The New Cartel Decision of the Competition Board
Introduction
The Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) recent decision dated 19.03.2020 and numbered 20-15/215-107 regarding the ready mix concrete producers in the Yozgat region (“Decision”), holds significant importance as it contains detailed analysis regarding numerous horizontal infringements and, particularly, “cartels.” In its Decision, the Board discussed whether the ready mix concrete producers in Yozgat infringed Article 4 of Turkish Competition Law Numbered 4054 (“Law No. 4054”) by engaging in a cartel. The following undertakings were subject of the Decision: Coşkunlar Hazır Beton İnş. Taah. San. ve Tic. A.Ş. (“Coşkunlar”), Irgatoğlu Hazır Beton Nak. San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti (“Irgatoğlu”), Sorgun Emek Hazır Beton Madencilik Akaryakıt Nakliye Oto. İnş. Taah. Turizm San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. (“Sorgun Emek”), Taş Hazır Beton ve Beton Ekipmanları Nak. İnş. Taah. Harf. Petrol San ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. (Taş”), Tamer Nak. İnş. Ve İnş. Malz. Mad. Otom. San .ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. (“Tamer”), Üç Yıldırım Hazır Bet. Ve Bet. Ekipmanları İnş. San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. (“Üç Yıldırım”), Yozgat Güven Beton Pazarlama Nak. San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. (“Yozgat Güven”) and Yozgat Koç Hazır Beton Elemanları Nak. San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. (“Yozgat Koç”).
Legal Background
The legal basis of the cartel prohibition is Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 which prohibits all forms of agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which have as their object or effect or likely effect the prevention, distortion or restriction of competition directly or indirectly in a particular market for goods or services. Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 does not provide a definition of “cartel”.
On the other hand, the Cartel Regulation on Fines to Apply in Cases of Agreements, Concerted Practices and Decisions Limiting Competition, and Abuse of Dominant Position (“Regulation on Fines”) and the Leniency Regulation include the same definition of “cartels”. The relevant definition reads as the agreements restricting competition and / or concerted practices between competitors for fixing prices; allocation of customers, providers, territories or trade channels; restricting the amount of supply or imposing quotas, and bid rigging.
Furthermore, Guidelines on Horizontal Cooperation Agreements states that information exchange among competitors is considered a cartel and fined as such if it shows the nature of an agreement with the object of fixing prices or quantities. Also exchanges of information which facilitate the operation of a cartel by enabling parties to monitor whether the participants comply with the agreed terms are also considered as part of the cartel.
Apart from these definitions, the legislation does not define the conditions of a cartel behavior. The case law is instructive in that sense.
Relevant Product and Geographic Market
In line with the past Board decisions, the related product market is defined as the “ready mix concrete” market. The related geographic market is defined as “Yozgat City Center and Sorgun District.” Notably, the Board explained that ready mix concrete is not a convenient product to stock, and the transportation of this material to far destinations, is not possible. Therefore, the determinant factor for the geographic market definition is the duration of time commencing after production. As a result, the Board considered approximately 50 km in distance from the ready mix concrete production facilities in order to determine the geographic market and concluded that Yozgat City Center and Sorgun District are the geographic markets for the infringement.
Infringement
The investigation commenced upon a complaint alleging the ready mix concrete producers in Yozgat, through cooperation, applied a single price, avoiding competition. Consequently, the ready mix concrete prices have increased from 150 TL/m3 to 175 TL/m3, although a cost increase was out of the question.
The Board determined that a number of documents seized in the raids that were conducted indicate that the ready mix concrete producers held meetings and made decisions regarding ready mix concrete production and sales. Those documents explicitly indicate the presence of the undertakings’ intent for a joint objective or resolution, as well as their dependency upon this joint objective.
Moreover, it is indisputable that the undertakings are parties to a joint agreement, since they are in communication, share competitively sensitive information regarding product price, amount, customer data, maturity choices, etc., and established two different undertakings for online sales purposes.
