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.

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

Junior Associate

In a preliminary investigation involving 12 undertakings operating in the car rental sector, the Turkish Competition Board scrutinised allegations that the car rental undertakings violated Article 4 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition by exchanging information pertaining to stocks, competitors’ price offers and market shares, and vehicle purchase data.

How Does Turkey’s Competition Board Interpret Anti-competitive Information Exchange? An Analysis of Its Recent Car Rental Decision

During January and February, the Turkish Competition Board published eighty-one reasoned decisions and approved seventeen merger and acquisition transactions in total.

Two-Minute Recap of Recent Developments in Turkish Competition Law – January & February 2023

&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>

Lawyers Merve Zeynep Aydaş

Merve Zeynep Aydaş

How Does Turkey’s Competition Board Interpret Anti-competitive Information Exchange? An Analysis of Its Recent Car Rental Decision

Two-Minute Recap of Recent Developments in Turkish Competition Law – January & February 2023

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