Ozay Law Firm, which started with 6 people in 2013, has grown at a
 rate of approximately 35% per year in terms of number of attorneys and
 currently operating with 70 people in total.

&nbsp; 

We have adopted the principle of developing the litigation and
 consultancy sides equally and have given importance to this balance in order
 for each side to benefit each other. With this service mentality, in 8 years,
 we have reached the number of corporate clients exceeding 75, with whom we are
 currently cooperating. Having started with five corporate clients in the
 beginning, we believe that our positive reputation in the sector and the high
 level of contentedness of our clients have brought us this outstanding success.
 We mainly prefer to establish long-term and broad-scaled co-operations rather
 than individual projects or lawsuits. Based on this approach, we mainly provide
 support to our clients in their whole litigation and/or consultancy processes
 and make aggregate reporting in order to have access to a broad perspective regarding
 the legal situation of the company.

&nbsp; 

Ozay Law Firm, primarily offer legal services to companies
 operating in retail, industry, construction, education, e-commerce, food,
 logistics, energy, pharmaceuticals, fast moving consumer goods, technology, human
 resources and banking sectors at national or international level, which
 services are available in foreign languages.

&nbsp; 

Ozay Law Firm’s founder Merter Özay represents the office through
 his roles as Chairman of the Joint Commission of Retailing Assembly of Turkey
 and E-Commerce Assembly of Turkey under the organisation of the Union of
 Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey; Deputy Chairman of the Board of
 Food Retailers Association and Chairman of the Legislation Committee; Chairman
 of the Legislation Committee of Chain Stores Association; Shopping Malls and
 Retailers Federation of Turkey Legislation Committee Chairman; Tourism
 Restaurant Investors and Gastronomy Enterprises Association; member of the
 Swiss Chamber of Commerce in Turkey, PWN (Professional Women’s Network) and
 Lead Network. Our office is thus in contact with governmental authorities for
 the purpose of resolution of legal problems of the sector and we offer our
 advice and contribution in the legislation process.

Ozay Law Firm

H. Berkehan Bayraktar graduated from Yeditepe University Faculty of Law.
 He joined Özay Law Firm in 2018. 

H. Berkehan Bayraktar mainly focuses on regulated sectors, advises the
 clients in public-law related fields such as Administrative Law, Competition
 Law, Energy Law, Mining Law, Tax Law, Customs Law, Zoning Law and in the
 processes of dispute resolution. He provides support in connection with
 advertising law, compliance of products and services with legal regulations and
 franchise operations. With the knowledge and experience he gained through his
 work in several fields of law, he also represents our clients in resolution of
 disputes arising from these fields of law. He also conducts our clients in
 Competition Law, Ethics and Compliance Management projects. He is involved in
 the preliminary research and investigation phases conducted by the Competition
 Board. He represents our clients before judicial authorities during the
 processes of cancellation of sanctions imposed by the Competition Board. Practice Areas &amp; Work Department

Competition Law

Administrative Law

Energy Law

Tax Law

Customs Law

Zoning Law

Commercial Law

Dispute Resolution

Ethics &amp; Compliance

Contracts Law

&nbsp; 

Languages

EnglishTurkish 

Memberships

Istanbul
 Bar Association and Union of Turkish Bar Associations

Yeditepe
 University Alumni Association

Associate

Gökşin Kekevi
 began his career in March 1998 at Turkish
 Competition Authority (TCA) just after its establishment in November 1997 where
 he carried out numerous investigations in different industries and contributed
 to the preparation of various secondary legislations including Regulations on Fines,
 Leniency as well as Inspections (Dawn-raids). 

In 2014,
 he started to work as Competition Compliance Manager at Arçelik, a top-10 white goods company in the world, where he was in
 charge of implementing competition compliance policy in Arçelik’s HQ in Turkey
 and its 40-plus subsidiaries in five continents. Until July 2022, he directly
 represented Arçelik beforeTCA and
 coordinated external counsels’ representation in investigations before
 Austrian, EU, German, Pakistani and Romanian authorities. He also coordinated
 several M&amp;A and clearance notifications before competition authorities in
 Turkey and abroad. 

