Competition Board Fine of Banks and Financial Institutions for Not Providing Information and Documents
Introduction
In the recently published decisions of the Competition Board ("Board"), it is observed that undertakings were fined due to the fact that requested information and documents were not provided at all, or were provided incompletely. The most interesting of these decisions[1] is the decision (“Decision”)[2] dated 02.07.2020 and numbered 20-32/397-179 regarding some banks and financial institutions failing to provide requested information and documents within the scope of the preliminary investigations[3] initiated by the Board. Even though the aforementioned Decision attracted attention at first glance due to the high amount of the fines imposed on these banks and financial institutions, it also brings with it important legal debates concerning the authority of the Board, the latter’s approach to the effect principle and single economic unit, and its evaluations on the protection of personal data.
The Legal Regulation that forms the Basis of the Decision
The Board can request all kinds of information that it deems necessary from all authorities, undertakings, or association of undertakings, in the performance of its duties that is given by Law on Protection of Competition numbered 4054 (“Law No. 4054”). For the same reason, the Board may request written or oral explanations from undertakings or associations of undertakings on certain topics during on-site inspections. Otherwise, an administrative fine will be imposed in line with Article 16 paragraph (c) of Law No. 4054.
The Requested Information and Documents and the Responses of the Undertakings to the Requests
This Decision is based on the fact that some undertakings did not provide some information and documents within the scope of the preliminary investigation initiated by the Board. Such preliminary investigation was initiated to determine whether or not the banks, financial institutions, and their representatives that are operating in Turkey are violating Law No. 4054 in their operations related to deposits, credit, foreign currencies, bills, bonds, stocks and brokerage services. Within the scope of the preliminary investigation, on-site inspections were carried out at several banks and financial institutions, including Citibank A.Ş. (“Citibank”), Goldman Sachs TK Danışmanlık A.Ş. (“Goldman Sachs”), ING Bank A.Ş. (“ING”), JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association Merkezi Colombus Ohio Istanbul Turkey Branch (“JPMorgan”), and Türkiye Garanti Bankası A.Ş. (“Garanti”). Following these inspections, two information requests were sent to such undertakings.
The first information request was to submit recordings of all the correspondence made by the traders of the undertakings on the Bloomberg and Reuters platforms within a certain period of time. The second information request was on the submission of the correspondence of the top 10 traders with the highest Turkish Lira (“TRY”) quoted transaction volume amongst the traders of the undertakings and their parent companies, who are employed in the USA and England, and trading in TRY on Bloomberg and Reuters platforms, within a certain period of time.
JPMorgan, Citibank, Garanti and ING did not provide the relevant documents requested by the Competition Authority (“Authority”) by claiming certain reasons. Firstly, Goldman Sachs stated that it does not have traders and operation licenses, in Turkey, and also added that it will not provide any data on their traders employed abroad by the undertakings that are within the same economic unit, pursuant to the definition of undertaking under Law No. 4054. On the other hand, JPMorgan, Citibank, ING and Garanti replied to the initial information request and sent the information to the Authority; however, in response to the second information request, they stated that they could provide no documentation or information to the Authority. The aforementioned undertakings put forward various reasons to the Authority, accordingly. Among those reasons, they stated that the requested data was not under their control, and that the information request should have been made to the foreign undertakings, provided that the relevant procedural rules are taken into account, that the requested information and documents were beyond the authority of the Board, and that the information and documents should have been requested from the parent companies in line with the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).
The Claim that the Requested Information and Documents are not Accessible and Irregular Notice was given
In reply to the explanations of the parties that are stated, above, the Board rendered an extensive assessment, the first of them to rebut the claim as to irregular notice. The Board stated that notice was duly given to the relevant undertakings in line with the previous decisions of the Board (Board’s decision on Syndication Credits[4]) and EU practices, together with the effects principle and the economic integrity approach, and concluded that the notice to the subsidiary to be delivered to the parent company complies with the law. In addition, the Board carried out a conformity assessment within the scope of the articles of the group of companies regulated under the Turkish Commercial Code. In this respect, the Board concluded that on the grounds of the dominant undertaking"s obligation to act prudently, a dominant undertaking, who is deemed to be a merchant, cannot claim that the relevant information request was not delivered to it through its subsidiaries, or was unaware of it.
Moreover, the Board assessed that in line with the sole undertaking approach, due to the fact that the undertaking stated that it does not possess or have access to the information, alone, will not prevent the imposing of sanctions. Additionally, by referring to the practices of the European Commission and the practices in the United States, the Board explicitly pointed out that the argument stating that the requested data cannot be submitted due to the violation of another country’s rules will not be accepted as just cause.
The Claim that the Requested Information and Documents Can Not Be Provided Due to the GDPR Rules
The Board was not concerned about the undertakings that exhibited efforts to provide information and documents in compliance with the GDPR or relevant national regulations (i.e. black outing/anonymizing to hide personal data was found reasonable) without obstructing the current investigation, and it considered this issue to be within the scope of Article 16(c) of Law No. 4054. However, it also clearly expressed that the same approach will not be applicable for undertakings who declare that they will never provide the requested information and documents by solely relying on the GDPR and relevant legislation.
The Claim that the Scope of the Request is Beyond the Authority of the Board
It was claimed that the content of the requested correspondence partially concerned transactions that were not concluded in TRY and, thus, had no effect on the Turkish market. Thereby, it was claimed that the content of the related correspondence is beyond the Authority’s authority to request the information. On the other hand, the Board stressed that the relevant undertakings were informed that the information request essentially covers transactions carried out in TRY in line with the effects principle and, if the data can be separated and provided to the Board without obstructing the current investigation, it is comprised only of the transactions in TRY.
The Assessment on Calculating the Monetary Fine and the Imposed Fine
The Board considered JPMorgan, Citibank, ING and Garanti as financial institutions due to the fact that they are deposit banks; hence, it calculated the revenue that is subject to fine pursuant to Communique[5] numbered 2010/4. As Goldman Sachs operates as a consultancy firm in Turkey, it was not evaluated as a financial institution. In fact, the Board assessed that the parent company, Goldman Sachs International, would better be a party to the ongoing preliminary investigation; however, it also addressed to the practical difficulties of determining the revenue gathered from the Turkish market of an undertaking that is not operating in Turkey. For that reason, the Board decided that Goldman Sachs’ net sales will be taken into account while calculating the monetary fine pursuant Article 3(f) to the Regulation on Monetary Fines.[6]
The Board decided to fine JPMorgan, Citibank, ING and Garanti for failing to provide the requested documentation and information to the Authority pursuant to Article 16 (c) of Law No. 4054 at an amount of one one-thousand of their gross revenues at the end of fiscal year 2019, and also decided to fine Goldman Sachs for the same reasons from the lower bond for the administrative monetary fines that equals TRY 31.903,00. In addition, the Board also declared that if the requested information is not provided to the Board by the end of the normal work day on 16.07.2020, then administrative monetary fines will be applied on a daily basis pursuant to Article 17 of Law No. 4054 (at a ratio of five ten-thousands of their revenues).
Conclusion
Besides the monetary fines imposed on the relevant undertakings, the topics assessed in the Decision are quite important in competition law practices. The Board made the assessment that within the sole undertaking approach, the claim of the subsidiary that a document is not under their reach or control, or it does not have access to information, does not prevent sanctions from being imposed. Also, in parallel with economic integrity term, the notice to the subsidiary to be delivered to the parent company was found to be in compliance with the law. Moreover, the Decision addressed the request for information and document within the scope of the data protection legislation. Hence, as it provided that the ongoing investigation is not obstructed, the Board found it reasonable for undertakings to provide data by taking the necessary precautions as to concerns arising from the GDPR or other relevant national regulations.
[1] Apex decision, No. 20-32/410-187, 02.07.2020, https://www.rekabet.gov.tr/Karar?kararId=b5cd5da7-0b56-4e7b-a8d6-8cb5da9d5d88, Çerkezköy Kuyumculuk decision, No. 20-01/1-1, 02.01.2020, https://www.rekabet.gov.tr/Karar?kararId=53fafe39-7453-44e9-ab59-ec08263495d9 (Access Date: 11.11.2020).
[2] See: https://www.rekabet.gov.tr/Karar?kararId=d2b439ee-f9fb-434d-9626-5142a09f11ed (Access Date: 11.11.2020).
[3] The preliminary investigation of the Board initiated with Decision No. 20-05/48-M, 17.01.2020.
[4] See: Decision No. 17-39/636-276, 28.11.2017, https://www.rekabet.gov.tr/Karar?kararId=b8a26358-485b-4af7-9d42-dc40652899fb (Access Date: 11.11.2020).
[5] See: The Communique on Mergers and Acquisitions Calling for the Authorization of the Competition Authority, Article 9, titled “Calculation of Revenue for Financial Institutions.” https://www.rekabet.gov.tr/Dosya/tebligler/2010-4-20200210100639796-pdf (Access Date: 11.11.2020).
[6] See: the Regulation on Fines to Apply in Cases of Agreements, Concerted Practices and Decisions Limiting Competition and Abuse of Dominant Position https://www.rekabet.gov.tr/Dosya/yonetmelikler/rekabeti-sinirlayici-anlasma-uyumlu-eylem-ve-kararlar-ile-hakim-durumun-kotuye-kullanilmasi-halinde-verilecek-para-cezalarina-iliskin-yonetmelik-20180219102616054.pdf (Access Date: 11.11.2020).
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
At the meeting of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) held on 16 December 2022, the FIFA Council approved the FIFA Football Agents Regulations (“FFAR”). In the FFAR, various amendments have been made, such as the introduction of a maximum service fee limit that football agents are...
Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) is still considered a hardcore restriction under the recently revised Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER), which means that it cannot benefit from a statutory exemption under Article 101(1) TFEU, unlike certain other types of vertical agreements. However, it has been debated...
In competition law, it is important to accurately determine the concept of undertaking, especially in terms of mergers and acquisitions. Therefore, the concept of economic entity aims to reveal the economic units covered by the undertakings. The relationship between the concept of economic entity and family ties comes...