According to the Decision, Irgatoğlu, Tamer, Coşkunlar and Koç Beton, which are active in the Yozgat region, have established an undertaking named Güven Beton, in 2018, that conducts activities only in sales and marketing. Irgatoğlu, Ekiciler, Üç Yıldırım, which are active in the Sorgun region, established an undertaking named Sorgun Emek Beton, in 2018 which, similarly, conducts activities only in sales and marketing. The customers who were interviewed by the Competition Authority stated that before the establishments of Sorgun Emek Beton and Güven Beton, the ready mix concrete product could be obtained at different prices, and from different undertakings. On the other hand, following these establishments, the customers have been directed to the newly formed undertakings that were referred to as “the union.” Moreover, in one of the customers’ projects, different undertakings provided the ready mix concrete, although the provider was Güven Beton.
The ready mix concrete producers, on the other hand, stated that the objective of the establishments was to obtain cost savings and efficiencies through forming a sales center that meets big customer demands.
Notwithstanding, considering the documents at hand, the Board holds a completely different opinion. For instance, the Board explains, in detail, that Documents 13 and 14 show that the undertakings made decisions regarding the production and sales of ready mix concrete. Accordingly, only two production facilities were to conduct production, some of the vehicles of the undertakings were to be rented by Güven Beton, and the decisions were to be ratified by persons determined by the four undertakings. Moreover, the unit and pump prices and the producer that will mold the product were determined for sales from Yozgat city center to the villages. In these documents, the only active undertaking identified in Yozgat was determined as Güven Beton.
The remaining documents confirm Article 4 infringements, as well. For instance, Document 19 determines in detail the manner in which the income-sharing that was obtained by Sorgun Emek Beton. The price tariffs that were to be implemented in villages in the Sorgun region is enumerated in Document 20. As a result, the Board determined that Güven Beton and Sorgun Emek Beton were the joint sales points of the undertakings.
The Board referred to the Guideline on Horizontal Cooperation Agreements, and questioned whether the subject matter infringement may be assessed under the relevant legislation. Accordingly, it stated that the objective of the joint sales agreement should be understood and decided whether it is executed for efficiency reasons or to form a cartel.
According to the Board, the agreement between undertakings concerned the information sharing regarding price, sales amount and types, customer data, maturity options, income data and on an undertaking basis. In addition, the documents directly concerned price fixing, market and customer sharing. Furthermore, Sorgun Emek Beton and Güven Beton followed the compliance to the agreed subjects and they controlled the punitive sanctions. Therefore, the infringing parties should be assessed as a “cartel.” Accordingly, the assessment of the de facto or potential effects of the infringement were not necessary.
Sanctions
In line with the Regulation on Fines, the Board determined the base fine as “2%,” which is regulated for cartels. Accordingly, 2% of the annual gross revenues of the undertakings, generated at the end of the fiscal year preceding the final decision, or if that cannot be calculated, at the end of the fiscal year closest to the date of the final decision, shall be taken as the basis point.
The Board applied an aggravating ratio for the infringement duration and reducing ratio considering that Güven Beton and Sorgun Emek Beton provide services to an important project concerning the fast train services from Ankara to Sivas, and the subject matter activities are important for the Yozgat region’s economy which has a low income.
Conclusion
The Decision is remarkable, since the Board made a “cartel” determination, instead of any other infringement type. The Turkish case law, including an explicit cartel determination, is rare since the Board is generally reluctant to hold decisions identifying a cartel infringement. Instead of that it refers to infringements such as information exchange or concerted practice. Therefore, it is very important to assess Board decisions identifying a cartel infringement and compare these with the decisions identifying other types of Article 4 infringements. Accordingly, the decision lights the way in terms of the conditions that the Board looks for identifying a cartel infringement.
From the decision it is understood that the Board made detailed analysis of the documents and determined that these are agreements which comprise the information sharing regarding price, sales amount and types, customer data, maturity options, income data on undertaking basis. Therefore, the condition of “agreement” of a cartel behavior has been put forward. The Decision also indicates that the Board assessed the monitoring mechanism as a condition to cartel, in line with its past decisions of Cherry Cartel[1] and Sivas Driver Course[2]. The Board also marks the difference between the horizontal cooperation agreements and cartels by stating that the documents at hand indicate that the undertakings made decisions on strategic subjects and these validate the competitive concerns defined under “joint sales agreements” in the Guidelines on Horizontal Cooperation Agreements.
