COMPETITION http://www. rekabet. gov. tr/default. aspx COMPETITION http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/default.aspx?nsw=MnQE5sm2MSI/cAJ89qr3mA==-SgKWD+pQ TURKISH COMPETITION AUTHORITY THE COMPETITION BOARD Prof.Dr.Huriye kubilay

Basic Concepts Undertaking: In competition law, undertaking refers to natural and legal persons who produce, market and sell goods or services in the market, and units which can decide independently and do constitute an economic whole. This definition's concept of undertaking is based on "economic activity," "independence," and "economic integration," and is not dependent on legal nature; as such it is distinct from the concept of undertaking as used in other legislation, which can be substituted for the concepts of firms, company or business. Within this framework, for instance private and public companies as well as self-employed persons who can take decisions concerning their economic activities independently are regarded as undertakings in competition law, while a firm whose every decision on economic activities is taken by the holding it is affiliated to, a doctor or an advocate working for a company or an institution according to a service (employment) contract do not constitute an undertaking.

Association of undertakings: Refers to all kinds of associations with or without a legal personality, which are formed by undertakings to accomplish particular goals. Typical examples of associations of undertakings are associations where undertakings are represented by natural persons. Similarly, chambers of industry and commerce, professional chambers, unions and bars are regarded as associations of undertakings.

Agreement: Agreement in competition may be between one or more undertakings which operate at the same level of the market, i.e. between competing undertakings, or between undertakings which operate at different levels of the production/distribution chains, i.e. between undertakings in a vertical relationship. In terms of competition legislation, in light of the explanations above, for instance a cartel agreement where competing undertakings agree to fix prices for the relevant product or service will restrict competition; on the other hand agreements signed between suppliers and their dealers in which suppliers place obligations on the dealers may also restrict competition and therefore fall within the jurisdiction of competition rules.

In terms of competition law, there is no distinction between situations where agreements are concluded orally and where they are concluded in writing. The important point for the existence of the agreement is whether the explicit or implicit union of will or behavior between the undertakings has the prevention, distortion or restriction of competition within the market.

Cartel: Cartels, which are seen as the form of violation that is most damaging for social welfare, refer to explicit or implicit agreements or unions created among undertakings in a particular market for goods and services in order to lessen or restrict competition in that market. Cartel agreements generally concern prices of the product, volume of the products to be supplied, market shares and the territories where the products will be sold and they are typically formed under the name of "gentlemen's agreement" in the present day.

Exemption: Under competition law some agreements may have competition limiting effects, but may also lead to larger social benefits than the social harm caused by these effects. In order to ensure that such agreements may be concluded and the consequent net competitive benefit expected from them may be gained, competition acts also include rules that exempt such agreements from the prohibitive provisions aimed at anti-competitive agreements.

In the Act no 4054 on the Protection of Competition (Act no 4054), article 5 includes the regulation which exempts an agreement falling under the scope of article 4 of the Act from the prohibition, related invalidity and fine sanctions. Within this framework, those agreements which fulfill all of the requirements listed in Article 5 of the Act no 4054 are granted exemption from the prohibition of article 4 of the Act. The four requirements specified in Article 5, all of which have to be satisfied for an agreement to be granted exemption are as follows: a) Ensuring new developments and improvements, or economic or technical development in the production or distribution of goods and in the provision of services, b) Benefitting the consumer from the above-mentioned, c) Not eliminating competition in a significant part of the relevant market, d) Not limiting competition more than what is compulsory for achieving the goals set out in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).

Mergers and Acquisitions: Merger in its general definition means the joining of two firms into a new or existing undertaking. In this process companies joining an existing undertaking lose their legal personalities. For mergers under a new company, all of the undertakings parties to the merger lose their legal personalities. Acquisition, on the other hand, refers to an undertaking acquiring property so as to gain the right to control on the whole or a part of another undertaking. In contrast to mergers, in acquisitions undertakings do not necessarily lose their legal personalities. Conditions leading to a transfer of an undertaking’s control to another undertaking are accepted as acquisition

Joint ventures which fulfill all of the functions of an independent economic entity and which involve the exercise of joint control for taking strategic decisions may also be assessed under the scope of mergers/acquisitions. In accordance with Article 7 of the Act no 4054 and the Communiqué Concerning the Mergers and Acquisitions Calling for the Authorization of the Competition Board, No: 2010/4 (Communiqué no 2010/4) issued in order to establish the principles and procedures for the application of this article requires that mergers and acquisitions which lead to permanent changes in the control and which exceed certain turnover thresholds be notified to the Competition Board in order become legally valid.