Kekevi,
 co-coordinator of Istanbul Bilgi University Compliance Management Certificate
 Program and former Vice President of Competition Law Working Group at TUSIAD
 largest business NGO in Turkey, has several academic publications on
 competition law. Practice Areas &amp; Work DepartmentCompetition LawCompliance LanguagesEnglishTurkish 

EducationAnkara University, M.Sc. on
 European Union and International Relations, 2008Queen Mary, University of
 London, LL.M., 2006Ankara University, Faculty
 of Political Sciences-Public Administration, 1997





&nbsp;

Head of Competition Law Department

Since 1989, Hergüner has been recrafting the
Turkish law firm model along modern corporate standards, while maintaining the
personal attention that its clients have come to expect. Its size and expertise
make it one of the few truly full-service independent Turkish law firms with a
global reach, equally at home in the role of primary counsel in multinational
transactions and local counsel to foreign and domestic clients. The firm’s
expertise and institutional knowledge enable it to go beyond simple lawyering
and develop creative business-oriented solutions to client needs. It
accomplishes this by putting clients first and becoming intimately acquainted
with all aspects of their business and legal needs. The firm’s reputation for
innovation goes back almost three decades, having drafted many
first-of-their-kind agreements in cross-border transactions that continue to be
used as model agreements in the market today. Hergüner not only provides expert
legal counsel to its clients but also serves as a trusted advisor for them and
provides premium legal advice within a commercial context.The Hergüner team is currently comprised of
approximately 90 attorneys, most of whom have completed their education abroad,
and approximately 40 support staff, making it one of the largest law firms in
Turkey. The firm’s key practice areas include M&amp;A, Corporate Support,
Banking and Finance, Infrastructure &amp; Project Finance, Competition, Real
Estate, IP, Dispute Resolution, Data Protection, Employment &amp; Labor, and
Energy &amp; National Resources.

Hergüner Bilgen Üçer Attorney Partnership

Kayra Üçer is a leader in our M&amp;A and Corporate Support practice groups. Mr. Üçer is known as a conscientious, detail-oriented attorney with an outstanding reputation in the business community for his significant contributions to the field of corporate governance, particularly through his longstanding involvement with the&nbsp;Corporate Governance Association of Turkey.Mr. Üçer most frequently represents foreign clients entering or exiting the Turkish market and local subsidiaries of foreign multinationals. His practice focuses primarily on share transfers occurring in regulated markets, capital markets, and wealth management. His innate understanding of the transactional process comes from a career spent representing clients in practically every major sector of the Turkish economy. In addition to his transactional work, Mr. Üçer provides advice in the fields of executive-level labor law and anti-corruption compliance concerns. His recent significant work has included advising on the market entry and market exit of one of the world’s top retail chains as well as share transfers concerning a number of Turkey`s most significant publicly-held entities. Practice Areas &amp; Work DepartmentCompetition &amp; AntitrustMergers &amp; AcquisitionsCorporate Support LanguagesEnglishFrench MembershipsInternational Law Institute (ILI) Istanbul Chapter, PresidentTransparency International – Turkey, Board MemberEthical Values Center Association,&nbsp;Etik Değerler Merkezi&nbsp;(EDMER), MemberCorporate Governance Association of Turkey,&nbsp;Türkiye Kurumsal Yönetim Derneği&nbsp;(TKYD), Board Member

Partner

The Firm provides legal services relevant to all
aspects of business in a wide variety of sectors. The Firm operates to the
highest international standards in managing cross border transactions or
investments and providing practical and creative solutions to legal or
regulatory issues. We were founded in 2011 and our founding partners together
have more than 30 years of experience in leading global law firms.The Firm is proud to have an exceptional client
base consisting some of the largest Turkish conglomerates, sector leaders in
Turkey, multi-nationals, investment or private equity funds and financial
institutions.The Firm is recognised in all major global rankings
including Chambers and Partners, Legal500 and IFLR1000.

