Turkey: A Closer Look at Resale Price Maintenance and Restrictions on Internet Sales: The JOTUN and Duru Cases

The Turkish Competition Board ("Board") recently published its decisions in the JOTUN[1] and Duru[2] cases. These cases were highly significant for the Turkish competition law regime, as the Board assessed allegations concerning the practice of resale price maintenance ("RPM").

In Dura, the RPM allegations revolved around the alleged practice of determining the shelf prices of retail chains and putting limitations / restrictions on their discount rates.

In JOTUN, the Board evaluated allegations that JOTUN had restricted the online sales of its authorized dealers through a prohibitive provision, in addition to its RPM practices.

In both decisions, the Board first provided an overview of the legal framework that applies to RPM allegations under the Turkish competition law regime. The Board characterized "indirect RPM" as: (i) setting the profit margin of the buyer, (ii) setting the maximum discount rate that may be applied to the recommended price, (iii) providing additional discounts to the buyer, as long as the buyer complies with the recommended prices, or (iv) delaying or suspending delivery of its products or terminating the agreement if the buyer fails to comply with the recommended prices.

Although JOTUN had informed the dealers of the purchase and sales prices for large-scale projects, there was no indication or proof that such communications had taken place with respect to its small-scale retail sales. The Board noted that JOTUN's conduct involved setting a maximum price that included a special discount rate for large-scale projects, rather than what could be described as clear-cut RPM practices. Therefore, the Board did not find a by-object restriction on the part of JOTUN. Thus, the Board proceeded to engage in an "effects analysis" and compared the resale prices offered by various dealers of JOTUN's products. The Board ultimately determined that the dealers' resale prices differed not only from each other but also from JOTUN's recommended price list price. The Board therefore concluded that JOTUN had not determined the resale prices of its retail products.

In Duru, the Board considered whether Dura and its retailers had been in contact with each other for the purpose of (i) determining shelf prices, (ii) engaging in price negotiations, and (iii) deciding the timing and schedules of discount campaigns. The resale points asserted that Duru had not intervened in their resale prices, which were shaped and determined by effective competition at the retail level.

In its decision, the Board first provided an overview of the relevant sector, and analyzed market data regarding production, import and export levels as well. In its analysis, the Board considered various factors, such as (i) whether the relevant market was competitive, (ii) intrabrand competition, (iii) market concentration, (iv) the market power of the undertaking that allegedly engaged in RPM practices and the market positions of its competitors, (vi) whether there was buyer power and compliance with the prices recommended by the supplier, and (vii) whether the supplier implemented monitoring and/or enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the recommended prices.

The Board ultimately determined that the relevant market did not exhibit high levels of market concentration, given that (i) Dura had a low market share, and (ii) the HHI level (i.e., the Herfindahl-Hirschman index, which is a commonly accepted measure of market concentration) was below 1,000.

Regarding the competitive landscape of the relevant market, the Board emphasized that the competitive pressures generated by the discount stores and other chain stores was particularly significant due to their competitive prices. The Board also determined there were a significant number of undertakings that were active in the market as suppliers and/or resellers. The Board further observed that, even though Dura's products were generally more expensive than its competitors', customers still preferred them due to their high quality. The Board also considered responses received from interviewed retailers, who indicated that (i) Dura was not in a position to determine their resale prices, and (ii) they established their own shelf prices according to their own profit/loss calculations. The Board therefore concluded that Dura was not in a position to exercise RPM with respect to its retailers.

Nevertheless, the Board acknowledged and reiterated certain possible negative effects that might arise from an RPM practice in the market. The Board enumerated several potential negative effects, such as (i) an increase in product prices, (ii) a decrease in pressure that could be applied by sales points to their suppliers in terms of reducing prices, (iii) steering consumers to products for which the resale prices had already been fixed, and (iv) preventing undertakings from entering the downstream market with lower costs and prices. The Board finally resolved that these potential negative effects were not possible in this particular case, considering the competitive landscape of the relevant market.

The Board also compared the actual resale prices of the sales points with Duru's recommended prices, and concluded that the sales points generally did not follow Dura's recommended prices; instead, they followed and matched their competitors' relatively low prices due to the existence of fierce price competition in the market.

Factoring in all the aspects and circumstances of the case, including (i) the competitive structure of the relevant market, (ii) intrabrand competition, (iii) the competitive pressure of retail chains, (iv) the existence of products that were sold at nearly half off compared to the prices in discount markets, (v) Duru's low market share, (vi) low concentration level in the market, (vii) the fact that retailers often priced their products below the recommended prices, and (viii) the absence of any evidence regarding any enforcement or monitoring mechanisms for the implementation of the recommended prices set by Dura, the Board ultimately declined to initiate a full-fledged investigation against Dura.

In JOTUN, in addition to its RPM analysis, the Board also assessed allegations that JOTUN had restricted online sales by its authorized dealers. To that end, the Board reviewed JOTUN's previous and current dealership agreements. As a result of its examination, the Board found that the current dealership agreement included a provision which restricted the online sales of JOTUN's products.

In its analysis, the Board first pointed out that internet sales have been growing in Turkey and throughout the world in recent years. The Board noted that this growth trend has persisted because such sales reduce customers' search costs and lower undertakings' distribution costs, in addition to providing a wider geographic range for products and enabling access to more consumers. The Board also referred to the European Commission's ("Commission") recent actions, emphasizing that the Commission has already issued a sector report on e-commerce. In this context, the decision articulated and observed that restraints concerning prices, prohibitions against online sales, restrictions concerning price comparison tools and the exclusion of online sellers from distribution networks are becoming rather widespread in the e- commerce context. The decision further underlined the Commission's perspective with respect to distribution agreements, which focuses on the fundamental view that the freedom of dealers to conduct their sales via the internet should not be restricted.

