Competition Authority; He announced that he imposed fines on Nestle and Eti. No fine was imposed on Danone, which was mentioned in the same investigation. So, which law were the brands investigated for violating?
The Competition Authority has completed the investigation it started last year against some companies working on food. In the statement made on the subject today, Danone Tikveşli Gıda ve İçecek San. and Tic. Any irregularities for A.Ş. could not be detected specified. However, Nestle Türkiye Gıda Sanayi AŞ, Eti Gıda San. and Tic. AŞ and Horizon Fast Moving Consumer Goods Production Marketing Sales and Trade AŞ various penalties Done.
In the investigation initiated by the Competition Authority, the companies in question were found to be in violation of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition. article 4 It would be checked whether they violated it or not. In the examination, Danone Tikveşli Gıda ve İçecek San. and Tic. It was determined that AŞ did not violate the law. Other companies are they were found guilty.
The Competition Authority’s statement is as follows:
At the meeting of the Competition Board dated 28.12.2023, Danone Tikveşli Gıda ve İçecek San. and Tic. AŞ has violated the Law No. 4054, therefore there is no need to impose an administrative fine on the relevant enterprise, Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition has been violated by Nestle Türkiye Gıda Sanayi AŞ, and therefore the said enterprise has been subject to administrative fines. to impose a fine It was decided with the number 23-61/1205-429.
Eti Gıda San., against whom an investigation was opened in the same file. and Tic. Inc. and Horizon Fast Moving Consumer Goods Production Marketing Sales and Trade Inc., the investigation was concluded with a compromise. In this context, on the grounds that they violated Article 4 of the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054 by taking actions restricting competition aimed at making the market in which they operate transparent; With the decision of the Competition Board dated 02.03.2023 and numbered 23-12/181-57, Eti Gıda San. and Tic. to AŞ 36.096.652,89-TLwith its decision dated 30.03.2023 and numbered 23-16/280-96, to Horizon Fast Consumption Products Production Marketing Sales and Trade Inc. 55.140.344,30-TL It was decided to impose an administrative fine.
Competition Authority decision here can be accessed from the link.
RELATED NEWS
Competition Authority Launched an Investigation into Meta for “Threads”: Here’s Why
Article 4 of the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054 says:
Article 4- Agreements between undertakings, concerted practices, and such decisions and actions of associations of undertakings that have the purpose of directly or indirectly preventing, distorting or restricting competition in a particular market for goods or services, or that have or may have the effect of doing so, are unlawful and prohibited.
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 and 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) Making it difficult 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,
to) 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 Asserting conditions regarding the re-supply of goods or services,
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.