Gen & Temizer | Özer

Bulut Girgin&nbsp;has over 10 years of experience in
competition law, regulated industries and compliance. He has advised clients in
diverse sectors including telecommunications, FMCG, automotive, construction,
media and technology. Bulut has represented various multinational and national
companies before the Turkish Competition Board, administrative courts and the
Council of State regarding cartel and abuse of dominance investigations and has
filed numerous M&amp;A and negative clearance filings with the Turkish
Competition Authority. He has also conducted, as both as an in-house lawyer and
outside counsel, several comprehensive compliance programs on competition law,
anti-corruption matters and internal investigations. Practice Areas &amp; Work Department

Competition
 Law and Compliance

&nbsp; 

Languages

Turkish

English

German

&nbsp; 

Memberships

Istanbul
 Bar Association Education2015, King's College London, LL.M., Competition Law, Recipient of Chevening
Scholarship from the UK Government2009, Bilkent University, LL.M. (Law and Economics)2008, Baskent University, LL.B.

Counsel

Competition

The attorney-client privilege has always been considered within the scope of the right to defence by the ECJ. However, further to the Belgian Tax Decision, the ECJ now considers the privilege within the scope of respect for private life instead of right to privacy, thus widening the application of legal professional privilege. It is a matter of great curiosity whether (and how) the ECJ’s decision will affect local competition authorities, including the Turkish Competition Authority.

ECJ’s view on attorney-client privilege: When will professional secrecy apply? What is the view from Turkey?

Simru
Tayfun is an Associate with experience in competition law. Simru has advised
clients in diverse sectors including cement and RMX concrete, e-commerce, oil
and gas, chemicals and petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, insurance as well as
electricity. Before joining the competition law team in Kinstellar, Simru has
worked in the competition law department of a leading law firm in Istanbul. She
has filed numerous merger control filings before the Turkish Competition
Authority and participated in delivering of competition law compliance
programs. She also has played an active role in terms of the defences in
investigations carried out by the Turkish Competition Authority. Simru has
certificates for competition law practice in digital sectors and competition
law in practice.
 Practice Areas &amp; Work Department

Competition
 Law &amp; Compliance

&nbsp; 

Languages

Turkish

English

German

&nbsp; 

Memberships

Istanbul
 Bar Association Education2018, Istanbul Bilgi University, Faculty of Law, LL.B.

