Since 2010, the Global Law Experts annual awards have been celebrating excellence, innovation and performance across the legal communities from around the world.
posted 4 weeks ago
Turkey’s competition law framework has undergone significant transformation in recent years, positioning the Turkish Competition Authority (Rekabet Kurumu) as one of the most active antitrust enforcers in the wider European and Middle Eastern region. With major amendments to Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition taking effect, new secondary legislation on vertical agreements aligning more closely with EU standards, and a surge in enforcement actions targeting digital markets, understanding Turkey competition law has never been more critical for businesses operating in or entering the Turkish market. This guide provides a comprehensive overview of the current regulatory landscape, recent enforcement trends, merger control thresholds, and practical compliance strategies for 2025 and beyond.
Turkey’s antitrust regime is anchored in Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition, enacted in 1994 and substantially modelled on EU competition law principles. The law established the Turkish Competition Authority (TCA) as an independent regulatory body with broad investigative, decision-making, and sanctioning powers. Over the past three decades, the framework has matured into a sophisticated enforcement system that closely mirrors, yet retains important distinctions from, the EU model.
The core provisions of Turkey competition law rest on three pillars. Article 4 prohibits agreements, concerted practices, and decisions of associations of undertakings that restrict competition, analogous to Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 6 addresses abuse of dominant position, closely paralleling Article 102 TFEU. Article 7 establishes the merger control regime, requiring prior notification and approval for concentrations that exceed prescribed turnover thresholds.
The TCA sits at the centre of this framework, operating with considerable autonomy. Its Competition Board, the decision-making arm, has the authority to launch investigations, issue interim measures, impose administrative fines, and order behavioural or structural remedies. The Authority’s jurisdiction extends to all sectors of the economy, though certain regulated industries such as banking, energy, and telecommunications also fall under sector-specific regulators that coordinate with the TCA on competition matters.
Key secondary legislation supplements the primary law, including communiqués on vertical agreements, horizontal cooperation, mergers and acquisitions, and the application of de minimis principles. These instruments are periodically revised to keep pace with evolving market dynamics and to maintain alignment with EU best practice, a strategic objective for Turkey given its Customs Union relationship with the EU.
The most consequential recent reform to Turkey competition law came through amendments enacted in 2020 that introduced several new concepts and enforcement tools. These changes reflected a deliberate effort to modernise the Turkish framework and equip the TCA with mechanisms already available to counterpart agencies in the EU and other jurisdictions.
One of the most notable introductions was the de minimis exception, codified in a new provision allowing the TCA to refrain from investigating agreements that do not appreciably restrict competition. This concept, long established in EU law, enables the Authority to focus resources on conduct that poses meaningful competitive harm. The TCA subsequently issued a communiqué setting out market-share thresholds below which agreements are presumed not to appreciably restrict competition, generally 10% for agreements between competitors and 15% for agreements between non-competitors.
The amendments also introduced a commitment mechanism, allowing undertakings under preliminary investigation or full investigation to offer binding commitments that address the TCA’s competition concerns. If accepted, the procedure concludes without a finding of infringement or imposition of a fine. This mirrors the commitment procedure under Article 9 of EU Regulation 1/2003 and has quickly become a significant tool in the TCA’s enforcement repertoire.
A related settlement mechanism permits undertakings that acknowledge the infringement to benefit from a reduction in administrative fines. This expedites proceedings and conserves enforcement resources, a practical consideration given the TCA’s growing caseload.
The amendments expanded the TCA’s toolkit in merger review by explicitly authorising behavioural remedies alongside structural remedies. Previously, the Authority’s power to impose conditions on cleared transactions was more limited. The broader remedial authority gives the TCA greater flexibility to approve concentrations that might otherwise raise competitive concerns, subject to ongoing compliance obligations.
While Turkey has not yet enacted a standalone digital markets law comparable to the EU’s Digital Markets Act, the TCA has shown increasing willingness to apply existing competition law provisions to technology platforms and digital ecosystems. Industry observers expect that Turkey competition law will continue to evolve in this direction, with the TCA likely to issue sector-specific guidelines or pursue legislative proposals targeting gatekeeper platforms within the coming years.
Understanding the substantive prohibitions is essential for any business operating in Turkey. The framework broadly categorises anti-competitive conduct into three areas: restrictive agreements, abuse of dominance, and unlawful concentrations.
