September 2025 – In the world of competition law, providing accurate and timely information to a regulator is not just a formality—it is a critical legal obligation. A recent reasoned decision by the Turkish Competition Authority ("TCA") concerning Novonesis A/S and its affiliated companies—Novozymes Enzim Dış Ticaret Ltd. Şti., Novozymes Berlin GmbH, Novozymes France S.A.S., Novozymes Switzerland AG, and Novozymes North America (together, "NOVO")—serves as a powerful reminder of this fact.1
This decision underscores that providing incomplete, incorrect, or misleading responses can lead to significant penalties, demonstrating the TCA's strict stance on compliance with information requests.
The NOVO decision: The imperative for full and accurate
disclosure
The TCA initiated a full-blown investigation into NOVO for allegedly abusing its dominant position in the industrial enzymes market. As part of its probe, the TCA requested a wide range of documents, including contracts.
The TCA determined that NOVO's submissions contained incomplete, incorrect, and contradictory information. When asked for contracts related to certain enzymes for the 2019–2024 period, NOVO only provided documents from 2024. The company's justification was that the earlier contracts belonged to Chr. Hansen A/S, a company that they had recently merged with2 and, as such, were not their responsibility.
However, the TCA concluded that, in a merger, all assets and liabilities are legally transferred to the acquiring company. Citing the Turkish Commercial Code and consistent with its own precedent3, the TCA found NOVO's justification legally invalid and deemed the information incomplete.
This was not the only issue. The TCA also found that NOVO's letters contained contradictory information about which of its subsidiaries sold enzymes in Türkiye, and that certain customer contracts were never submitted at all.
In light of these findings, the TCA imposed two distinct administrative fines on NOVO:
- A fixed fine equal to 0.1% of NOVO's 2024 gross revenues for providing incomplete and misleading information (pursuant to Article 16(1)(c) of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition).
- A daily administrative fine of 0.05% of its gross revenues,
which will continue to accumulate until the requested information
is submitted (pursuant to Article 17(1)(c) of Law No. 4054).
The TCA's firm stance: A look at the Authority's track record
The NOVO decision is consistent with the TCA's broader pattern of strict enforcement. Under Turkish competition law, the TCA has sweeping powers to request information. Article 14 of Law No. 4054 makes it mandatory for companies to provide requested documents within the specified timeframe. Failure to do so can lead to significant penalties. In cases of persistent non-compliance, companies face additional administrative fines that accumulate for each day they fail to either provide the requested information, comply with the obligations imposed by the TCA, or for continuous hindering of an on-site inspection, as evidenced by a number of high-profile cases:
Apex4: In an investigation concerning protective face masks, the TCA imposed a 0.1% fixed fine for two separate incomplete submissions and a daily fine for the late submission of documents.
Goldman Sachs5 & Garanti BBVA6: The TCA has imposed administrative fines on Goldman Sachs and Garanti BBVA for failing to provide information during an investigation. This fine was part of a larger preliminary investigation into foreign exchange trading. The banks were fined because their Turkish subsidiaries did not provide requested chatroom data held by their foreign parent companies, which the TCA deemed an obstruction to its inquiry. Subsequently, the TCA set a deadline for the provision of the requested data. While the Ankara Administrative Court of First Instance initially ruled against these fines, this decision was later overturned, upholding the TCA's jurisdiction to request data from foreign entities via their Turkish extensions. When Goldman Sachs and Garanti BBVA subsequently failed to provide the data within the new deadline, they incurred daily administrative fines for their continued non-compliance.
Meta7 & Google8: Both companies were recently fined for failing to comply with obligations imposed by the TCA in a timely manner. The TCA imposed a daily administrative fine on Meta for 115 days, amounting to approximately TRY 552 million (approximately EUR 11.4 million).9 Similarly, the TCA levied a total fine of approximately TRY 355.1 million (approximately EUR 7.3 million) on Google for its failure to comply in a timely manner with its imposed obligations.
