Turkey: The Turkish Competition Board Acknowledged that Reassessment of a Decision Must Not Harm the Appellant

A. Introduction

The Competition Board ("Board") has recently published its reasoned decision[1] in its reassessment of the Turkish Pharmacists Association (Türk Eczacıları Birliği) ("TPA") case, following the annulment decision[2] rendered by the 13th Chamber of the High State Court ("High State Court"). The High State Court's ruling was made as a result of the TPA's appeal against the Board's earlier decision[3] concerning the TPA's practices, which examined allegations that the TPA had fixed pharmacies' purchasing terms and conditions in non-market circumstances. Pursuant to the investigation, the Board found that the TPA had violated Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition ("Law No. 4054"), and imposed an administrative monetary fine corresponding to 3% of the TPA's revenues for the 2009 fiscal year.

B. Summary of the High State Court's Review of the Board's Previous Decision

1. Basis of the Request for Annulment

In its decision, the High State Court summarized the TPA's legal basis for its appeal as follows: (i) the Board had failed to define any relevant product market in its decision, (ii) the Board was not authorized to review the TPA's practices arising from its powers that were vested and conferred by its establishing documents (iii) the Board failed to justify the use of its discretionary powers for the determination of the administrative monetary fine, and (iv) the practices subject to the investigation did not constitute a competition law violation.

2. The High State Court's Judgment

It should be noted at the outset that the High State Court did not assess all the grounds for appeal that were asserted by the TPA. Rather, its evaluation of the case revolved around the following questions: (i) whether the Board was authorized to review the TPA's practices, (ii) whether the TPA's practices violated Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 and whether they failed to comply with the conditions for receiving an individual exemption under Article 5 of the Law No. 4054 (and thus, whether the Board's decision to task the Presidency of the Competition Authority to send a written opinion under Article 9(3) of the Law No. 4054 was lawful), and (iii) whether the Board's determination of the administrative monetary fine was lawful.

The High State Court affirmed that, as a public professional association, the TPA qualified as an association of undertakings under the definition provided by Article 3 of the Law No. 4054. However, the High State Court also examined whether or not the Board had the authority to review the TPA's practices in light of the relevant precedents. According to the landmark decisions of the High State Court's Grand Chamber of Administrative Trials,[4] which were referenced in the High State Court's decision, the Competition Authority does not possess the power to conduct judicial review pursuant to the Law No. 4054 with regard to practices that arise from the implementation of the applicable legal provisions regarding the duties of public associations or professional chambers that have been established in accordance with the laws. According to the High State Court, judicial review of such practices must be sought and conducted through annulment requests before administrative courts.

On the other hand, relying on the approach of the High State Court's Grand Chamber of Administrative Trials, the High State Court excluded practices whose execution had no legal basis in a statutory power from this analysis, and asserted that such practices should fall under the scope of the Law No. 4054. The High State Court concluded that the Board possessed the power to initiate a full-fledged investigation against the practices of an association of undertakings that did not arise from the duties specified or assigned by the association's founding legal documents (e.g., articles of association) and that were determined to be anti-competitive. More specifically, the High State Court analyzed whether the TPA's practices under scrutiny fell under the scope of the Turkish Pharmacists Law No. 6643 ("Law No. 6643"). Accordingly, the High State Court found that these practices did not fall under the scope of Article 39 of the Law No. 6643, which enumerates the duties of the TPA. Therefore, the High State Court ultimately concluded that the Board had not exceeded its authority and that the Board's exercise of its power with respect to the TPA's practices under scrutiny had been lawful.

With respect to the substantial review of the Board's decision, the High State Court concluded that (i) the Board's assessments regarding the TPA's practices had been lawful and that the TPA's practices violated Article 4 of the Law No. 4054, and (ii) these practices did not fulfill the conditions that must be satisfied to receive an individual exemption under Article 5 of the Law No. 4054. Accordingly, the High State Court declared that the section of the Board's decision tasking the Presidency of the Competition Authority with sending a written opinion under Article 9(3) of the Law No. 4054 had also been lawful.

