Beyond the Parties to an Investigation: Do Sector-Wide Remedies Have a Place in the Turkish Competition Board’s Decisional Practice?

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not represent the institutional views of the Turkish Competition Authority.

As is well known, Article 9(1) of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”), entitled “Termination of Infringement”, provides that, where the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) determines that Articles 4, 6 or 7 of the Law have been infringed, it may impose behavioral and structural remedies with a view to bringing the infringement to an end and restoring effective competition.

Against this background, this article examines whether the Board’s remedial powers under Article 9(1) may extend beyond the undertakings that are parties to an investigation and, in appropriate circumstances, give rise to obligations applicable to the sector as a whole.

In this context, it should first be noted that the Board has previously adopted decisions in which the scope of the remedies imposed extended beyond the undertakings directly concerned by the relevant proceedings. Although such decisions remain limited in number, they demonstrate that the Board has, in certain circumstances, considered broader remedial measures appropriate where the competition concerns identified in the proceedings have implications extending beyond the conduct of the investigated undertakings.

Earlier Decisional Practice

An early example can be found in the Board’s Biryay decision ^[1], adopted in 2002. In that decision, the Board imposed a number of obligations on undertakings operating in the newspaper and magazine distribution market in order to enable the Turkish Competition Authority (“TCA”) to monitor the market and to prevent future infringements.

The significance of the Biryay decision, for the purposes of this article, lies in the scope of the obligations adopted. The measures were not confined to the undertakings directly examined in the proceedings but were formulated with a view to their application to undertakings operating in the relevant market more broadly.

A similar approach may be observed in the Board’s decision ^[2] adopted following the annulment by the 13th Chamber of the Council of State of the Board’s 2008 decision ^[3] concerning Total. The case concerned an allegation that Total had eliminated competition through the usufruct right it had acquired within the framework of the supplier-dealer relationship between Akdag and Total.

In the subsequent decision ^[4], the Board addressed the duration of non-compete obligations contained in fuel dealership agreements concluded between suppliers and dealers. The decision is noteworthy in that the approach adopted by the Board was capable of affecting supplier-dealer relationships beyond the specific undertakings involved in the proceedings. It thus constitutes another example of a remedial measure formulated with broader implications for the relevant sector.

Another notable example concerns the market for medical imaging and diagnostic devices. Following a preliminary investigation conducted in 2009 into certain undertakings operating in this market, the Board imposed a set of obligations commonly referred to in the market as the “seven commandments” ^[5]. These obligations were not limited to the undertakings examined during the preliminary investigation but applied more broadly to undertakings operating in the medical imaging and diagnostic market.

In its subsequent Philips decision ^[6] concerning the same market, the Board revised the obligations introduced by its 2009 decision and maintained their application to undertakings operating in the sector.

Taken together, these decisions demonstrate that the adoption of remedies with effects extending beyond the undertakings directly concerned by proceedings is not a new development in Turkish competition law. Rather, the more recent decisions discussed below may be viewed in the context of an existing, albeit relatively limited, line of decisional practice.

Recent Developments

The relevance of this decisional practice has increased with the Board’s recent White Meat decision and its 2026 Casting Agencies Association/Casting Agency/Management decision.

In its White Meat decision ^[7], the Board concluded that, pursuant to Article 9(1) of Law No. 4054, an additional behavioural remedy should be imposed requiring the undertakings subject to the investigation to implement their updated sales prices (price lists) only as of the moment at which they are communicated to their purchasers, including resellers. The undertakings were also required to discontinue the practice of issuing future-dated price lists. The purpose of the remedy was to bring the infringement to an end and restore effective competition.

The decision is significant in terms of the scope of the remedial approach adopted. Although the investigation concerned specific undertakings, the obligation was formulated in a manner capable of having broader implications for undertakings operating in the white meat sector. The decision therefore illustrates how a remedy adopted in the context of an individual investigation may address a competition concern whose practical implications extend beyond the undertakings directly concerned.

The White Meat decision is also noteworthy in light of the legal basis of the infringement. The relevant conduct was examined under Article 4 of Law No. 4054. This is of particular interest when compared with certain earlier instances in which broader remedial measures were adopted in cases involving Article 6 or particular structural characteristics of the relevant market ^[8].

