150 / 522
There are certain aspects of bundling, differentiating it from other
types of tying practices. In bundling, tied products cannot be purchased
individually and sold in specific ratios. Such differences make it diffi-
cult to regard bundling as a type of tying practices. Undertakings often
choose to apply bundling in order to minimize their distribution costs
and to make their pricing effective.
Tying Within the Scope of Agreements Restricting Competition
Anticompetitive impacts of tying practices are regulated under
paragraph (f) of Article 4 of the LPC, which provides an example of
agreements restricting, disrupting and limiting competition.
Such Article regulates tying practices within its scope and consid-
ers the conditions that oblige the purchase of a certain good or service,
together with a distinct good or service, or clauses entailing the buyers,
who are considered as intermediary undertakings, to display certain
goods or services, along with the ones they have requested, or provi-
sions pertaining to resubmission of already supplied goods or services.
It would be helpful to understand and evaluate the term of “customs of
trade” as indicated under such Article, in accordance with the Turkish
Commercial Code.
The Competition Board considers whether the agreements execut-
ed between two undertakings consists tying provisions within the same
scope. For example in the Competition Board (“Board”) decision
2
ren-
dered against Liman İşletmeleri ve Nakliyecilik Sanayi Ticaret A.Ş and
Densay Denizcilik ve Ticaret A.Ş the two companies agreed by way of
an agreement that the ships which approach to Çukurova dock shall
only engage with Densay AŞ as their agent. The Board decided that
such an agreement preventing other agencies activities is a tying agree-
ment and against the Article 4 of the LPC.
The Guidelines on Vertical Restraints (“Vertical Guidelines”) ana-
lyzes the cases where tying practices result in vertical restraints. Article
2 of the Block Exemption Communiqué on Vertical Agreements num-
bered 2002/2 (“Communiqué”), considers the events in which the mar-
ket share of the vertical agreement exceeds 40%, with regard to the
134
NEWSLETTER 2015
2
Competition Board Decision dated 16.5.2002 and numbered 02-29/339-139.