Dominant position: In competition law, dominant position reefers to the power of one or more undertakings in a particular market to determine economic parameters such as price, supply and the amount of production and distribution, by acting independently of their competitors and customers.

Negative Clearance: Negative clearance refers to the fact that Competition Board may, upon the application of the undertaking or associations of undertakings concerned, establish that an agreement, decision, practice or merger and acquisition are in violation of articles 4, 6 and 7 of the Act No. 4054. As a result of the examination for negative clearance, applicant undertaking or association of undertaking may be granted a negative clearance certificate, indicating that an agreement, decision, practice or merger and acquisition, which are the subject of the application, are not contrary to articles 4, 6 and 7 of the Act.

Agreements lımıtıng cartels CARTELS Cartel is the common concept which refers to anti- competitive agreements and/or concerted practices among competitors including price fixing, market allocation, restriction of supply or imposing quotas and collusive bidding in tenders. Cartels, which are accepted as the most severe competition restriction, strive to increase their profits by controlling different market related variables including, especially, price and quantity.

Agreement among competing undertakings to determine competitive parameters in the market leads to the disfunctioning of the market mechanism whose efficient functioning maximizes consumer welfare, and thus to prices artificially settling above competitive equilibrium. Such an agreement reduces the pressure on undertakings to produce cheaper, better quality or new products in order to reach more consumers and condemns consumers to higher prices and lower quality products. At the same time, cartels lead to negative effects on the fight with inflation and on the equality of income distribution. Hence, cartels have been described as the “cancer of market economy”, and it has also been stated that “no economy that has no effective and deterrent sanctions against cartels can be claimed to be a free economy.”

Due to the severe damage they do to economy, there is a world-wide consensus among competition authorities that cartels should be treated differently than other practices restricting competition and should be punished in the most severe manner. The most common type of sanction used in this struggle is fines. Many countries apply severe fines to deter the formation of cartels. However, the fight against cartels is not limited to fines imposed on undertakings; administrative fines have also been supported with other sanctions such as fines imposed on executives with decisive roles in the formation of cartels, imposing jail sentence, and loaded damages payments under private law. One of the most effective methods competition authorities utilize in the fight against cartels is “leniency programs”. Through leniency programs, detecting cartels – which by nature operate in secret – is facilitated, and the first undertaking to disclose the cartel and its employees are granted immunity against all penal sanctions. Furthermore, other undertakings and their employees which assist in the cartel investigation avail discounts on their penalties at varying rates. Regulations concerning the leniency program were introduced with the amendments to the Act no 4054 adopted in 2008. Within this framework, the Regulation on Active Cooperation for Detecting Cartels (Leniency Regulation) and the Regulation on Fines to Apply in Cases of Agreements, Concerted Practices and Decisions Limiting Competition, and Abuse of Dominant Position (Regulation on Fines) concerning the detection of cartels were put into force as of February 15, 2009.

Agreements between competitors Agreements signed between competitors in order to facilitate specialization in any operation such as production, distribution or marketing, or to conduct technology transfer or joint R&D studies may lead to cooperation between the parties and create competition restricting effects such as taking joint commercial decisions or hindering the operations of third party undertakings. However, such agreements may also have efficiency creating characteristics.

Vertical agreements Vertical agreements which are signed between undertakings at different levels of the production and distribution chain in order to procure, sell or resell goods may have competition-restricting effects due to some obligations brought by the parties on each other. One of these obligations is the obligation not to sell competing goods, placed by the supplier on the buyer which distributes the goods. This and similar obligations may have effects such as creating market power for the parties to the agreement and to hindering the operations of third-party undertakings. On the other hand, vertical agreements may also have pro-competitive effects, especially on the basis of the efficiencies they create in distribution. When conducting competition law assessment in relation to these agreements which may have pro-competitive effects in addition to their competition limiting aspects and which may basically be addressed under the above-mentioned two headings, the agreements are analyzed in terms of their anti-competitive and pro-competitive effects and those agreements which lead to net competitive benefits may be granted exemption from the prohibition of article 4 of the Act no 4054, under the block or individual exemption regime.