Finally, regarding the determination of the administrative monetary fine, the High State Court found that the Board's decision subject to appeal had failed to include any assessments regarding the specific aspects of the case that had been taken into account when determining the amount of the administrative monetary fine. In particular, the High State Court stated that the Board's decision had failed to set forth: (i) any justification for the Board's use of its discretionary powers when setting the exact ratio to be used in determining the administrative monetary fine amount (i.e., as a percentage of the TPA's revenues), in accordance with the range interval stipulated by legislation, (ii) a clear and thorough evaluation regarding the potential existence of aggravating and/or mitigating factors, and (iii) a clear explanation with respect to the potential impact of the gravity of the TPA's prohibited conduct on the determination of the administrative monetary fine amount. Against this background, the High State Court concluded that the substance of the Board's assessments regarding the determination of the administrative monetary fine amount lacked the clarity required for a judicial review of the administrative monetary fine decision, and therefore annulled the relevant section of the Board's decision.

C. The Board's Assessments Regarding the Administrative Monetary Fine and the Principle of Reformatio in Peius

Following the High State Court's decision, the Board reassessed the determination of the administrative monetary fine amount in light of the Law No. 4054 and the Regulation on Monetary Fines for Restrictive Agreements, Concerted Practices, Decisions and Abuses of Dominance ("Regulation on Fines"). The Board acknowledged that the administrative monetary fine must be calculated on the basis of a three-step process: (i) the determination of a base fine amount according to Article 5 of the Regulation on Fines (which includes the incorporation of the duration multiplier, if applicable), (ii) the consideration and factoring in of aggravating circumstances under Article 6 of the Regulation on Fines, and (iii) the consideration and factoring in of mitigating factors under Article 7 of the Regulation on Fines. The Board subsequently determined that the violation in this case fell under the category of "Other Violations" as per Article 5 of the Regulation on Fines, and asserted that an administrative monetary fine corresponding to between 0.5 to 3 percent of the turnover generated in the fiscal year preceding the date of the administrative fine decision should be imposed. The Board then noted that a number of relevant factors, such as the market power of the undertakings/associations concerned and the seriousness of the damage which occurred or is likely to occur as a result of the violation, should also be taken into consideration in determining the level of the abovementioned base percentage. Finally, the Board ruled that there were no applicable aggravating and/or mitigating factors in the present case, and concluded that the duration of the infringement did not necessitate increasing the base fine amount either.

After establishing the base fine percentage, the Board turned its attention to determining the fiscal year that would be taken into account for calculating the base fine. In this regard, the Board turned its attention to the criminal procedure principle of avoiding reformatio in peius (Latin: "change for the worse," which occurs when, as the result of an appeal, the appellant is put in a worse position than if they had not appealed). In this context, the Board declared that the principle of reformatio in peius, which is defined under Article 307(4) of the Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure in Turkey, would also be applicable to administrative monetary fines levied by the Board. To that end, in an effort to reach the most advantageous base fine amount for the TPA, the Board calculated three different turnover figures for 2011, 2014 and 2017, which respectively represented the years preceding (i) the High State Court's stay-of-execution decision, (ii) the High State Court's annulment decision, and (iii) the Board's previous monetary fine decision. Subsequently, the Board compared these turnover figures with the corresponding figures for 2009 and decided to use the TPA's turnover figures for 2014 when determining the amount of the base fine, as it was the lowest turnover figure among the three years under consideration. The Board thereby respected and incorporated the principle of reformatio in peius into its decision.