Article 4 of Law No. 4054 prohibits all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings, and concerted practices that have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition. The provision includes a non-exhaustive list of prohibited conduct:
The TCA may grant individual exemptions where agreements satisfy the cumulative conditions set out in Article 5, contributing to economic or technical progress, benefiting consumers, containing only indispensable restrictions, and not eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the relevant market. Block exemption communiqués cover certain categories of agreements, notably vertical agreements and certain horizontal cooperation arrangements.
Article 6 prohibits the abuse of a dominant position in a relevant market. Dominance itself is not prohibited, only its abuse. The TCA’s assessment of dominance considers market share (typically presumed above 40%), barriers to entry, countervailing buyer power, and the competitive dynamics of the relevant market.
Abusive conduct may include excessive or predatory pricing, refusal to deal, exclusive dealing arrangements, loyalty rebates, margin squeeze, and leveraging dominance from one market into an adjacent market. The TCA has been particularly active in pursuing exclusionary abuses in recent years, especially in technology, fast-moving consumer goods, and pharmaceutical sectors.
Concentrations, including mergers, acquisitions of control, and the creation of full-function joint ventures, must be notified to the TCA prior to implementation if they exceed the applicable turnover thresholds. Transactions that are implemented without prior clearance may be subject to fines and potential unwinding.
The merger control regime is one of the most practically significant aspects of Turkey competition law for both domestic and international businesses. The TCA reviews concentrations under the standard of whether a transaction would significantly impede effective competition, particularly through the creation or strengthening of a dominant position.
The applicable turnover thresholds for mandatory notification are set by communiqué and are periodically adjusted. The current thresholds, updated through the most recent amendments, require notification where:
| Criterion | Threshold |
|---|---|
| Total turnover of the transaction parties in Turkey | Exceeds TRY 750 million |
| Turnover of at least two of the transaction parties each in Turkey | Exceeds TRY 250 million |
| Alternative: Turnover of the transferred assets/business in Turkey (acquisition scenarios) | Exceeds TRY 250 million, and global turnover of at least one other party exceeds TRY 3 billion |
These thresholds are based on Turkish turnover figures and apply irrespective of the nationality or place of incorporation of the parties. International transactions that generate sufficient Turkish turnover must therefore be notified even if Turkey is not the primary focus of the deal.
The TCA operates a two-phase review system. Phase I involves a preliminary review lasting 30 calendar days from the date of a complete notification. If the TCA identifies potential competition concerns, it may initiate a Phase II investigation lasting up to an additional 6 months. In practice, the majority of transactions are cleared in Phase I without conditions.
A critical procedural requirement is the standstill obligation: parties must not implement the concentration, including closing, before receiving TCA clearance. Gun-jumping violations can result in fines of up to 0.1% of the Turkish turnover of the undertakings concerned.
Where the TCA identifies competition concerns, parties may offer commitments to secure clearance. These may be structural (divestitures, removal of overlapping business units) or, following the recent amendments, behavioural (access commitments, licensing obligations, firewalls). The TCA’s practice on remedy design has increasingly drawn on EU precedent, and early indications suggest a growing sophistication in the types of conditions imposed.
The TCA has become one of the most prolific competition enforcers among OECD candidate and accession countries. Enforcement activity has accelerated across cartel investigations, abuse of dominance cases, and merger control reviews. Several trends define the current Turkey competition law enforcement landscape.
Cartel enforcement remains a priority. The TCA has investigated and fined undertakings across a wide range of sectors including construction, automotive, chemicals, food, and financial services. The leniency programme, modelled on the EU system, offers full immunity from fines to the first applicant that provides decisive evidence of a cartel, with reductions of varying degrees available to subsequent applicants. The programme has generated a steady flow of applications, contributing to a robust cartel detection record.
The TCA has opened multiple investigations into major technology platforms, examining conduct that includes self-preferencing, data-driven market foreclosure, and exploitative data collection practices. These cases reflect a broader global trend in Turkey competition law enforcement, where traditional antitrust tools are applied to novel digital business models. The outcomes of these investigations will likely shape the regulatory approach to digital markets in Turkey for years to come.
Administrative fines under Law No. 4054 can reach up to 10% of the annual gross revenue of the undertaking generated in the financial year preceding the board’s decision. For cartel conduct, including price fixing, market allocation, and supply restriction, the fine floor is set at 2% of turnover. Individuals who played a determinative role in anti-competitive conduct may face fines of up to 5% of the fine imposed on the undertaking.
The TCA also has the power to impose periodic fines for ongoing non-compliance and to order structural or behavioural remedies. Decisions are subject to judicial review before the administrative courts, with appeals typically heard by the Ankara administrative courts in first instance.