EssilorLuxottica10: The TCA imposed a daily fine on the merged entity for its failure to comply with behavioural remedies, where the company had agreed to refrain from tying and exclusivity practices and which were a condition of the TCA's merger approval. A daily fine totalling approximately TRY 492.2 million (approximately EUR 10.2 million) was imposed for a period of more than four years (1,781 days to be exact), starting from the date of the TCA's approval of the merger.
Siemens Healthcare11: The TCA imposed a daily administrative fine on Siemens Healthcare for obstructing an on-site inspection. The company initially denied the case handlers immediate access to the "eDiscovery" feature of its Microsoft Office 365 system, which was necessary to conduct a keyword-based electronic review of employee data. Siemens Healthcare cited international data protection laws as the reason for the refusal. The TCA determined this refusal constituted an obstruction of the inspection. Consequently, the on-site inspection was considered incomplete until a subsequent inspection could be carried out. The TCA levied a daily fine on the company, calculated from the day following the initial hindrance until the inspection is successfully completed.12
Key takeaways for businesses
The NOVO decision sends a powerful signal. It underscores that the TCA views compliance with information requests not just as a procedural step, but as a critical element of its investigative process. Providing incomplete or misleading information is a serious offense that can be punished with significant administrative monetary fines.
To mitigate such risks, businesses should consider the following steps:
- Prioritise requests: Treat every information request from the TCA with the utmost importance.
- Ensure accuracy and completeness: Conduct a thorough review of all submitted documents to ensure they are complete, accurate, and consistent.
- Adhere to timelines: Strictly adhere to the deadlines provided by the TCA.
- Understand legal obligations: Be aware that a merger does not erase past liabilities, and that the new entity is responsible for previous records.
Failure to do so can expose a company to dual penalties—both a fixed fine and a daily accumulating fine—that can quickly escalate into a substantial financial burden.
Footnotes
1. NOVO (27.03.2025, 25-13/297-140).
2. The TCA approved the Novozymes/Chr. Hansen Holding merger with its decision dated 28.09.2023 and numbered 23-46/870-308.
3. Kliksa (08.09.2022, 22-41/575-236), Anadolu Cam (03.02.2022, 22-07/94-37), Şişecam (06.01.2022, 22-01/6-3), Paşabahçe (10.06.2021, 21-30/385-193), İzmir Container Transporters (04.03.2021, 21-11/155-64), Dorak (25.03.2021, 21-17/208-86), Antalya Tourism Agencies (21.11.2016, 16-40/662-296), Intercity Transporters (09.02.2006, 06-11/143-33).
4. Apex I (02.07.2020, 20-32/410-187), Apex II (17.07.2020, 20-34/451-199) and Apex III (20.08.2020, 20-38/528-236). Other examples where the TCA imposed daily administrative monetary fines for submitting incomplete, incorrect, or misleading information includes Çerkezköy (23.01.2020, 20-06/49-26), TEB II (07.11.2019, 19-38/582-248) and TEB I (07.07.2015, 15-28/336-108) decisions. Notably, in the A101 case (22.10.2020, 20-47/638-280), while a fine was considered for late submission of information, the majority of the Competition Board decided against it, as the company had eventually (though belatedly) submitted the requested information. However, a dissenting opinion argued that late submission should not absolve a company of its legal liability.
5. Goldman Sachs (26.08.2021, 21-40/576-280).
6. Garanti BBVA (24.09.2020, 20-43/590-263).
7. Meta (24.04.2024, 24-20/467-197).
8. Google (26.06.2025, 25-23/562-362).
9. The EUR exchange rate throughout this document is converted at EUR 1 = TRY 48.37.
10. EssilorLuxottica (17.08.2023, 23-39/749-259).
11. Siemens Healthcare (07.11.2019, 19-38/581-247).
12. The TCA has a history of levying daily administrative fines on companies for actions that obstruct on-site inspections, such as denying case teams access to premises or employees' mobile devices, or for employees or managers leaving the company premises. Examples include Toros (04.07.2024, 24-28/683-284), Çilek Emlak (23.03.2023, 23-15/257-87), EMPA (23.03.2023, 23-15/256-86), and Şanal (23.03.2023, 23-15/255-85).
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.