The block exemption regime is regulated with the Block Exemption Communiqué on Vertical Agreements, no 2002/2 (Communiqué No: 2002/2), and the application principles for the Communiqué no 2002/2 are explained in the Guidelines on Vertical Agreements.

In case vertical agreements which are assessed under article 4 as a result of their competition restricting effects do not fall under the scope of the block exemption, they are subjected to an exemption examination under article 5 of the Act no 4054 and are analyzed in terms of their benefits and harms. At this point, it must be noted that there is no notification obligation for such agreements, which means exemption assessment must primarily be conducted by undertakings and association of undertakings. When conducting exemption assessments, undertakings and associations of undertakings should take block exemption communiqués, guidelines explaining these communiqués and previous decisions of the Board into consideration, in addition to the requirements listed in article 5.

Dealership Agreements Dealership Agreements are one of the types of vertical agreements made among undertakings at different levels of the production/service chain for the purposes of resale of goods. In dealership agreements, one party is the supplier of the goods or services and the other party is the buying undertaking which is the reseller of that product. Dealership agreements are considered under article 4 of the Act no 4054 in case they include competition limiting effects. In such agreements, generally supplier places certain place obligations on the buyer, such as an obligation not to sell competing products or not to sell outside of an allocated region. Such dealership agreements are addressed under article 4 of the Act no 4054, but they can be granted exemption if they meet certain requirements.

There are two block exemptions related to dealership agreements: Block Exemption Communiqué on Vertical Agreements, no 2002/2 (Communiqué No: 2002/2) describes, for all sectors, which requirements must be met in order for dealership agreements to be granted exemption from the application of article 4. Application principles for the Communiqué no 2002/2 are explained in detail in the Guidelines on Vertical Agreements.

In addition, Block Exemption Communiqué on Vertical Agreements and Concerted Practices in the Motor Vehicle Sector, no 2005/4 (Communiqué No: 2005/4) is issued for dealership agreements concluded in the motor vehicle sector. Application principles for the Communiqué no 2005/4 are explained in detail in the Guidelines on the Explanation of the Block Exemption Communiqué on Vertical Agreements and Concerted Practices in the Motor Vehicle Sector. As in other types vertical agreements, dealership agreements which do not fall under the scope of the block exemption may be subjected to individual exemption assessment under article 5 of the Act no 4054.

Reasoned Board Decisions

Hearing for the Investigation concerning Twelve Banks Operating Date: 08.03.2013, Nu.13-13/198-100 The investigation conducted in order to determine whether twelve banks operating in Turkey violated article 4 of the Act no 4054 on the Protection of Competition by making agreements and/or engaging in concerted practices in the deposits, loans and credit cards sector was concluded. As a result of the discussion of the file by the Competition Board, it was determined that article 4 of the Act no 4054 on the Protection of Competition was violated in the deposits, loans and credit cards sector. It can be appealed before Ankara Administrative Courts

KONYA Association of Goldsmiths and Jewelers The İnvestigation conducted in order to determine whether Konya Association of Goldsmiths and Jewelers (Association) violated article 4 of the Act no 4054 on the Protection of Competition by fixing sale and repair prices for gold wares and jewelry and by introducing restriction on sales/marketing activities such as advertisements and promotions has been concluded. The investigation was initiated as a result of the preliminary inquiry opened in response to the application claiming that businesses were prevented from making sales at prices below those determined by the Association and fines were imposed on businesses selling at low prices. During the investigation phase, it was examined whether the Association fixed sales and repair prices for gold as well as sale and marketing conditions outside of the market.

As a result of the examination of the file by the Competition Board on 14.02.2013, it was unanimously decided that the Association violated article 4 of the Act no 4054 by fixing purchase, sale and repair prices for gold as well as elements of economic and commercial activity such as sale and marketing terms outside of the market, and that an administrative fine of TL 7,215.47 should be imposed on the Association in accordance with article 16 of the same Act and the "Regulation on Fines to Apply in Cases of Agreements, Concerted Practices and Decisions Limiting Competition, and Abuse of Dominant Position."