As a consequence, the detailed analysis in the Decision lights the way, in terms of understanding the Board’s approach to Article 4 infringements and particularly “cartels”.
[1] Decision dated 24.07.2007 and numbered 07-60/713-245.
[2] Decision dated 09.12.2010 and numbered 10-25/350-124.
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
![A Recent CAS Decision in the Scope of European Union Competition Law: FIFA vs. Agents](/uploads/image/f1beda5b583bec23c78ecc0675a1801c-1697485091951.jpg)
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...
![CJEU Judgment in Super Bock: New Insight on Resale Price Maintenance](/uploads/image/54a2b0c5ed945898c5b3e0cbbdbec3db-1692112491415.jpg)
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...
![The Relationship Between Economic Entity and Family Ties in Light of Competition Board Decisions](/uploads/image/987f93713740414b5d800046f7ae90f4-1692112491275.jpg)
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...
![A New Breath of Fresh Air for Competition Investigations from the Constitutional Court](/uploads/image/457d38ce076c07bc0fc68cc530b38e24-1689665818765.jpg)
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...
![Competition Law Practices in the Online Advertising Market](/uploads/image/16defa5a449eb0cd2c93e249ee79cabe-1689602198882.jpg)
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](/uploads/image/40c065a38c50c79456939162028b507f-1686901907313.jpg)
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...
![Final Sector Inquiry Report of the Competition Authority Regarding Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Retailing](/uploads/image/e398a32304c8b035f6e80e907c891035-1683714956697.jpg)
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...
![Constitutional Court's Evaluation of the Competition Board's Authority to Conduct On-Site Investigations](/uploads/image/355fca22c39dfecde98affc3a5bde22d-1683706521291.jpg)
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...
![Gun Jumping in Turkish Competition Law](/uploads/image/bd304f6d558cb735ca3b04c0c5b76633-1681809291366.jpg)
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...
![The Problem of Returning the Data Obtained as a Result of Unlawful Notification in Light of the Competition Board Decision](/uploads/image/657ec47c7fb09bf6c288d0372c769769-1678882162423.jpg)
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...
![The European Commission Accepts Amazon’s Commitments](/uploads/image/797769643f6a71619185b329eefb0310-1676443706355.jpg)
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...
![Deletion of WhatsApp Correspondence During On-Site Inspections](/uploads/image/0483ec90c238d23d478db6c66e3c1161-1668606630321.jpg)
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...
![Amendment on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce: “The Fire of Mount Doom”](/uploads/image/3b6d487d7dd59c899c0dfa2b94efd480-1665496185815.jpg)
“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...
![Turkish Competition Board Fines Digiturk](/uploads/image/d719242373d2bf57dae799e900779167-1665404138276.jpg)
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’s Decision on Meta’s Commitments](/uploads/image/2eee208912d96d0d96626d7ae80ffea3-1660029056966.png)
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...
![A Different Approach to Monetary Fines for Hindering On-Site Inspection: The Decision of the Ankara II. Administrative Court](/uploads/image/a98421fcee6aa2a5e925d44a0b84cf87-1659968918023.png)
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...
![Hub and Spoke Cartel in Comparative Law](/uploads/image/aa6dd1691af57428f240bc2a5d9a4f90-1654155642720.png)
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 First Settlement Case in Turkish Competition Law](/uploads/image/fe283612a4484947e912e5bfd72956e0-1653035448465.png)
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...
![The E-Marketplace Platforms Sector Inquiry Final Report and What It Brings](/uploads/image/577e06d1b478c470981bb3dbd27bc045-1653035292554.png)
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...
![Amendments Introduced to the Communique Concerning the Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring Competition Board’s Approval](/uploads/image/87f9778bab40d8a5ec447d19c65192a1-1650281621031.png)
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...
![A New Glance at Online Sales: The Competition Board’s BSH Decision](/uploads/image/eb028542829926b42154271318afee33-1650280121193.png)
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...
![E-Marketplace Platforms Industry Review Preliminary Report Part 2: “Shahmaran’s Story”](/uploads/image/c7a2d8f5f419d6c02fbb481efce03b82-1647600809890.png)
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...
![Online Sales Within The Framework Of Competition Law](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![The Effects of the Recent Decision by the Turkish Competition Board on Market Chains and Their Suppliers](/uploads/image/20a6d9de3b5f225f06bb4d2d6b550a63-1645780966884.png)
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...
