Publication
Impact of PSR on ownership
The 2023/24 Premier League season was unusual in recent times in that events off the pitch seemed to almost take up as many column inches as the football.
Authors:
Global | Publication | November 2023
Read the full publication, "Top 5 competition law considerations for consumer facing businesses."
The Turkish Constitutional Court examined the application of an automotive manufacturing company concerning the violation of the right to inviolability of residence and determined that on-site inspection conducted at the company's facilities within the scope of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition violated the right to inviolability of residence as protected under Article 21 of the Turkish Constitution.
The Constitutional Court, in brief, ruled that: (i) unless there exists a decision duly given by a court or a written order of an agency authorized by law in cases where delay is prejudicial, no domicile may be entered in or searched or the property seized therein, (ii) headquarters, branches and facilities of the automotive manufacturing company are considered as "residential premises" pursuant to Article 21 of the Constitution; (ii) although on-site inspection conducted at the business facilities which are considered as "residential premises" without a court order may be in compliance with Article 15 of the Competition Law, such practice is in violation of the inviolability of residence protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, therefore, the interference with the company's right to inviolability of residence constitutes a violation of such right.
The Competition Authority with its recent decisions published in April 2023 evaluated whether or not the relevant suppliers violated Article 4 of the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054 (Law No. 4054) by setting resale prices and restricting internet sales. Some of the material restrictions/requirements foreseen by the suppliers for their selective distribution system and approved by the Competition Authority are as follows:
As accepted in the decisions of the Competition Board ("Board"), in order for discrimination claims to be evaluated within the framework of Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 the discriminatory behavior must be based on an agreement or a concerted practice or a decision. It is understood that in its decisions, the Board draws attention to the fact that in order for the discrimination claims to be evaluated within the scope of Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 the discriminatory practices must be carried out through agreements/ concerted practices between undertakings or as a result of decisions taken by associations of undertakings, and that only unilateral acts of the undertaking without agreements and/or concerted practices between undertakings shall not be evaluated within the scope of Article 4 of the Law No. 4054, the Board also examines the claims regarding discrimination practices within the scope of Article 6 of the Act, if the undertaking alleged is in a dominant position.
Based on the Board's approach on this matter, it became possible to say that, especially for the undertakings that are not in a dominant position, "unilaterally" applying different sales conditions to its dealers or distributors and/or imposing different commercial terms to its dealers or distributors will not constitute discrimination and such conduct alone will not lead to a competition law violation.
Publication
The 2023/24 Premier League season was unusual in recent times in that events off the pitch seemed to almost take up as many column inches as the football.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023