The Competition Authority announced that it imposed a fine on food retail giant Nestle. According to the investigation, Nestle violated Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition.
Competition Authority, one of the leading food retailers to Nestle He completed the investigation he started against. It was decided to impose an administrative fine on the brand that was found to have violated Article 4 of the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054. The penalty resulting from the Competition Authority’s investigation against Nestle, 346 million 911 thousand 505 TL It was recorded as. This penalty was calculated according to the annual turnover of Nestle Türkiye Gıda Sanayi AŞ.
According to the statement made by the Competition Authority, Nestle Türkiye Gıda Sanayi AŞ determines the resale prices of its distributors, Due to regional and customer restrictions It violated Article 4 of the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054. In this case, the giant company should be fined. unanimously It was decided.
The Competition Authority’s statement was as follows:
As a result of the discussion of the file by the Competition Board on 15.02.2024; It was decided that Nestle Türkiye Gıda Sanayi AŞ violated Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition, and therefore an administrative fine should be imposed on the enterprise in question.
To access the explanation text of the decision numbered 24-08/149-61, dated 15.02.2024, the justification of which will be notified later, with the possibility of judicial appeal in Ankara Administrative Courts. click here.
What does Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition say?
These situations are, in particular:
a) Determining the purchase or sale price of goods or services, the factors that make up the price, such as cost, profit, and all kinds of purchase or sale conditions,
b) Sharing or controlling all kinds of market resources or elements by dividing the markets for goods or services,
c) Controlling the supply or demand amount of goods or services or determining them outside the market,
d) Complicating or restricting the activities of competing undertakings, or excluding undertakings operating in the market through boycott or other behavior, or preventing new entrants into the market,
e) Applying different conditions to persons in equal status for equal rights, obligations and acts, except for exclusive franchise,
f) Contrary to the nature of the agreement or commercial practices, requiring the purchase of another good or service together with a good or service, or making a good or service requested by buyers acting as intermediaries conditional on the display of another good or service by the buyer, or offering Asserting conditions regarding the re-supply of a purchased good or service,
In cases where the existence of an agreement cannot be proven, the fact that price changes in the market or the balance of supply and demand or the activity areas of the undertakings are similar to those in markets where competition is prevented, distorted or restricted constitutes a presumption that the undertakings are engaged in concerted action.
Provided that it is based on economic and rational facts, each party can avoid liability by proving that it did not act in concert.
Source :
https://www.rekabet.gov.tr/tr/Guncel/nestle-turkiye-gida-sanayi-as-hakkinda-y-bf6dc7dbf7cfee1193c80050568585c9