Given Turkey’s historical alignment with the EU acquis and the ongoing relevance of the Customs Union, a comparison between the Turkish and EU frameworks is both natural and practically important.
| Feature | Turkey (Law No. 4054) | EU (TFEU / Regulation 1/2003) |
|---|---|---|
| Restrictive agreements | Article 4, object or effect test | Article 101 TFEU, object or effect test |
| Abuse of dominance | Article 6, prohibition of abuse | Article 102 TFEU, prohibition of abuse |
| Merger control substantive test | Significant impediment to effective competition (SIEC), with dominance as primary concern | SIEC test under EU Merger Regulation |
| Commitment mechanism | Introduced in 2020 amendments | Article 9, Regulation 1/2003 |
| De minimis rule | Introduced in 2020 amendments | Long-established via Commission Notice |
| Leniency programme | Full immunity for first applicant; reductions for subsequent applicants | Full immunity for first applicant; reductions for subsequent applicants |
| Private enforcement | Limited; follow-on damages actions possible but underdeveloped | Developed framework under Damages Directive |
| Digital markets regulation | Existing law applied; no standalone DMA equivalent yet | Digital Markets Act in force since 2023 |
| Maximum fine | 10% of annual gross revenue | 10% of total worldwide turnover |
While the substantive alignment is strong, important practical differences remain. Turkey’s private enforcement regime is significantly less developed than the EU’s, there is no equivalent to the Damages Directive, and follow-on actions for competition damages remain uncommon. Additionally, the TCA’s approach to digital markets, while active, has not yet been codified in the manner of the EU’s Digital Markets Act, relying instead on case-by-case application of existing Turkey competition law provisions.
For companies operating in Turkey, whether domestic enterprises or multinational groups with Turkish subsidiaries or sales, proactive competition compliance is not merely advisable but essential. The TCA’s growing enforcement capacity and willingness to impose significant fines elevate the risk profile for non-compliance.
The TCA has the power to conduct on-site inspections (dawn raids) at business premises without prior notice. Inspectors may examine and copy documents, seal premises, and take statements. Obstruction of an inspection can result in a daily fine of 0.05% of the undertaking’s annual turnover. Businesses should ensure that reception and security staff are trained on dawn raid protocols, that a designated legal contact is available at short notice, and that legal professional privilege is understood and properly asserted where applicable.
Particular attention should be paid to vertical agreements, distribution, franchise, selective distribution, and exclusive supply arrangements. The TCA’s Communiqué on Vertical Agreements provides a block exemption for agreements where neither party’s market share exceeds 40%, subject to the absence of hardcore restrictions such as resale price maintenance, absolute territorial protection, and restrictions on cross-supplies within a selective distribution system. Companies should review their distribution arrangements periodically to ensure continued compliance with Turkey competition law requirements, especially following any change in the applicable communiqué.
Several developments are poised to shape the trajectory of Turkish antitrust regulation over the near term. Industry observers expect the TCA to continue intensifying its focus on digital markets, potentially proposing sector-specific rules or guidelines for platforms with significant market power. The growing convergence between Turkish and EU competition law is likely to accelerate, particularly if Turkey’s EU accession process gains renewed momentum.
The likely practical effect of the commitment and settlement mechanisms, still relatively new in Turkish practice, will be a gradual shift in enforcement dynamics. As these tools become more established, undertakings may increasingly prefer negotiated outcomes over contested proceedings, reshaping the TCA’s case portfolio and the pace of case resolution.
Private enforcement is another area where evolution is expected. While currently underdeveloped, there are early indications of greater interest in follow-on damages actions by private parties, particularly in sectors where TCA decisions have established infringements. Legislative reform to facilitate private claims, possibly drawing on the EU Damages Directive as a model, remains a possibility, though no concrete proposals have been announced.
For businesses, the message is clear: investment in competition compliance is not a discretionary cost but a strategic imperative. The combination of higher fines, more active enforcement, and expanding substantive scope means that Turkey competition law will command increasing attention from legal departments, compliance officers, and commercial leaders alike.
This article was produced by Global Law Experts. For specialist advice on this topic, contact Oğuzkan Güzel at Guzel Law Office, a member of the Global Law Experts network.
Member
Find the right Legal Expert for your business
Sign up for the latest advisor briefings and news within Global Advisory Experts’ community, as well as a whole host of features, editorial and conference updates direct to your email inbox.
Naturally you can unsubscribe at any time.
Global Advisory Experts is dedicated to providing exceptional advisory services to clients around the world. With a vast network of highly skilled and experienced advisors, we are committed to delivering innovative and tailored solutions to meet the diverse needs of our clients in various jurisdictions.