The White Meat decision may therefore be regarded as a further development in the Board’s remedial practice, demonstrating that broader remedial measures may also arise in the context of Article 4 infringements where the circumstances of the case so require.

A similar development may be observed in the Board’s 2026 Casting Agencies Association/Casting Agency/Management decision ^[9]. In that decision, the Board envisaged the imposition of obligations on undertakings operating in the casting direction and casting agency/management sectors.

As with the White Meat decision, the relevance of this decision lies in the potential scope of the obligations envisaged. The decision illustrates that, where the competition concerns identified in proceedings have implications extending beyond the undertakings directly examined, the Board may consider remedial measures capable of addressing those broader concerns.

The Emerging Scope of Sector-Wide Remedies

An investigation is ordinarily directed at the conduct of identified undertakings, and the remedial measures adopted following such proceedings may naturally be expected to address the infringement established in relation to those undertakings. At the same time, certain competition concerns may have implications extending beyond the individual conduct of the undertakings concerned. Where the Board identifies a practice that affects the conditions of competition more broadly within a particular sector, a remedy addressing only the undertakings directly involved may not always be sufficient to achieve the objective of restoring effective competition.

From this perspective, sector-wide remedies may be understood as one possible means of ensuring that the remedial intervention is effective in addressing the competition concern identified in the proceedings. The relevant consideration is therefore not necessarily whether a remedy affects undertakings beyond the parties to the investigation, but whether the broader scope of the remedy is sufficiently connected to the competition concern identified by the Board and contributes to the restoration of effective competition.

The Board’s existing decisional practice suggests that the scope of a remedy may, depending on the circumstances of the case, extend beyond the undertakings directly concerned. The recent White Meat and Casting Agencies decisions are particularly relevant in this respect and may indicate an emerging development in the Board’s approach.

At the same time, the application of such remedies raises questions concerning the circumstances in which a broader remedial approach may be appropriate. In particular, considerations such as the nature of the competition concern, the effectiveness of the proposed remedy, and its necessity and proportionality may be relevant when determining the appropriate scope of a remedial measure.

These considerations do not detract from the Board’s remedial powers under Article 9(1). Rather, they provide a framework within which the scope of those powers may be considered in light of the specific circumstances of each case.

Conclusion

The Board’s decisional practice demonstrates that remedies having effects beyond the undertakings directly concerned by an investigation are not entirely unprecedented under Turkish competition law. From Biryay and the Total decision to the medical imaging cases, the Board has previously adopted measures capable of affecting undertakings operating beyond the parties directly involved in the relevant proceedings.

The recent White Meat and Casting Agencies Association/Casting Agency/Management decisions give renewed significance to this line of practice. In particular, the fact that these decisions concern infringements under Article 4 of Law No. 4054 may be regarded as a further development of the Board’s approach to the scope of remedial measures.

In light of the decisions examined in this study, it may be concluded that the Board’s decisional practice demonstrates that, where competition concerns identified in an investigation have implications extending beyond the undertakings directly concerned, Article 9(1) may provide a basis for adopting remedies with broader sectoral effects.

The continued development of this practice may provide further guidance as to the circumstances in which such broader remedies may appropriately be employed, particularly where the nature of the competition concern identified in the proceedings requires an intervention extending beyond the undertakings directly concerned.

Footnotes

[1] Board decision dated 06.11.2002 and numbered 02-68/821-333.

[2] Board decision dated 26.1.2006 and numbered 06-04/57-15.

[3] Council of State 13th Chamber, Case No. 2006/1604, decision dated 13.05.2008 and numbered 2008/4196.

[4] Board decision dated 30.10.2008 and numbered 08-61/997-389.

[5] Board decision dated 18.2.2009 and numbered 09-07/128-39.

[6] Board decision dated 26.08.2021 and numbered 21-40/589-286

[7] Board decision dated 18.09.2025 and numbered 25-35/837-492.

[8] Board decisions dated 22.04.2005 and numbered 05-27/317-80; 18.03.2021 dated and numbered 21-15/19080; 12.11.2020 dated and numbered 20-49/675-295; 13.02.2025 dated ve numbered 25-06/152-78.

[9] Board Decision dated 21.05.2026 and numbered 26-19/585-225.