D. The Principle of Reformatio in Peius in Turkish Competition Law

The prohibition on reformatio in peius is a statutory restriction on judicial authorities that obliges them not to resolve an appeal (or objection) with a decision that puts the appellant in a worse position than if it had never appealed. Reformatio in peius is an important procedural rule that is observed by Turkish courts as an established legal principle. It can be reasonably argued that the Turkish Competition Board should respect and abide by the principle of reformatio in peius and thereby avoid rendering decisions that put an appellant undertaking in a worse position than it would have been under the initial Board decision.

In fact, the High State Court has previously affirmed this approach in the Aktif-İriyıl Otomotiv İnşaat Turizm Ticaret ve Sanayi Limited Şirketi ("Aktif İriyıl") case.[5] In that lawsuit, the High State Court reviewed a Board decision[6] that was a reassessment made upon an annulment order[7] rendered by the Ankara 9th Administrative Court. Previously, the Ankara 9th Administrative Court had delivered its annulment decision upon Aktif İriyıl's appeal against the Board decision imposing an administrative monetary fine on the undertaking in the amount of TL 109,418.33 (approximately EUR 46,363 at the prevailing exchange rate).[8] In light of its reassessment, the Board decided to impose a larger administrative monetary fine on Aktif İriyıl (TL 156,473.67, approx. EUR 66,302 at the time). Aktif İriyıl subsequently challenged the Board's reassessment decision. With respect to Aktif İriyıl's appeal, the Ankara 9th Administrative Court (which was the court of first instance that had rendered the previous annulment decision)  concluded that the reassessment decision should also be annulled, to the extent that the newly imposed administrative monetary fine exceeded the previous fine's amount (TL 109,418.33). The Ankara 9th Administrative Court reasoned as follows: "In a state governed by the rule of law, exercising one's legal rights should not result in detriments being incurred." Subsequently, the High State Court upheld the Ankara 9th Administrative Court's decision and, accordingly, decided that the administrative monetary fine imposed by the Board should be reduced to TL 109,418.33.[9] This decision was final and unappealable, since the High State Court rejected the Competition Authority's final appeal (i.e., the request for a revision of the decision).[10]

Although there aren't a high number of precedents demonstrating the implementation of the principle of reformatio in peius in the context of competition law, the High State Court's Aktif İriyıl decision provides a powerful and clear-cut example for the Board and administrative courts to follow.

E. Conclusion

We believe that the decision discussed above is highly significant, as it (i) provides comprehensive and instructive explanations on the method to be used for lawfully determining the administrative monetary fine amount, and (ii) sheds light on the correct and proper implementation of the principle of reformatio in peius by the Board when reassessing the administrative monetary fine amount subsequent to an annulment order by an administrative court. To that end, this decision may serve as a powerful reference for future cases in which the Board will be required to reassess its decisions, particularly in cases where it will have already imposed an administrative monetary fine.


[1] The Board's decision dated April 5, 2018, and numbered 18-10/185-88.

[2] The 13th Chamber of the High State Court's decision dated December 16, 2014, and numbered 2010/4769 E. and 2014/4294 K.

[3] The Board's decision dated July 8, 2010, and numbered 10-49/912-321.

[4] The High State Court's Grand Chamber of Administrative Trials decisions (i) dated March 11, 2004, and numbered (stay of execution objection number) 2004/93, (ii) dated February 11, 2010, and numbered 2008/1881, and (iii) dated March 27, 2008, and numbered (stay of execution objection number) 2007/774.

[5] The 13th Chamber of the High State Court's decision dated November 11, 2015, and numbered 2015/5483 E. and 2015/3835 K.

[6] The Board's decision dated April 16, 2014, and numbered 14-15/277-119.

[7] The Ankara 9th Administrative Court decision dated December 24, 2013, and numbered 2013/752 E. and 2013/2064 K.

[8] The Board's decision dated April 12, 2012, and numbered 12-20/557-141.

[9] See Footnote 5.

[10] The 13th Chamber of the High State Court's decision dated May 25, 2016, and numbered 2016/750 E. and 2016/1955 K.

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