REKABET KURULU KARARI Dosya Sayısı : 2012-4-356 (Devralma) Karar Sayısı : 13-09/118-64 Karar Tarihi : 06.02.2013 A. TOPLANTIYA KATILAN ÜYELER Başkan : Prof. Dr. Nurettin KALDIRIMCI Üyeler : Doç. Dr. Mustafa ATEŞ, İsmail Hakkı KARAKELLE, Dr. Murat ÇETİNKAYA, Reşit GÜRPINAR, Kenan TÜRK B. RAPORTÖR : Muhammed GÜNDOĞDU, Buket ARI C. BİLDİRİMDE BULUNAN : Global Yatırım Holding A.Ş. Rıhtım Cad. No:51 34425 Karaköy/İstanbul

D. DOSYA KONUSU: Savina Holding GmbH’nin Global Liman İşletmeleri A. Ş D. DOSYA KONUSU: Savina Holding GmbH’nin Global Liman İşletmeleri A.Ş.’de sahip olduğu %22,114 oranındaki hissesini Global Yatırım Holding A.Ş.’ye devretmesi işlemine izin verilmesi talebi F. RAPORTÖR GÖRÜŞÜ: İlgili raporda, bildirime konu işleme izin verilmesinde sakınca bulunmadığı ifade edilmiştir.

G. İNCELEME VE DEĞERLENDİRME (4) Dosya mevcudu bilgiler çerçevesinde, 2010/4 sayılı “Rekabet Kurulundan İzin Alınması Gereken Birleşme ve Devralmalar Hakkında Tebliğ” kapsamında izne tabi olduğu anlaşılan, Global Liman İşletmeleri A.Ş.’nin kontrolünün Global Yatırım Holding A.Ş. tarafından devralınmasına yönelik işlemin, Ege ve Akdeniz bölgeleri “kruvaziyer gemilerine yönelik liman hizmetleri” ve “dökme yük, genel kargo ve konteyner elleçleme hizmetleri” etkilenen pazarlarında yoğunlaşmaya neden olmayacağı kanaatine varılmıştır.

H. SONUÇ (5) Düzenlenen rapora ve incelenen dosya kapsamına göre, bildirim konusu işlemin 4054 sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun’un 7. maddesi ve bu maddeye dayanılarak çıkarılan 2010/4 sayılı “Rekabet Kurulundan İzin Alınması Gereken Birleşme ve Devralmalar Hakkında Tebliğ” kapsamında izne tabi olduğuna, işlem sonucunda aynı Kanun maddesinde belirtilen nitelikte hâkim durum yaratılmasının veya mevcut hâkim durumun güçlendirilmesinin ve böylece rekabetin önemli ölçüde azaltılmasının söz konusu olmaması nedeniyle işleme izin verilmesine OYBİRLİĞİ ile karar verilmiştir.

REKABET KURULU KARARI Dosya Sayısı : 2012-4-327 (Muafiyet) Karar Sayısı : 13-08/92-53 Karar Tarihi : 31.01.2013 A. TOPLANTIYA KATILAN ÜYELER Başkan : Prof. Dr. Nurettin KALDIRIMCI Üyeler : Doç. Dr. Mustafa ATEŞ, İsmail Hakkı KARAKELLE, Dr. Murat ÇETİNKAYA, Reşit GÜRPINAR, Kenan TÜRK B. RAPORTÖR : Muhammed GÜNDOĞDU C. BİLDİRİMDE BULUNAN : ING Bank A.Ş. Temsilcisi: Av. Turgan GÜRMEN Mete Cad. No:12/7-8 34437 Taksim/İstanbul

D. DOSYA KONUSU: ING Bank A. Ş D. DOSYA KONUSU: ING Bank A.Ş. bireysel ihtiyaç kredilerinin, Migros Ticaret A.Ş. bünyesindeki mağazalarda tanıtılmasına ilişkin işbirliği anlaşmasına muafiyet tanınması talebi. F. RAPORTÖR GÖRÜŞÜ: İlgili raporda, bildirim konusu sözleşmenin 2002/2 sayılı Tebliğ kapsamında grup muafiyetinden yararlandığı ifade edilmiştir. G. İNCELEME VE DEĞERLENDİRME G.1. İlgili Pazar (4) Taraflar arasındaki işbirliği spesifik olarak bireysel ihtiyaç kredilerinin tanıtımına ilişkin olduğundan, ilgili ürün pazarı “tüketici finansmanı tanıtımı ve sergilenmesi pazarı” olarak belirlenmiştir. Öte yandan, bildirime konu işlemin Türkiye sınırları içerisindeki tüm üye işyerlerinde hizmet sunumunu amaçlaması sebebiyle, ilgili coğrafi pazar “Türkiye” olarak tespit edilmiştir.

G.2.1. Bildirime Konu Sözleşme (5) Bildirim Formunda yer verilen talep, ING Bank A.Ş. (ING Bank) ve Migros Ticaret A.Ş. (Migros) arasında 23.07.2012 tarihinde imzalanan, Migros Ticaret A.Ş. ING Bank A.Ş. İşbirliği Sözleşmesi (Sözleşme)’ne menfi tespit belgesi verilmesi veya muafiyeti tanınmasına ilişkindir. (6) Bildirim Formunda yer alan bilgilere göre, Sözleşme’nin konusu, Türkiye genelindeki Migros mağazalarında ING Bank'ın bireysel ihtiyaç kredisi paketlerinin reklam/tanıtımının yapılması, Migros bünyesinde uygun şekilde müşterilerin görebileceği yerlerde sergilenmesi, ayrıca bazı mağazalarda ING Bank'a ait kiosk bulundurulması ve bireysel ihtiyaç kredisi satışının bahsi geçen kiosklardan gerçekleşmesi ile tüm bu hususlarla ilgili işbirliğinin müşterilere duyurulmasıdır.

G.2.2. Menfi Tespit ve Grup Muafiyeti Değerlendirmesi (7) 4054 sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun’un uygulaması bakımından teşebbüs niteliğini haiz ING Bank ile Migros, dikey anlaşma niteliğinde olan bir Sözleşme ile tanımlanan ilgili pazarda etki doğuracak bir proje geliştirmektedir. Bildirime konu Sözleşme’nin yukarıda yer verilen ilgili hükümleri taraflara sözleşme konusu faaliyetle ilgili olarak rakip teşebbüsler ile anlaşma yapmama şartı getiren düzenlemeler içermektedir. (9) Bu neviden hükümler ile teşebbüsler arası rekabeti sınırlayıcı bir anlaşma niteliğinde olan Sözleşme’ye, 4054 sayılı Rekabetin Korunması hakkında Kanun’un 4, 6 ve 7. maddelerine aykırı olmadığına dair bir menfi tespit belgesi verilmesi mümkün değildir.

Öte yandan, rakip olmayan ve rakip olma potansiyeli bulunmayan, faaliyet gösterdikleri pazarlardaki payları %40’ın altında olan taraflarca imzalanan bildirim konusu Sözleşme’de düzenlenen rekabet etmeme yükümlülüğüne, sözleşme süresi boyunca (en fazla (…..)) ve karşılıklı olarak yer verilmiştir. Sözleşme’yi Tebliğ kapsamı dışına çıkartan başka hüküm bulunmadığı da dikkate alınarak, inceleme konusu işlemin 2002/2 sayılı Dikey Anlaşmalara İlişkin Grup Muafiyeti Tebliği kapsamında grup muafiyetinden yararlandığı kanaatine varılmıştır.

H. SONUÇ (11) Düzenlenen rapora ve incelenen dosya kapsamına göre, 1- ING Bank A.Ş. ve Migros Ticaret A.Ş. arasında imzalanan "Migros Ticaret A.Ş. ING Bank A.Ş. İşbirliği Sözleşmesi”ne 4054 sayılı Kanun'un 4. maddesine aykırılık teşkil etmesi nedeniyle menfi tespit belgesi verilemeyeceğine, 2- Bununla birlikte söz konusu Sözleşme’nin 2002/2 sayılı Tebliğ kapsamında grup muafiyetinden yararlandığına OYBİRLİĞİ ile karar verilmiştir.

