETTER 2012