We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
02 November 2017
In April 2016 the Competition Board launched an investigation into Mey İçki, a subsidiary of Diageo plc. The investigation examined allegations of abuse of dominance in the Turkish vodka and gin markets.
The case handlers alleged that Mey İçki had allegedly engaged in exclusionary practices against competitors through rebate schemes, cash payment supports and visual arrangements at sales points.
On October 25 2017, after an 18-month investigation, the board found by unanimous vote that Mey İçki:
However, the board found by majority vote that Mey İçki had received an administrative fine for the same strategy in the raki (ie, a traditional Turkish spirit) market and held that there was no scope to impose additional administrative fines.
The Competition Board had already examined Mey İçki's alleged practices and imposed penalties in its raki decision of February 16 2017 (17-07/84-34). The alleged practices took place during the same period and the only significant difference between the two investigations was the products concerned.
Mey İçki established the investigation's lack of procedural and substantial grounds, emphasising the non bis in idem (ie, double jeopardy) principle and put forward economic arguments to strengthen its oral and written defences. It also argued that the investigation had been damaged by double jeopardy as:
The board found that there had been a violation through abuse of dominance but accepted the non bis in idem defence and concluded that Mey İçki should not be subject to an administrative fine under Article 16 of Law 4054.
While the reasoned decision is not yet available, the board acknowledged that the non bis in idem principle should be considered when rendering a second decision on the same allegations against the same firm concerning the same period, even if the relevant product market concerning the second decision is different than that examined in the first. Therefore, the above decision could set a landmark precedent regarding the interpretation of the non bis in idem principle under the Turkish competition law regime. The reasoned decision, which is expected to be published in the following months, is likely to provide insight into the direction that Turkish competition enforcement will take in the coming years with regard to the non bis in idem principle.
The objectivity of the Competition Authority's investigation is commendable in light of the explanations and defences that Mey İçki presented and the compliance programme that it followed internally. Pending issuance of the reasoned decision, the initial decision confirms the authority's approach to the non bis in idem principle under Turkish competition law.
For further information on this topic please contact Gönenç Gürkaynakat ELIG, Attorneys at Law by telephone (+90 212 327 17 24) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org). The ELIG, Attorneys at Law website can be accessed at www.elig.com.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.