![On-Site Inspections in Light of the Recent Decisions of the Competition Authority](/uploads/image/a4f0c2493452f7717602e5859922fe24-1642354214323.png)
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 Fines Banks for Participating in a Forex Cartel](/uploads/image/6c6c6c505e2aa1b6e37bed338b86fccc-1642354571098.png)
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...
![Hub and Spoke Cartels](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![E-Marketplace Platforms Industry Review Preliminary Report Part 1: “Captain, an object is approaching”](/uploads/image/7f6304ae875a40b31fe8f26300dd1386-1647592331907.png)
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...
![Interim Injunctions Under Competition Law: The Turkish Competition Board’s Retailers, WhatsApp and Trendyol Decisions](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Coca Cola’s Commitments in the Recent Competition Investigation](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Settlement Regulation Enters into Force](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Competition Law Concerns Regarding Human Resources Practices](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Competition Board Fine of Banks and Financial Institutions for Not Providing Information and Documents](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![The Commitment Mechanism in Competition Law Investigations in Turkey and the European Union](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Competition Board’s Guideline on the Examination of Digital Data during On-Site Inspections](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Amendments in the Law on the Protection of Competition](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Setting Legal Grounds for On-site Inspections](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Evaluation of COVID 19 Outbreak in Terms of Turkish Competition Law](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Compliance Obligations with International Laws and Competition Board’s Data Access Requests](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Addressing the Finalization of the Competition Board Decisions as Preliminary Issue in Compensation Lawsuits](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![The File of Sahibinden.com; A Phoenix Story](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Standard of Proof in Cartel Allegations in Light of Turkish Competition Board’s Egg Producers Decision](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Final and Interim Decisions of the Turkish Competition Board](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Obtaining and Examining WhatsApp Correspondences as Evidence within the Scope of Competition Law](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Second Stage in Facebook File](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![European Commission’s Foreign Exchange Spot Trading Cartel Decisions](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Expected Second Half of Competition Authority’s 12 Banks Decision](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Restriction of Online Advertisement and Sales: European Commission’s Guess Decision](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Turkish Competition Board’s Sahibinden.com Decision](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Recent Developments in Abuse of Dominance Concerning Online Platforms](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![New Horizons in Competition Law; Diesel Emissions Scandal](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Following the Commission’s Decision, the Turkish Competition Board also Fined Google](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![General Evaluation Regarding the Decisions of the Competition Board in the Electricity Distribution Sector](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Recent Developments in the Right of Access to Files](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Cards are being redistributed in the Turkish Beer Market](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![The Recent Motor Vehicles Insurance Decision of the Competition Board](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Draft Guideline on Vertical Agreements and the Related Workshop of the Competition Authority](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Selective Distribution Systems under the Light of Coty Decision](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Non-Competition Clauses for Employees: Limitation of Non-competition Clauses In Terms of Place, Time, Subject and Restriction Authority of the Judge](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Competition Authority’s Sector Inquiry Report on Television Broadcasting](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![The Turkish Competition Board Decides About the Scope of Legal Professional Privilege](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Excessive Pricing](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Amazon Decision and E-Book Commitments](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Block Exemption Communiqué on Vertical Agreements and Concerted Practices in the Motor Vehicle Sector](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![European Commission Approves Microsoft’s Acquisition of LinkedIn Subject to Conditions](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Competition Board’s Recent Examinations in the Electricity Sector: Back to the Past](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Umbrella Effect within the Framework of Private Competition Enforcement](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Passing-On Defense and Indirect Purchaser Rule in Compensation Claims Arising from Competition Law](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Tüpraş Decision and the Rebate Systems](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Important Reason in Terms Of Share Transfer Restrictions](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Booking.com Decision](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Price / Margin Squeeze](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Recent Problems in Electricity Distribution Sector: ELDER Decision](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Intellectual Property Rights As Capital in Kind](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Right To Request Information Of The Shareholders in Joint Stock Companies](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Affected Market](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)
![Germany’s Federal Cartel Office Prohibits Facebook from Combining User Data from Different Sources](/assets/image/hukuk-postasi-default.jpg)