Green Light from the Constitutional Court to the Competition Board: Is the Ford Otosan Wave Coming to an End?
Introduction
The constitutionality of the on-site inspection powers granted to the Competition Board (Board) under Article 15 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (Law No. 4054) was once again brought before the Turkish Constitutional Court (Court). In its decision[1] published in the Official Gazette dated 17 February 2026 and numbered 33171 (Decision), the Court reached a different conclusion from its earlier assessment.
Previously, in its Ford Otosan decision dated 23 March 2023 and numbered 2019/40991, rendered upon an individual application, the Court examined the Board’s on-site inspection powers and concluded that the relevant provisions violated the applicant’s right to the inviolability of domicile.
In contrast, in the Decision at hand, the Court adopted a different assessment in the objection applications filed by the 13th Chamber of the Council of State and the 11th Administrative Court of Ankara (Referring Courts) seeking the annulment of the relevant provision and ruled that the provision regulating the Board’s on-site inspection powers is in conformity with the Constitution.
This article examines (i) the provision subject to the Decision and the grounds for the annulment request; (ii) the Court’s assessment regarding the issue of the “applicable rule”; (iii) the constitutional review conducted by the Court; and (iv) the dissenting opinions accompanying the Decision.
The Contested Provision and the Grounds for the Annulment Request
Article 15 of Law No. 4054 regulates the Board’s authority to conduct on-site inspections. Accordingly, the Board may conduct inspections at undertakings and associations of undertakings where it deems it necessary to fulfil the duties assigned to it under Law No. 4054. Furthermore, if the on-site inspection is obstructed or there is a likelihood of obstruction, the inspection may be conducted upon a decision of the criminal judgeship of peace.
Within the scope of actions brought for the annulment of administrative fines imposed by the Board, the Referring Courts concluded that (i) the phrase “where it deems necessary” and (ii) the sentence “In the event that the on-site inspection is obstructed or there is a likelihood of obstruction, the inspection shall be carried out pursuant to a decision of the criminal judgeship of peace”, both contained in the provision governing the Board’s on-site inspection powers, were unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Referring Courts applied to the Court for the annulment of the said parts of Article 15 of Law No. 4054.
In essence, the Referring Courts argued that the challenged provision does not limit the Board’s on-site inspection powers to situations where there is urgency due to the risk of delay, nor does it provide for an obligation to submit such decisions for the approval of a competent judge within twenty-four hours. For this reason, it was asserted that the provision is contrary to Articles 2 (the principle of the rule of law), 13 (restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms), and 21 (inviolability of domicile) of the Constitution.
The Issue of the “Applicable Rule”
The Court commenced its review by assessing whether the contested provisions qualified as “applicable rules” within the meaning of constitutional review.
Pursuant to Article 152 of the Constitution and Article 40 of Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedure of the Court, a court hearing a case may apply to the Court for the annulment of a statutory provision if it considers that provision unconstitutional or finds the claim of unconstitutionality raised by a party to be serious.
However, as also emphasized by the Court, under the provisions, for a court to apply to the Court (i) there must be a case duly filed that falls within its jurisdiction, and (ii) the rule annulment of which is sought must constitute a rule applicable to that case. In this context, an “applicable rule” refers to provisions that are capable of being applied in resolving disputes arising at different stages of the proceedings or that may directly affect the outcome of the case.
In the present case, the Court noted that the cases pending before the Referring Courts concerned actions for the annulment of administrative fines imposed on undertakings and that, in the events underlying those cases, no decision of a criminal judgeship of peace had been issued on the grounds that the on-site inspection had been obstructed or that there was a likelihood of obstruction.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the rule stating, “In the event that the on-site inspection is obstructed or there is a likelihood of obstruction, the inspection shall be carried out pursuant to a decision of the criminal judgeship of peace,” was not a provision capable of having a positive or negative effect on the resolution or outcome of the cases.
For this reason, the Court held that the relevant part of the application should be dismissed, on the grounds that the rule in question was not capable of being applied in the cases pending before the Referring Courts.
The Issue of Constitutionality
The Court examined the part of the objection concerning the phrase “where it deems necessary” primarily considering Article 2 of the Constitution (the principle of the rule of law) and Article 167 (the regulation of markets and regulation of foreign trade). However, the Court found that the contested rule was not related to Articles 13 and 21 of the Constitution.
In this context, the Court first emphasized that one of the fundamental elements of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty. According to this principle, statutory provisions must be clear, precise, comprehensible, practicable, and objective in a manner that leaves no room for hesitation or doubt for both individuals and the administration. Moreover, they must contain safeguards protecting against arbitrary actions by public authorities.
The challenged rule authorizes the Board to conduct on-site inspections at undertakings where deemed necessary, while expressly limiting this power to the performance of the duties assigned under Law No. 4054. It provides that inspections shall be carried out by Board experts upon presentation of an authorization certificate specifying the subject and purpose of the inspection. The rule further makes clear that, where an inspection is obstructed or there is a risk of obstruction, it may proceed only based on a decision by a criminal judgeship of peace, and that the Board lacks authority to employ coercive force on its own initiative.
In its assessment, the Court stated that the need for on-site inspections may arise in different circumstances while the Board performs its duties under Law No. 4054, and therefore it is not necessary for the legislature to enumerate exhaustively all situations requiring such inspections. The existence of circumstances necessitating an inspection should instead be evaluated in light of the specific conditions of each case.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the scope of the Board’s power of on-site inspection and the circumstances under which it may be exercised are regulated with sufficient clarity, and therefore the provision cannot be considered ambiguous.
Furthermore, the Court stated that the contested provision was enacted to enable the collection of evidence for the detection of anti-competitive conduct and practices within the scope of the State’s obligation under Article 167 of the Constitution to ensure the sound and orderly functioning of markets and to prevent monopolization and cartelization that may arise either legally or de facto. Considering that the legislature has discretion in determining the tools and methods to be employed in preventing monopolization and cartelization in markets, and that the Constitution does not mandate a specific method at the constitutional level, the Court concluded that granting the Board the authority to conduct on-site inspections where it deems it necessary does not conflict with the State’s positive obligation arising from Article 167.
As a result, the Court decided, by majority vote, to reject the request for annulment on the grounds that the contested provision is not contrary to Articles 2 and 167 of the Constitution.
Dissenting Opinions
The Decision, adopted by majority vote, includes a considerable number of dissenting opinions containing significant evaluations. These dissenting opinions mainly concern (i) the violation of the inviolability of domicile, (ii) the limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms, and (iii) the issue of the applicable rule.
In many dissenting opinions, it is emphasized that in the established case law of the Court, the parts of workplaces that are not open to everyone are considered to have the character of a “domicile”. Therefore, it is argued that the exercise of on-site inspection powers constitutes an interference with the inviolability of domicile and is protected under the guarantees provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. In this regard, the failure of the Court to evaluate the contested provisions considering Article 21 was considered erroneous.
Indeed, pursuant to Article 21 of the Constitution, as a rule, no one’s domicile may be entered without a judge’s decision. However, only in cases where delay would be prejudicial may an exception be made to this rule through a written order of an authority authorized by law, and such order must be submitted to a judge’s approval within twenty-four hours. Despite this clear constitutional regulation, limiting the requirement of a decision by the criminal judgeship of peace only to cases where obstruction is likely narrows the scope of the protection provided by Article 21 and therefore constitutes a violation of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the dissenting opinions criticize the Decision for contradicting the Court’s recent Ford Otosan judgment. In this regard, it is stated that reaching different conclusions in individual application proceedings and constitutional review proceedings concerning the same issue within a short period of time, without providing a reasonable justification, raises serious concerns in terms of the principles of legal certainty and predictability.
Another prominent issue in the dissenting opinions concerns the limits of the interference with fundamental rights and freedoms arising from the contested provision. In this context, it is argued that the phrase “where it deems necessary” leaves the scope and conditions of interference with fundamental rights entirely to the discretion of the Board. Indeed, it is stated that the phrase does not define situations where delay would be prejudicial, does not provide any objective criteria, and does not clearly and foreseeably determine in which cases a judge’s decision would be required. Therefore, it is asserted that the contested provision is not compliant with the principles of legality, legal certainty, and the prevention of arbitrariness safeguarded under Article 13 of the Constitution.
It is further argued that excluding from review, on the ground that it did not constitute an “applicable rule,” the provision requiring a decision of the criminal judgeship of peace where an undertaking obstructs an on-site inspection or where there is a likelihood of such obstruction is not justified. Indeed, that provision forms an integral part of the legal framework governing interference with the inviolability of domicile and is capable of being applied in the present case. Accordingly, it is stated that the majority’s decision to leave this provision outside the scope of review is likewise incompliant with the Court’s established criterion of the “applicable rule”.
Conclusion
In the Decision, the Court departed from the approach it adopted in the Ford Otosan decision and concluded that the Board’s power to conduct on-site inspections is compatible with the Constitution.
In this context, the Court held that the provision in Article 15 of Law No. 4054 regulating the Board’s on-site inspection powers is consistent with the principle of the rule of law and the objective of ensuring effective supervision of markets.
However, the dissenting opinions argue that the Decision fails to sufficiently consider the constitutional guarantees concerning the inviolability of domicile and the limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms.
In any event, it may be said that the Decision has, at least for the time being, brought an end to the debates concerning the Board’s on-site inspection powers that had intensified following the Ford Otosan judgment.
- Decision of the Constitutional Court dated 06.11.2025 and numbered E: 2023/174, K: 2025/224.
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
Mergers and acquisitions are among the types of transactions that are subject to intensive scrutiny by competition authorities. As a rule, competition authorities only subject transactions that exceed certain turnover thresholds and result in a change of control to merger…
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (“Court”) issued its memorandum opinion (Memorandum Opinion) on November 18, 2025, in the antitrust case (“Case”) between the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and Meta Platforms Inc. (“Meta”). The FTC alleges that Meta monopolized the market…
No-poach agreements, which have become one of the most prominent concepts in global competition law in recent years, are defined in the Glossary of Competition Terms as “agreements, whether direct or indirect, whereby one undertaking agrees not to make job offers to, or hire, the employees of another...
The Competition Board (“Board”) has broad powers to request information from undertakings. The legal basis for this authority is provided by Article 14 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”). Under this provision, the Board may request any information it deems necessary from public...
Competition authorities around the world have increasingly focused on labor market infringements under competition law, issuing new regulations and guidance recently. Notable examples include the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission’s joint guidance, the Japanese Fair Trade Commission’s...
Chapter 8 of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) sets out the legal remedies available to data subjects in the event of a breach of their rights under the GDPR. Accordingly, each data subject has a right to lodge a complaint with the supervisory authority of the Member State in which they reside, work...
Mergers and acquisitions play a critical role in shaping the competitive structure of the market. Although such transactions can lead to positive outcomes such as the provision of products and services at lower prices, the development of new products and technologies, and improvements in quality, they may also...
Technology and the opportunities it brings undoubtedly play a key role in strengthening the competitiveness of market players. In this context, pricing algorithms that enable undertakings to monitor publicly available prices and optimize their own pricing strategies have become widely used, especially by digital platforms...
The Regulation on Fines to Apply in Cases of Agreements, Concerted Practices and Decisions Restricting Competition, and Abuse of Dominant Position (“Former Regulation on Fines”), which entered into force upon its publication in the Official Gazette dated February 15, 2009 and numbered 27142, was...
In the past years, the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) has closely monitored the activities of undertakings operating in the retail sector. As a result of the Board’s record of administrative fines, horizontal type of violations in the retail sector have been highly publicized. Vertical violations such as resale price...
In recent years, numerous automobile manufacturers have announced their goals to reduce carbon emissions, with many brands setting net-zero carbon targets spanning from production processes to the lifecycle of their vehicles. While ongoing debates persist regarding the significantly higher carbon footprint of...
Under Article 15 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”), the Competition Board (“Board”) may conduct on-site inspections at the undertakings’ premises when it deems necessary in fulfilling the duties assigned to it. During the on-site inspection, the Board is authorized to examine all...
Agreements and information exchanges between undertakings in labor markets have recently been examined in various preliminary investigations and investigations initiated by the Turkish Competition Authority (“Authority”). Following the investigations in which some undertakings were subject to...
The Turkish Competition Board’s (Board) decision regarding the acquisition of the international road transport business line of Ekol Lojistik AŞ (Ekol) by DFDS A/S (DFDS) has been one of the most prominent transactions on the competition law agenda recently...
The Competition Board (“Board”) has broad powers to request information from undertakings. The Board’s authority to request information arises from Article 14 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”). Under the relevant provision, the Board may request any information it deems...
Doğuş Otomotiv Servis ve Ticaret A.Ş. (Doğuş) applied to the Turkish Competition Authority for an exemption for the practice of recommending basic wages to be applied to sales and after-sales service employees of its authorized dealers and distributors...
Access to Instagram was blocked ex officio by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA) as of 2.08.2024. Under Article 8 of Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed Through These Publications, ICTA can issue an ex officio access...
It is well known that agreements between employer undertakings with regards to their employees, such as wage-fixing and non-poaching agreements, along with competitively sensitive information exchanges have been under the scrutiny of competition authorities all over the world, including the Turkish Competition...
Automotive is one of the sectors in which the world’s most significant investments are made. The Competition Board (“Board”) has been closely interested in the automotive sector over the years and has conducted various examinations and studies in this field...
Competition authorities around the world continue unabated to investigate competition concerns arising from data collection and processing activities of digital platforms and impose severe sanctions as a result...
The startup ecosystem in Turkey has experienced notable growth in recent years. In the last quarter of 2023, 81 startups secured a combined investment of around 60 million dollars. While the number of investments remained consistent when comparing the third quarter periods of 2022-2023, there was a decrease...
Hub and Spoke cartel is a type of violation that is not clearly defined and regulated under Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”). Decisional practices of foreign competition authorities, particularly the UK Competition and Markets Authority’s decisions (“CMA”), are instructive concerning...
The Competition Board ("Board") made an addition to its line of decisions on resale price maintenance with its decision on Sunny Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. ("Sunny") . In its decision, the Board thoroughly examined the allegations regarding Sunny's involvement in maintaining resale prices and restricting...
It is observed that the Competition Authority (“Authority”) has recently scrutinized various industries such as fast-moving consumer goods, labor market, pharmaceuticals, and cement. When the reasoned decisions of the Competition Board (“Board”) published in October are examined, it can be seen that the...
Jules Verne says, “Everything on earth has a limited lifespan, nothing that will exist forever can be created by human hands”. Perhaps change is the only constant concept in all our lives. Despite two major world wars and countless periods of crisis, humanity has been undergoing a great change and...
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...