Furthermore, the Board referred to the Commission's Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Regulation ("EU Regulation"), its Guidelines on Vertical Restraints ("EU Guidelines"), as well as several precedents of EU courts. In this regard, the Board emphasized that, according to the EU Vertical Guidelines, distribution agreements that do not entail hardcore restrictions and do not exceed the relevant market share threshold would be exempted from the application of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU"). Nonetheless, restrictions of active/passive sales to the end users by a supplier that operates a selective distribution system would be regarded and treated as a hardcore restriction, in accordance with the EU Regulation. The EU Guidelines assert that the direct restriction of passive sales (or any other conduct that would produce the same results) would be deemed as a restriction of competition. According to the EU Guidelines, besides the direct restrictions imposed on passive sales, the following types of behavior are prohibited within the scope of the rules against the indirect restriction of passive sales:

  • Restriction of a customer's access to a website, when the customer is determined to be located within the territory of another exclusive distributor, or the redirection of such a customer to the supplier's or distributor's website;
  • Cancelling a customer's order if it is determined from the customer's credit card information that the customer is not located in the exclusive territory;
  • Restriction of the percentage of total sales that can be conducted via the internet; and
  • Determination of the resale price of the distributor for products that will be sold through the internet by a comparison with the sales prices of traditional sales channels.

In accordance with the EU Guidelines, for such restrictions to benefit from the protective cloak of an individual exemption, there must an objective reason for the product to be sold physically (i.e., offline). In this context, the Board referred to the French Competition Authority's Pierre Fabre decision[3], where it was concluded that the investigated undertaking (which was a self-care and cosmetics firm) had implemented restrictions against online sales for anticompetitive purposes, and thus the restrictions in question were not granted an individual exemption. The European Court of Justice ("ECJ"), in its appellate review, noted that the restriction on internet sales did not provide a product- specific objective justification or reason, and therefore could have competition-restrictive purposes. The Board observed that the defenses concerning products subject to the agreement in that case, namely the argument that use of the relevant products required expert guidance and recommendations and that, consequently, internet sales would damage the brand image, had not been accepted by the ECJ.

The Board highlighted the fact that the Commission's approach toward restrictions on internet sales focuses on the existence (or absence) of an objective legitimate justification, which must be based on the particular characteristics of the product, and that the prohibition against internet sales is fundamentally limited to (and can only be justified for) prescription medicines and other products that may be prohibited from being sold online in consideration of public bans (e.g., illicit and illegal products). Therefore, if an internet sales restriction is imposed on a particular product and the restriction cannot be objectively justified by offering product- specific reasons, this would be regarded and deemed as competition-restrictive behavior by the investigated undertaking.

In its analysis, the Board finally referred to the Coty decision of the ECJ[4], where the internet sales restriction for online platforms had been evaluated. In that case, the Court had determined that, considering the specific characteristics of the products in question, there had been no passive sales restriction. In other words, the ECJ decided that, in order to protect the brand image of luxury products, restrictions related to sales conducted via third-party online platforms could be imposed on the distributors.

In the context of Turkish competition law legislation, the Board noted that internet sales are primarily categorized as "passive sales," as per paragraph 24 of the Guidelines on Vertical Agreements, and therefore, restrictions on such sales would be deemed and evaluated as restrictions on passive sales. In this context, the Board also declared that, although a supplier can prohibit sales to unauthorized distributors within the scope of selective distribution systems, it cannot restrict active or passive sales to end users at the retail level. Accordingly, the Board indicated that, although JOTUN had established a selective distribution system, any provisions restricting the online sales of authorized distributors would cause the vertical agreement to fall out of the scope of Communiqué No. 2002/2. In this respect, the Board assessed that prohibiting online sales in their entirety would constitute a disproportionate measure for the purpose of restricting or preventing sales to unauthorized distributors, and thus, such a measure would not benefit from an individual exemption. The Board also noted that JOTUN could have adopted and implemented less restrictive arrangements in order to prevent its distributors from conducting sales to unauthorized distributors (for instance, imposing limits on customers' purchase amounts for internet sales, which could also be applied to physical sales points under certain conditions).

Accordingly, the Board ultimately concluded that JOTUN had not determined the resale prices of its retail products. However, in the Duru decision, the Board resolved to send an opinion letter to Duru, pursuant to Article 9 of the Law No. 4054, stating that Duru should indicate in its price lists that the relevant prices are either maximum or recommended sales prices, and must cease any conduct that may lead to the determination of shelf prices and discount rates, or that may be associated with fixing resale prices by any other means. In its JOTUN decision, regarding the restriction of internet sales, the Board decided not to initiate a full-fledged investigation, because JOTUN's market power was found to be limited (and thus the effects of the foregoing restriction would also be limited). However, as per Article 9 of the Law No. 4054, the Board indicated that JOTUN should amend its dealership agreements in order to remove the prohibition against passive sales, in particular the restriction against internet sales, and cease all of its conduct and activities on this front.


[1] The Board's decision numbered 18-05/74-40 and dated February 15, 2018.

[2] The Board's decision numbered 18-07/112-59 and dated March 8,2018.

[3] Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique SAS [C-439/09].

[4] Coty Germany GmbH v Parfumerie Akzente GmbH
[C-230/16].


This article was first published in Legal Insights Quarterly by ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law in September 2018. A link to the full Legal Insight Quarterly may be found here.


The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions