The Competition Board’s Approach to Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Introduction
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 electric vehicles during production compared to fossil-fuelled cars[1], it is evident that electric vehicles are increasingly becoming an integral part of daily life. This rise in the use of electric vehicles has further underscored the importance of charging infrastructure, making expanding charging stations a critical issue in terms of competition law.
A recent example of the Competition Board’s (“Board”) detailed scrutiny of activities related to electric vehicle charging stations is the investigation initiated in 2024 regarding exclusivity practices in providing charging services for electric vehicles on the İzmir-İstanbul O-5 Motorway. These practices were alleged to violate Articles 4 and 6 of the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054 (“Law No. 4054”). The competition law outcomes of this ongoing investigation in the sector are closely monitored.
On the other hand, another significant decision reflecting current competition law practices in this area is the Board’s ruling on the exemption request concerning the collaboration between Trugo Akıllı Şarj Çözümleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (“Trugo”) and Shell & Turcas Petrol A.Ş. (“Shell”) for the establishment of high-performance electric vehicle charging stations. This collaboration, governed by the Cooperation Agreement Between Charging Network Operators and the Service Procurement Agreement (together referred to as “Cooperation Agreement”), was carefully reviewed by the Board. This article will briefly analyse the Board’s decision on the Trugo-Shell collaboration (“Decision”).
Evaluations Related to the Sector
The Board, in the BP Europa/Daimler decision[2] -although the decision pertains to an acquisition- examined the market dynamics related to e-charging stations by considering the conditions at the time of the decision. It revealed that both the electric vehicle production market and the public electric vehicle charging station operation market in Türkiye are still in development. While market developments have progressed rapidly since the BP Europa/Daimler decision, it can still be said that the current market saturation level remains low.
In this context, public charging services are expected to evolve in parallel with the development of electric vehicles. The increase in demand for electric vehicles is likely to be proportionally reflected on the supply side. However, addressing the market entry barriers caused by regulatory and operational factors when making these evaluations is also important.
Evaluations on Barriers to Market Entry
In its Decision, the Board highlights the financial and operational barriers to entering the electric vehicle charging market, which are encountered globally due to high investment costs. For instance, the absence of transformers with sufficient power capacity or the need for power upgrades can double investment costs. Moreover, the rapid advancement in charging station technology and software necessitates continuous investment, underscoring that the market constantly demands financial input and solutions to operational challenges, making market entry potentially challenging.
In addition to these financial and operational barriers, regulatory obligations also play a critical role. Specifically, undertakings wishing to operate in the public electric vehicle charging station market must obtain a license from the Energy Market Regulatory Board (EMRA). To secure a charging network operator license, businesses must comply with the criteria set forth under the Turkish Commercial Code. Furthermore, under the Charging Service Regulation, charging network operators must establish a charging network within six months of the license's effective date. This network must consist of at least 50 charging units across a minimum of five districts[3] . Additionally, at least 5% of the charging units in the network and at least 50% of the charging units located on highways and state roads under the responsibility of the General Directorate of Highways must be DC units with a power of 50 kW or above[4] .
Sector-Related Evaluations in the Product Market Definition
According to the findings in the Decision, electric vehicle charging stations are categorized into two main types based on their usage: "public" and "private or restricted use."[5] Public charging stations are located in areas accessible to everyone, such as gas stations, shopping mall parking lots, and similar public spaces. In contrast, private or restricted-use charging stations are only accessible to specific user groups[6] . For example, a charging station located within a residential complex, available only to the residents, is not considered a public station[7] .
In its evaluation of the technical specifications of charging devices, the Board identified two main types of charging units: slow charging (AC) and fast charging (DC/HPC)[8] . AC units deliver power up to 22 kW, while stations delivering power above 22 kW are classified as DC, and those providing power above 50 kW are referred to as HPC[9] . It was noted that the charging time for electric vehicles depends on the power capacity of the charging device, and consequently, charging time is a key factor influencing consumer preferences[10] .
Although there are differences between AC and DC units regarding structural features and cost factors, the relevant regulations, technical requirements, and commercial conditions allow enterprises to offer both AC and DC stations[11]. From the demand side, it was found that electric vehicle users can benefit from both AC and DC units depending on their location, time, and personal/technical needs[12] .
As a result, the Board concluded that the electric vehicle charging services market is an emerging market, which can be subdivided into categories such as "fast charging station installation and operation" and "slow charging station installation and operation."[13]
Exemption Assessment of the Cooperation Agreement
The Cooperation Agreement between Trugo and Shell aims to establish and operate electric vehicle charging stations at Shell-branded fuel stations, with Shell and Trugo separately covering their costs. The Agreement also includes providing services to customers needing electric vehicle charging via both parties' applications. Additionally, the expected outcomes of the collaboration include cost advantages, increased customer satisfaction, and promoting environmental benefits. The cooperation, which merges Shell's broad dealer network with Trugo's technical know-how, contains horizontal and vertical components. The possession of charging network operator licenses by the parties and their competitive position in the market makes the Agreement a horizontal arrangement. At the same time the accompanying Network Operation Agreement (to be signed among Trugo, Shell, and the location owner dealer) incorporates vertical elements.
In conducting the Cooperation Agreement exemption assessment, the Board conducted an in-depth review. As a result of this review, the Board stated that the growth in both electric vehicle and charging station numbers in Turkey and globally supports each other. This growth was seen as critical in light of Turkey's commitments under the Paris Agreement and its net-zero emission goals, and the planned cooperation was considered to significantly contribute to achieving the 2030 targets and combating climate change[14] . The increase in alternative fuels was expected to reduce emissions, improve air quality, and support the infrastructure necessary to transition to clean energy[15] . The Board determined that this cooperation meets the first condition for exemption, which is the promotion of economic or technical progress, by improving the efficiency of the services provided[16] .
Moreover, considering the benefits provided to consumers and the contribution to developing the charging services market, the Board concluded that the cooperation fulfills the consumer benefit condition stipulated in Article 5 of the Competition Law No. 4054[17] .
In assessing whether competition would not be significantly eliminated in a substantial portion of the relevant market, it was noted that, as of the decision date, 152 undertakings held licenses, and 77 of them entered the market in 2023[18] . The Board concluded that this indicates no significant entry barriers in the market. It was also pointed out that various collaborations had been made between fuel distribution companies and charging network operators[19] . However, considering the presence of other undertakings with significant market shares, the increase in the number of new entrants, and the fact that charging stations can be installed in various locations, the Board assessed that the impact of the notified cooperation on the market would be limited and that competition would not be eliminated in a substantial portion of the relevant market[20].
Regarding the condition of not restricting competition more than necessary, the competition restrictions introduced by the Cooperation Agreement between Trugo and Shell were examined. Under these restrictions, Trugo will not establish charging stations at fuel stations located along the same routes where Shell has established charging stations, within cities and intercity routes within a certain distance. However, this limitation does not prevent Trugo from installing charging stations at hotels, restaurants, shopping centers, and vehicle maintenance services, which are not fuel stations but are suitable for electric vehicle charging stations[21] . Furthermore, during a specific period after the implementation of the Cooperation Agreement, Trugo committed not to enter into any cooperation agreements with another fuel distribution company, while Shell agreed not to form any agreements with other charging network operators for electric vehicle charging station installation[22] . This exclusivity period is limited to a specific duration as mutually agreed by the parties[23] . On the other hand, even if Trugo is under an obligation not to enter into a central agreement with a fuel distribution company other than Shell within the scope of the cooperation, it will still be able to conclude individual agreements with other fuel stations operating under a fuel distribution company other than Shell[24] .
Considering other contractual details, it was also determined that the final exemption condition was met. The Board decided to grant individual exemption for the Cooperation Agreement, as it satisfied all the conditions under Article 5 of the Competition Law No. 4054.
Conclusion
The Board’s decision regarding the Trugo-Shell cooperation plays a significant role in preserving and promoting competition in the electric vehicle charging stations market. Considering the increasing prominence of electric vehicles in our lives, addressing charging station operations from a competition law perspective is critical for maintaining market balance and supporting the transition to sustainable energy. This decision serves as a valuable guide on how collaborations between charging station operators and fuel stations should be assessed within the competition law framework. Notably, one of the standout aspects of the decision is the emphasis on balancing exclusivity arrangements introduced under the cooperation to ensure they benefit consumers without excessively restricting competition. Furthermore, the Board’s emphasis on the necessity of expanding charging infrastructure not only to establish a competitive market structure but also to provide higher-quality and more sustainable services highlights the importance of this decision.
- https://tr.euronews.com/next/2023/09/27/uretimden-yakita-elektrikli-araclar-dizel-ve-benzinli-olanlara-gore-ne-kadar-cevre-dostu
- The Board’s decision dated 08.07.2021 tarihli and numbered 21-34/465-235.
- Charging Service Regulation, article 15(2).
- Charging Service Regulation, article 15(2).
- Decision, para. 25.
- Decision, para. 25.
- Decision, para. 25.
- Decision, para. 26.
- Decision, para. 26.
- Decision, para. 26.
- Decision, para. 28.
- Decision, para. 28.
- Decision, para. 29.
- Decision, para. 83.
- Decision, para. 84.
- Decision, para. 85.
- Decision, para. 93.
- Decision, para. 95.
- Decision, para. 98.
- Decision, para. 103.
- Decision, para. 106.
- Decision, para. 107.
- Decision, para. 107.
- Decision, para. 107.
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
Competition law enforcement in labour markets has significantly affected the way undertakings and their human resources departments conduct their business. Recent decisions of the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) demonstrate that concerns relating to labour…
As reported in our “Amendments to the Communiqué on Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring the Approval of the Competition Board” article dated 11 February 2026, the Turkish merger control regime underwent significant amendments through the revisions…
Pursuant to Article 15 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”), the Competition Board (“Board”) is authorized to conduct on-site inspections at the premises of undertakings whenever it deems such inspections necessary for the performance of its duties. Within this scope…
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…
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...
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...