Mid-Level Associate

&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In December 2022, the Turkish Competition Board (the “Board”) published two reasoned decisions and approved eighteen merger and acquisition transactions.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The highlight of Turkish competition law in December was that the Board initiated a new full-fledged investigation and concluded three on-going investigations, including the much-anticipated extensive investigation of the fast-moving consumer goods industry.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>Board Fines the&nbsp;FMCG Companies for Hub-And-Spoke Cartel&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">On 21 December, the Turkish Competition Authority announced that the Board had concluded its investigation covering a total of 21 undertakings operating in the FMCG industry, including a spectrum of well-known suppliers such as Coca-Cola, Frito-Lay, Pepsi, Red Bull, Haribo and GlaxoSmithKline, and Turkey’s largest supermarkets such as BİM, Carrefour SA, Migros, Şok and A101. The wide-ranging investigation scrutinised the formation of a hub-and-spoke cartel between the aforementioned five supermarket chains and numerous major companies in the FMCG sector. The investigation also examined the activities of the resale price maintenance of various suppliers of the FMCG sector. As a result, the Board imposed a total monetary fine of approximately EUR 44.3 million.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">It is noteworthy that this was not the only investigation concluded with fines in the FMCG sector. Almost one year ago, the Board fined the same supermarkets party to the investigation for collaborating with each other through one of their common suppliers. To that end, when concluding this investigation, the Board abstained from imposing any administrative fine on the supermarket chains alongside with one of the suppliers (i.e., Beypazarı) due to the principle of “ne bis in idem”. For detailed information, please see our article&nbsp;&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;a href="https://turkishlawblog.com/insights/detail/another-hub-and-spoke-cartel-decision-by-turkeys-competition-board" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(3, 102, 132);">here&lt;/a>&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>German Household Appliances Company Settles the RPM Charges&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">On 8 December, the Board finalised its investigation of the Turkish distributor of the German household appliances company Schaefer through settlements. The distributor of the company was under the scrutiny of the Board because of allegations that included resale price maintenance and a ban on the online sales of authorised dealers. As a result, the Board concluded to impose a monetary fine of approximately EUR 150,000.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>Green Light From the Board to Saint-Gobain and Dalsan Merger&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Previously&nbsp;&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">in September, the Turkish Competition Authority announced that the Board had taken the proposed transaction concerning the joint venture to be established between the French company Saint-Gobain and Dalsan in the plasterboard industry into Phase II review. On 15 December, the Board concluded that the transaction in question does not significantly impede the competitive environment of the relevant industry and granted its unconditional approval of the contemplated transaction.&lt;/span>&lt;br>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>E-Scooter Company Martı’s Challenge With the Board&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">During December 2022, the Board published only two reasoned decisions both, of which concerns the popular Turkish e-scooter company Martı. The Board investigated several complaints against Martı within the scope of the preliminary investigation on its alleged exclusionary behaviours against its competitors by abusing its dominant position. While the Board in fact decided to launch a full-fledged investigation, this investigation was closed after Martı’s commitments were deemed adequate to address the Board’s concerns.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Nonetheless, the issue of whether Martı provided false/misleading information to the Competition Authority’s information request was separately assessed.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The reasoning of the Board’s first decision reveals that the Board found the information submitted by Martı at two different times were not consistent with each other. Accordingly, the Board decided to impose an administrative fine on Martı due to providing false/misleading information.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In the second decision, the Board examined the gun-jumping claim that involves the Turkish affiliates of US-based Martı Technologies Inc., Martı and Mobilite. Accordingly, the Board investigated an alleged and unnotified merger between Martı and Mobilite, which supposedly leads to the exclusion of other competitor undertakings in the e-scooter industry.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">The Board assessed that &lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">(i) &lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Martı and Mobilite are ultimately controlled by Martı Technologies Inc., and &lt;/span>&lt;strong>(ii)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> Mobilite was established for ancillary purposes with respect to Martı. In this regard, the Board concluded that:&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;ul style="list-style-type: square;">&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">both of the undertakings belong to the same group of companies, and&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">the transaction parties are not required to seek approval of the Board for the planned transaction, as there is no identified merger or acquisition under Turkey’s merger regime.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;/ul>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">In light of these findings, the Board decided not to impose a monetary fine against any of the mentioned companies.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;br>&lt;/p>

Two-minute Recap of Recent Developments in Turkish Competition Law – December 2022

Ceren Ceyhan is
an Associate with experience in data protection, competition and
corporate/M&amp;A matters. Prior to joining Gen &amp; Temizer | Özer, Ceren
worked in the competition and compliance department of a leading beverage
company. Ceren is a Certified Information Privacy Professional for Europe
(CIPP/E) accredited by the International Association of Privacy Professionals
(IAPP). Ceren has worked on several compliance projects. She has also
represented clients in a wide range of sectors in particular in insurance,
telecommunication, e-commerce, and software where she has introduced compliance
programmes. Practice Areas &amp; Work Department

Data
 Privacy Law

Competition
 Law and Compliance

&nbsp; 

Languages

Turkish

English

&nbsp; 

Memberships

Istanbul
 Bar Association Education2020:
Bilgi University, LL.M in Law and Economics (Ongoing)2018:
Istanbul University, Faculty of Law, LL.B.

Merve Zeynep Aydaş is an Associate
with experience in competition law. Merve has provided legal advice that
involves various aspects of competition law legislation in diverse sectors. She
has played an active role in the judicial proceedings regarding the cases
brought against the decisions of the Turkish Competition Board. She has also participated
in the procedures of anti-trust investigations brought against the clients in
various sectors alongside with the compliance processes of many clients. 
 Practice Areas &amp; Work Department

Competition Law and Compliance

&nbsp; 

Languages

Turkish

English

German

Russian

&nbsp; 

Memberships

Istanbul Bar Association Education2020:
Yaşar University,
Faculty of Law, LL.B.