REKABET KURULU KARARI Dosya Sayısı : 2012-5-99 (Devralma) Karar Sayısı : 13-03/19-11 Karar Tarihi : 10.01.2013 A. TOPLANTIYA KATILAN ÜYELER Başkan : Prof. Dr. Nurettin KALDIRIMCI Üyeler : Doç. Dr. Mustafa ATEŞ, İsmail Hakkı KARAKELLE, Dr. Murat ÇETİNKAYA, Reşit GÜRPINAR, Kenan TÜRK B. RAPORTÖR : Kerem TOMUR C. BİLDİRİMDE BULUNAN : - Rönesans Gayrimenkul Yatırım A.Ş. - Geforno Holding B.V. Temsilcisi: Dr. Kemal Tahir SU Turan Güneş Blv. No:100/20 Yıldız/Ankara

D. DOSYA KONUSU: Geforno Holding B. V D. DOSYA KONUSU: Geforno Holding B.V. ile Rönesans Gayrimenkul Yatırım A.Ş. tarafından ortak girişim şirketi kurulması ve bu ortak girişimin Özmutlu Madencilik İnşaat ve Ticaret A.Ş.’nin tüm hisselerini devralması işlemlerine izin verilmesi talebi.

F. RAPORTÖR GÖRÜŞÜ: İlgili raporda, bildirim konusu Sancaktepe Gayrimenkul Yatırım Sanayi Ticaret A.Ş. unvanlı ortak girişim şirketi kurulması işlemine izin verilmesinde sakınca bulunmadığı, söz konusu ortak girişim şirketinin Özmutlu Madencilik İnşaat ve Ticaret A.Ş. (Özmutlu)’yi devralması işleminin ise her iki teşebbüsün de cirolarının bulunmaması sebebiyle “Rekabet Kurulundan İzin Alınması Gereken Birleşme ve Devralmalar Hakkında Tebliğ” (2010/4 sayılı Tebliğ) kapsamında izne tabi olmadığı ifade edilmiştir.

G. İNCELEME VE DEĞERLENDİRME (4) Dosya mevcudu bilgiler çerçevesinde, 2010/4 sayılı Tebliğ kapsamında izne tabi olduğu anlaşılan bildirim konusu ortak girişim kurulmasına yönelik işlemin, tarafların “AVM yatırımcılığı hizmetleri” etkilenen pazarındaki paylarının ihmal edilebilir düzeyde olması nedeniyle, rekabet üzerinde olumsuz etkisinin olmayacağı kanaatine varılmıştır. Öte yandan, ortak girişim şirketinin, kuruluşundan sonra Özmutlu’nun hisselerinin tamamını devralması işlemi ise, tarafların ticari faaliyetleri ve cirolarının bulunmaması sebebiyle, 2010/4 sayılı Tebliğ çerçevesinde izne tabi değildir.

H. SONUÇ (5) Düzenlenen rapora ve incelenen dosya kapsamına göre, 1- Geforno Holding B.V. ile Rönesans Gayrimenkul Yatırım A.Ş. tarafından ortak girişim şirketi kurulması işleminin 4054 sayılı Kanun’un 7. maddesi ve bu maddeye dayanılarak çıkarılan 2010/4 sayılı “Rekabet Kurulundan İzin Alınması Gereken Birleşme ve Devralmalar Hakkında Tebliğ” kapsamında izne tabi olduğuna; işlem sonucunda aynı Kanun maddesinde yasaklanan nitelikte hakim durum yaratılmasının veya mevcut hakim durumun güçlendirilmesinin ve böylece rekabetin önemli ölçüde azaltılmasının söz konusu olmaması nedeniyle işleme izin verilmesine; 2- Bu ortak girişimin Özmutlu Madencilik İnşaat ve Ticaret A.Ş.’nin tüm hisselerini devralması işleminin, 4054 sayılı Kanun’un 7. maddesi ve bu maddeye dayanılarak çıkarılan 2010/4 sayılı Tebliğ kapsamında öngörülen eşiklerin aşılmaması nedeniyle izne tabi olmadığına, OYBİRLİĞİ ile karar verilmiştir.