In these days when the Competition Board (“Board”) frequently imposes administrative fines for preventing on-site inspections and both the Competition Authority (“Authority”) and undertakings take legal and technical measures regarding on-site inspections, a striking development has occurred. In its decision...
Online advertising has become an important source for businesses for promoting products and services and meeting consumers, as a result of the rapid development of information technologies and increase in the use of internet. Delivering targeted messages to consumers at the right time through the digital...
Selective distribution systems refer to a type of distribution system in which suppliers commit to selling the contracted goods or services directly or indirectly to distributors selected based on specified criteria, while the distributors commit not to sell the said goods or services to unauthorized...
Fast-moving consumer goods is undoubtedly one of the sectors that the Competition Authority has been working most intensively since the COVID 19 pandemic. Among the most important developments of this period was the Sector Inquiry initiated on Fast Moving Consumer Goods (“FMCG”) Retailing...
In the decision of the Constitutional Court ("Constitutional Court" or "Court") dated 09.11.2022, numbered 2020/67 E. 2022/139 K. (the "Decision"), the annulment of certain articles of the Law Amending the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054 ("Law No. 7246") was requested...
In Turkish competition law, certain types of mergers and acquisitions are subject to Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) approval in order to gain legal validity. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”), the Board is competent to define mergers and acquisitions...
Recently, the Competition Board (the Board) had imposed administrative fines on banks and financial institutions for failing to respond to the request for information within the scope of a preliminary investigation.[i] The request for information that lays the groundwork for the administrative fine imposed by...
Amazon, a world-famous company, is an e-commerce company that operates the world’s largest online shopping platform. In the backstage, Amazon is a data-driven company whose retail decisions are mostly driven by automated systems, fueled by the relevant market data. That being said, Amazon has a dual...
The right to make on-site inspections is one of the Competition Board’s (“Board”) most important tools for revealing whether Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”) has been violated. The effective use of this authority is quite important in terms of obtaining fruitful results from...
“Harese” is an interesting Arabic word. There is a thorn that camels love very much in the desert. The camel eats the thorn with great greed. So much so that, its mouth bleeds as it eats, but it doesn't stop eating. The taste of the thorn is mixed with the salty taste of its own blood. This mixed taste drives the camel...
Turkey’s leading pay television service provider, Krea İçerik Hizmetleri ve Prodüksiyon A.Ş. (“Digiturk”), is frequently the subject of complaints made to the Competition Authority (“Authority”). In fact, the Competition Board (“Board”) issues a new decision about Digiturk almost every year. In these decisions...
The French Competition Authority (Autorité de la Concurrence), within the scope of the competition law proceeding initiated upon the complaint of Criteo SA (“Criteo”), accepted the commitments proposed by Meta Platforms Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd., and Facebook France...
While the scope of Competition Board’s (“Board”) power to conduct on-site inspections has increased with the introduction of Guidelines on Examination of Digital Data during On-site Inspections (“Guidelines”), nowadays the amount of monetary fines imposed on undertakings continue to...
The hub and spoke cartel, which is a relatively new type of violation in terms of Turkish competition law, is defined as the indirect exchange of information between two independent undertakings which are horizontal competitors on the supplier or retailer level, through another undertaking...
The settlement mechanism has only recently been introduced to Turkish competition law practice. It entered into force with the amendment made to the Law on the Protection of Competition (“Law”) numbered 4054 on 16.06.2020, and has been in effect for less than two years. In this relatively...
Due to their increasing share in the economy and rapid growth rate, e-marketplace platforms have come under the increasing scrutiny of the Turkish Competition Authority (“Authority”) as well as many competition authorities around the world...
Pursuant to the Amendment Communiqué Concerning the Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring the Competition Board’s Approval (“Amending Communiqué”) published in the Official Gazette dated March 4th, 2022 and numbered 31768, certain amendments have been introduced...
The Competition Board (“Board”) has recently published a reasoned decision in which it evaluated BSH Ev Aletleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.’s (“BSH”) request for negative clearance or exemption with regard to its practice of prohibiting authorized dealers from making sales through online marketplaces...
Shahmaran, a Mesopotamian myth, is believed to take place in Tarsus. According to the myth, the shah of snakes is the immortal and omniscient "Shahmaran." Shahmaran is described as a beautiful woman living in her cave with her snakes...
During the COVID-19 pandemic, competitive concerns about the pricing behavior of chain markets, manufacturers, and wholesalers engaged in the retail trade of food and cleaning supplies led to an investigation by...
When the past decisions and the recent decisions of the Competition Board (“Board”) are examined, a significant increase can be observed in the number of decisions where the Board found hindrance or obstruction of on-site inspections. This situation shows that...
The European Commission began investigating the collusive behavior of Credit Suisse, UBS, Barclays, RBS, and HSBC in the Foreign Exchange (forex) spot trading market in 2019. With the recent press release dated 02.12.2021, the Commission announced that the case is now closed...
Digitalization, in particular, necessitates the rewriting of competition law rules. Competition law is at the center all questions regarding e-commerce and digital platforms. The aforementioned platforms, which have become prominent due to innovations in...