Junior Associate

&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>AG Rantos’ Opinion in the European Super League Case Leans Towards Uefa and Fifa&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In December, EU Advocate General Athanasios Rantos, a legal advisor to the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”), published his much-anticipated opinion in the case concerning UEFA and FIFA’s alleged abuse of dominance and violation of rules on anticompetitive agreements, following the announcement in 2021 by several major European football teams of their intention to form a separate European Super League. In the opinion, which is not binding on the ECJ, Rantos states that FIFA’s and UEFA’s rules requiring their prior approval for any new competition, and their threat of sanctions against clubs that participate in a project to create a new competition, are not prohibited under EU competition law. Further, Rantos notes that preserving the pyramid structure of sports and therefore protecting sporting merit and competitions that are accessible to all clubs, as well as financial solidarity, are legitimate objectives. In any case, Rantos in his opinion underlines that UEFA is the sole organiser of all major interclub football competitions at the European level and as such it has to “ensure that third parties are not unduly denied access to the market to the point that competition on that market is thereby distorted”.&lt;/span>&lt;br>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>First Excessive Pricing Fine in Israel&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In December, Israel’s Competition Authority found that MBI Pharma abused its dominance by excessively pricing a genetic disorder treatment drug and fined the company EUR 2.2 million. The drug, CDCA-Leadiant, is used in cases of cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis (CTX), a rare genetic disorder that prevents cholesterol from being converted into a bile acid in the body. In 2018, the global manufacturer of Xenbilox, another drug for CTX that was also distributed by MBI, stopped manufacturing Xenbilox, and MBI started selling CDCA Leadiant after registering it with the Ministry of Health. However, the new medication costs roughly six times more than the old one.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>European Commission Accepts Amazon’s Revised Commitments&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">By making Amazon’s proposed commitments binding, the European Commission has closed its investigations against the company without fines. The Commission was concerned that Amazon abused its dominant position in the French, German and Spanish markets for the provision of online marketplace services to third-party sellers. The Commission’s probe focused on whether Amazon's use of the non-public data of its marketplace sellers distorted fair competition on its platform.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Furthermore, the Commission was concerned that Amazon was treating its retail business and the sellers that use Amazon’s logistics and delivery services preferentially, due to the criteria that Amazon set to select the winner of the Buy Box (a tool that promotes a specific offer) and to enable sellers to offer products under its Prime Programme (Amazon’s loyalty programme that favours Amazon Retail and Amazon’s logistics and services). In an attempt to address the Commission’s competition concerns, Amazon offered remedies; however, the first commitment package was not adequate to eliminate the Commission’s concerns. To that end, Amazon revised its commitment proposal, which includes making a second competing Buy Box more visible on its e-commerce platform. Accordingly, Amazon offered to undertake &lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">(i)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> to prevent Amazon Retail from using non-public seller data, &lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">(ii)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> to present two Buy Boxes, and &lt;/span>&lt;strong>(iii)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> to treat sellers, including Amazon Retail, equally and allow a free choice of carriers.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The Commission found that Amazon's final commitments will ensure that Amazon does not use marketplace seller data for its own retail operations and that it grants non-discriminatory access to Buy Box and Prime. The commitment package covers all of Amazon's current and future marketplaces in the European Economic Area except for Italy, considering that the Italian competition authority already imposed remedies on the company to ensure the effective functioning of Italian markets. The Commission will monitor Amazon to ensure the proper implementation of its commitments. In case Amazon fails to comply with its commitments, the Commission could impose either a monetary fine of up to 10% of the company’s worldwide annual turnover without having to establish a breach of EU competition law rules, or alternatively, a periodic fine of 5% of the daily turnover for the time period of non-compliance.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>Leniency Filing in the Bid Rigging Probe Concerning the 2020 Tokyo Olympics&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Japan’s Fair Trade Commission and the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office are currently investigating nine companies with regards to alleged bid rigging for test events at the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics. These test events were conducted at the relevant venues to ensure security and identify any issues before the Olympics. The relevant investigation was launched after police arrested several officials of major advertising companies for bribing the Olympic and Paralympic Organising Committee to select them as sponsors. Reportedly, one of the investigated parties, Hakuhodo, admitted to prosecutors that they discussed contracts with their competitors. Another investigated party, ADK, reportedly filed for leniency regarding the alleged cartel.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>Egypt to Adopt Ex-ante Merger Control Regime&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Egypt is preparing to adopt a merger control regime that will require merging parties to seek the prior approval of the local competition authority and suspend the implementation of the transaction if the turnover thresholds are met. Under current legislation, the Egyptian competition authority is not vested with powers to approve a merger or acquisition, either in advance or subsequent thereto. However, the law currently provides for an ex-post notification obligation.&lt;/span>&lt;br>&lt;/p>

