Five recent investigations by the TCA have resulted in commitment and settlement procedure. The relevant decisions are as follows:


  • Within the scope of the investigation opened by The Competition Authority against Tadım Gıda Maddeleri San. Ve Tic. A.Ş , Tadım Gıda Maddeleri San. Ve Tic. A.Ş commitments have been given on the allegations that it made the activities of its competitors diffucult by abusing dominant position with exclusionary practices and that has intervened in the prices of the dealers amd determined the reseale price. The Competition Authority evaluated that these commitments adress the comeptitive concerns, could be fulfilled in a short time and could be implemented effectively thus made the commitments binding and concluded the investigation[1].


  • TCA opened investigation against DyDo Drinco Turkey İçecek Satış ve Pazarlama A.Ş in order to determine that the retail outlets determine the resale price by interfering with the shelf price of the products DyDo sells violate Article 4 of Act No. 4054 or not.  Within the scope of the investigation DyDo accepted the allegations of violation and applied for settlement procedure. The Authority has concluded the investigation considering the settlement and applied %20 discount to the administrative fine[2].


  • Olka Spor Malzemeleri Ticaret A.Ş and Marlin Spor Malzelemeri Ticaret A.Ş applied to settlement procedure for the investigation that opened by TCA in order to determine whether undertakings have violated the Act No. 4054 with their practices towards their dealers for the products they distribute in Turkey. TCA ended investigation for both sides by accepting settlement application and applied %25 discount to the administrative fine[3].


  • The Competition Authority’s investigation which carried out in order to the determine whether the Act No. 4054 has been violated by determining the resale price of Numil Gıda Ürünleri San. ve Tic A.Ş has concluded by accepting Numil Gıda’s settlement application and applyng %15 discount to the administrative fine[4].


  • The Competition Authority’s investigation into whether Arnica violated competition by preventing sellers from selling online, interfering with internet sales prices and imposing restrictions on territory or customers has ended by accepting Arnica Pazarlama’s compromise application. Authority has been determined that Arnica sets the minimum sales price for its re-sellers, wants to subject those who do not comply with this price to sanctions such as order cancellation, suspension of goods shipment and non-delivery of goods, and imposes an internet sales ban on some of its dealers working with a free distribution network. Considering that these vertical restrictions, which are in violation of the article, are carried out within the framework of the resale price determination strategy of the authorized dealers and that they are a single behavior that constitutes an integrity as a part of the overall strategy of the undertaking regarding this behavior Authority decided applying 3.3 million TL adminstrative together with the %25 discount.[5].


[1] TCA decison – 07.07.2022

[2] TCA decision – 13.01.2022, 22-03/27-M

[3] TCA decision – 30.06.2022, 22-29/488-197

[4] TCA decision – 30.06.2022, 22-29/483-192

[5] TCA decision – 30.09.2021, 21-46/671-335



This document provides general information on the subject and does not constitute a legal opinion or recommendation. Consulting a specialist is recommended before taking an action. No claim arising from the content of or relating to this document can be asserted against NAZALI.