REKABET KURULU KARARI Dosya Sayısı : 2012-5-97 (Ortak Girişim) Karar Sayısı : 12-65/1660-612 Karar Tarihi : 19.12.2012 A. TOPLANTIYA KATILAN ÜYELER Başkan : Prof. Dr. Nurettin KALDIRIMCI Üyeler : Doç. Dr. Mustafa ATEŞ, İsmail Hakkı KARAKELLE, Dr. Murat ÇETİNKAYA, Reşit GÜRPINAR B. RAPORTÖR : Nazlı AKSOY C. BİLDİRİMDE BULUNAN : Multi Yirmisekiz Emlak Geliştirme Yatırım İnşaat ve Ticaret A.Ş. Temsilcisi: Av. Pınar AYBEK Yapı Kredi Plaza C Blok K:4 Levent/İstanbul

D. DOSYA KONUSU: Multi Yirmisekiz Emlak Geliştirme Yatırım İnşaat ve Tic. A.Ş.'nin %50 oranında hissesinin Altındağ Gayrimenkul Yatırım Geliştirme İnşaat Mimarlık Mühendislik San. ve Tic. A.Ş. tarafından devralınarak ortak kontrol tesis edilmesi işlemine izin verilmesi talebi. F. RAPORTÖR GÖRÜŞÜ: İlgili raporda, bildirime konu işleme izin verilmesinde sakınca bulunmadığı ifade edilmiştir.

Bildirim konusu işlem, mevcut durumda Multi Veste 268 BV (Multi Veste)’nin kontrolünde bulunan Multi Yirmisekiz Emlak Geliştirme Yatırım İnşaat ve Ticaret A.Ş. (Multi Yirmisekiz)’nin hisselerinin %50’sinin Altındağ Gayrimenkul Yatırım Geliştirme İnşaat Mimarlık Mühendislik San.ve Tic.A.Ş. (Altındağ) tarafından devralınarak, Multi Yirmisekiz yönetiminin tek kontrolden ortak kontrole geçmesi işlemine izin verilmesi talebine ilişkindir. Yapılan incelemede söz konusu işlemin, 2010/4 sayılı “Rekabet Kurulundan İzin Alınması Gereken Birleşme ve Devralmalar Hakkında Tebliğ”in 5. maddesindeki esaslar çerçevesinde, bağımsız bir iktisadi varlığın tüm işlevlerini kalıcı olarak yerine getirecek bir ortak girişim niteliğinde olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Ayrıca anılan işlem, Tebliğ’in 7. maddesinde düzenlenen ciro eşikleri aşıldığından, izne tabidir.

Dosyadaki bilgilere göre, ortak girişimin ana hissedarı olan teşebbüslerden ALTINDAĞ’ın, ilgili ürün pazarı olan alışveriş merkezi işletmeciliği pazarında herhangi bir faaliyetinin olmaması, buna karşılık Multi Veste’nin dahil olduğu grubun ise, Türkiye’nin başka illerinde alışveriş merkezi bulunmakla birlikte, ilgili coğrafi pazar olan Diyarbakır ilinde bu alanda faaliyetinin bulunmaması nedeniyle, bildirim konusu devralma işlemi sonrasında ilgili pazarda herhangi bir yoğunlaşmanın söz konusu olmayacağı anlaşılmaktadır.

H. SONUÇ (6) Düzenlenen rapora ve incelenen dosya kapsamına göre, bildirim konusu işlemin 4054 sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun’un 7. maddesi ve bu maddeye dayanılarak çıkarılan 2010/4 sayılı “Rekabet Kurulundan İzin Alınması Gereken Birleşme ve Devralmalar Hakkında Tebliğ” kapsamında izne tabi olduğuna; işlem sonucunda aynı Kanun maddesinde belirtilen nitelikte hakim durum yaratılmasının veya mevcut hakim durumun güçlendirilmesinin ve böylece rekabetin önemli ölçüde azaltılmasının söz konusu olmaması nedeniyle işleme izin verilmesine OYBİRLİĞİ ile karar verilmiştir.

Insurance LAW NO: 5684 Adoption Date: June 3, 2007 Publication Date: June 14, 2007