Two-minute Recap of Competition Law Matters Around the Globe – December 2022

Orçun Horozoğlu is an Associate
with experience in competition law. Orçun has advised clients in diverse
sectors including petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, FMCG and cement.
Before joining the competition law team in Kinstellar, Orçun has worked in the
competition law department of a leading law firm in Istanbul. He has played an
active role in preparing written defences in several investigations conducted
by the Turkish Competition Authority. He has also filed numerous merger control
filings and participated in competition law compliance programs for clients in
various sectors.
 Practice Areas &amp; Work Department

Competition Law &amp; Compliance

&nbsp; 

Languages

Turkish

English

&nbsp; 

Memberships

Istanbul Bar Association Education2018, Stockholm University, LL.M. in European Economic Law
2015:
Istanbul Bilgi University, Faculty of Law, L.L.B.

&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Turkey’s Competition Authority has been scrutinizing the retail market of fast moving consume goods for a while. After the Competition Board sanctioned the largest supermarket chains in Turkey along with one of their common suppliers, for creating a hub-and-spoke cartel in 2021, it opened a similar investigation against the same supermarkets, namely BİM, CarrefourSA, Migros, Şok and A101 as well as some of their common suppliers.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Within the scope of its investigation, the Competition Board, by the majority of votes, found that the same supermarkets and CocaCola, Doğanay, Düzey, Eti, Frito-Lay, GlaxoSmithKline, Haribo, Pasifik, Pepsi Cola, Red Bull, Şölen Çikolata and Uno engaged in hub-and-spoke cartel arrangements.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Although concluding that the five supermarkets were party to the hub-and-spoke cartel, thus infringing the competition laws, considering the fine imposed on them in 2021 and the principle of non bis in idem, the Competition Board did not sanction the supermarkets this time.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Similarly, the Board found that the mineral water company Beypazarı was also party to the hub-and-spoke cartel and should be held liable. That being said, given that the company was already sanctioned with the Board’s decision of 18.05.2022, the Board did not impose any fines on the company this time, based on non bis in idem principle. However, the Vice President and one of the members of the Board have dissenting votes on this particular part of the decision.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In addition to the foregoing, the Board also found resale price maintenance practices in the FMCG sector. The Board imposed additional administrative monetary fines on CocaCola, Doğanay, Eti, Frito-Lay, Haribo, Kent, Pasifik, Pepsi Cola, Şölen Çikolata and Uno on the grounds that they restricted the ability and freedom of their resellers to determine their own resale prices. On this note, the Vice President expressed his dissenting vote with respect to the conclusion against Coca Cola, whereas one of the Board members had a dissenting vote on the conclusion against Kent Gıda, a subsidiary of Mondelez International.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The fine ranges imposed by the Board due to hub-and-spoke cartel differs between 1.2% - 1.8%, while they are between 0.6% - 0.9% for resale price maintenance. The total amount of fines imposed by the Board corresponds to approximately EUR 44.3 million. Once the Turkish Competition Board’s reasoning of the decision is published, we will have more insight on the background of the case as well as the Board’s findings.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

Turkey’s Competition Authority has been scrutinizing the retail market of fast moving consume goods for a while. After the Competition Board sanctioned the largest supermarket chains in Turkey along with one of their common suppliers, for creating a hub-and-spoke cartel in 2021, it opened a similar investigation against the same supermarkets, namely BİM, CarrefourSA, Migros, Şok and A101 as well as some of their common suppliers.

Insights Competition

Ozay Law Firm

CONTACTS

Hergüner Bilgen Üçer Attorney Partnership

CONTACTS

Gen & Temizer | Özer

CONTACTS

ECJ’s view on attorney-client privilege: When will professional secrecy apply? What is the view from Turkey?

Two-minute Recap of Recent Developments in Turkish Competition Law – December 2022

Two-minute Recap of Competition Law Matters Around the Globe – December 2022

Another hub-and-spoke cartel decision by Turkey’s Competition Board