137 COMPETITION LAW warding the cases where data is deleted and could not be restored with the use of forensic IT.”6 The ETİ Decision Unlike the Unmaş decision, in the ETİ decision of the Board, in addition to the deletion of data related to the undertaking, the fact that the inspection was delayed by the employees of the undertaking due to insufficient information provided to the case handlers, was cited as a separate reason for a fine. In the ETİ decision, the Board determined that the inspection was delayed for an hour. The reason for such delay was examined by the case handlers in light of the information received from the security personnel and the entrance and exit records of the undertaking. Hence, it was determined that some employees of the undertaking were hidden in the premises even though they were present at the time the case handlers entered the premises.7 Moreover, it was emphasized that the employees who were working remotely were told not to delete any document or data with a general announcement.8 Nevertheless, log records showed that certain employees did delete relevant data. As a consequence, the Board held that potential evidence and findings of the case handlers were complicated and the on-site inspection was hindered.9 P&G Decision As in the aforementioned decisions, the deletion of data related to the undertaking was a fact of the P&G decision. Yet, this decision can be separated from those because here, the employee stated that they deleted private chats and the undertaking raised the privacy defense. 6 Unmaş Decision, par. 16. 7 ETİ Decision, par. 14. 8 ETİ Decision, par. 16. 9 ETİ Decision, par. 26.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUzNjE=