By Av. Serkan Kara, Istanbul Bar No. 53770. Last updated: 14 June 2026.
Competition in goods and services markets is governed by Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition, enforced by the Competition Authority (Rekabet Kurumu, the TCA) and structured along the lines of EU Treaty Articles 101 and 102. The statute prohibits three categories of conduct: agreements and concerted practices that restrict competition (Art. 4), abuse of a dominant position (Art. 6), and mergers or acquisitions that significantly impede effective competition (Art. 7). For foreign investors and cross-border groups, this single law decides whether a deal clears, whether a commercial arrangement is lawful, and whether managers face personal exposure.
What is competition law and what does Law No. 4054 cover?
Competition law is the framework that keeps goods and services markets open and fair, and in this jurisdiction it is set out in Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition. The statute exists to prevent agreements, decisions, and practices that hinder, distort, or restrict competition, to stop dominant undertakings from abusing market power, and to protect consumers. It also establishes the procedures for investigation, enforcement, and compensation, and tasks the Competition Authority with regulation and supervision across all sectors.
The law reaches every undertaking active in the market, defined as natural or legal persons that produce, market, or sell goods or services and form an independent economic unit. It also covers associations of undertakings, meaning bodies formed by enterprises to pursue common aims, and it captures informal coordination such as gentlemen’s agreements built on mutual understanding rather than a signed contract.
How do antitrust rules protect market competition?
Antitrust rules under Law No. 4054 protect competition by prohibiting cartels, anti-competitive mergers, and exclusionary conduct by dominant firms, so that no single player can dictate market outcomes. The aim is to safeguard consumers, give businesses equal opportunity to compete, and keep incentives for innovation alive. For a company entering or expanding in this market, compliance is not optional good behaviour; it is a condition of operating without administrative fines, void contracts, or blocked transactions.
What conduct counts as anti-competitive behaviour?
Anti-competitive behaviour is any practice that distorts fair competition, and under Law No. 4054 it falls mainly under Articles 4 and 6. Article 4 catches agreements and concerted practices between undertakings, while Article 6 catches the abuse of a dominant position by a single powerful firm. The most common forms include the following.
- Price-fixing agreements between competitors
- Market allocation or customer-sharing arrangements
- Bid rigging in public or private tenders
- Resale price maintenance in distribution agreements
- Predatory pricing by dominant firms
- Refusal to deal or other exclusionary conduct
- Tying and bundling practices
- Excessive pricing by firms holding market dominance
Price-fixing involves competitors setting prices artificially and stripping out genuine choice. Bid rigging corrupts the tender process by pre-arranging the winner. Market-sharing splits territories or customers so that rivals stop competing for the same business. Each of these is treated as a serious infringement, and each is something an internal compliance programme should be built to detect early.
What does Article 4 prohibit, and what are cartels?
Article 4 of Law No. 4054 prohibits agreements, concerted practices, and decisions by associations of undertakings whose object or effect is to prevent, distort, or restrict competition. Cartels are the most serious example: secret coordination among competitors to fix prices, divide markets, or restrict output. Because cartels directly harm consumers through higher prices and fewer choices, they are a priority enforcement target, and the consequences extend beyond the company to the individuals who organise them.
Bid rigging is a specific cartel form, equally caught by Article 4, where competitors collude to manipulate a tender or auction by predetermining the winner or inflating bids. A firm caught rigging tenders risks not only fines but exclusion from future public procurement, which can be commercially fatal in regulated sectors. If your business operates through tenders, structured competition-law training and clear bidding protocols are essential safeguards.
What is abuse of a dominant position under Article 6?
Abuse of a dominant position is prohibited by Article 6 of Law No. 4054, which restrains undertakings that hold market power from exploiting it to the detriment of competitors or consumers. Holding a dominant position is not itself unlawful; abusing it is. Typical abuses include predatory pricing designed to drive rivals out, exclusive-dealing arrangements that foreclose the market, tying unrelated products together, and refusing to supply on commercial terms. The TCA investigates such conduct and can require behavioural changes alongside financial penalties.
How are mergers and acquisitions reviewed under Article 7?
Mergers and acquisitions that may significantly impede effective competition fall under Article 7 of Law No. 4054 and the implementing Merger Communique No. 2010/4, which set out when a transaction must be notified to the Competition Authority before closing. Notification turns on the parties’ turnover measured against thresholds fixed by regulation. Because those thresholds and the figures behind them are set by law and regulation and are periodically revised, you should confirm the amounts and tests in force at the time of your filing rather than rely on a figure quoted elsewhere.
The review runs in two phases: an initial Phase I screening and, where competition concerns remain, an in-depth Phase II examination. Closing a notifiable deal before clearance is known as gun-jumping and is itself an infringement of Article 7, exposing the parties to penalties calculated by reference to turnover. For cross-border groups, this means standstill obligations must be built into the transaction timetable from the outset.
How does the investigation and appeal process work?
An enforcement matter under Law No. 4054 begins with a complaint to the Competition Authority or its own-initiative review, followed by a preliminary inquiry and, where warranted, a formal investigation in which parties file written defences and may attend oral hearings. The TCA Board then issues a reasoned decision: a fine, conditional approval, or clearance. The usual procedural sequence is set out below.
- A complaint is filed with the Competition Authority (Rekabet Kurumu), or the TCA acts on its own initiative
- The TCA conducts a preliminary investigation
- If the evidence warrants it, the TCA opens a formal investigation
- Parties submit written defences and may attend oral hearings
- The TCA Board issues a reasoned decision: a fine, conditional approval, or clearance
- The decision may be appealed to the administrative court within the statutory deadline running from notification
- The administrative court reviews the decision on the merits
Statutory deadlines and review periods are fixed by law and may change, so the exact appeal window and procedural timing should be confirmed for your case at the moment the decision is served. Missing the appeal deadline forfeits the right to challenge the TCA decision, which makes early instruction of counsel critical once an investigation is opened.
What penalties and personal liability apply?
Law No. 4054 backs its prohibitions with administrative fines calculated as a proportion of the undertaking’s annual gross revenue, with the precise ceilings, rates, and any leniency reductions set by law and regulation. Because those percentages and any daily penalties for procedural breaches are statutory figures that can be revised, the rate in force should be confirmed at the time the matter arises rather than assumed from a previously published number.
Liability is not confined to the company. Under Article 16 of Law No. 4054, responsible managers can face personal fines tied to the company penalty, which is why board members and senior executives have a direct stake in compliance. A leniency programme is available to undertakings that come forward and cooperate, and it can substantially reduce or eliminate the fine for a qualifying first applicant, but the timing and conditions are strict and should be assessed with counsel before any disclosure.
How does the law treat unfair competition?
Unfair competition, where a business obstructs or damages another’s commercial activity through dishonest market conduct, is addressed both in commercial legislation and, where the conduct is criminal, under the Turkish Penal Code, which can impose monetary fines, compensation for material and moral damage, and in serious cases imprisonment. This is distinct from the antitrust prohibitions of Law No. 4054: unfair competition focuses on the dishonest method of competing, while Law No. 4054 focuses on the structure and freedom of the market itself. A robust commercial strategy needs to account for both regimes.
Litigation or arbitration for competition-related commercial disputes?
Public enforcement under Law No. 4054 sits with the Competition Authority, but the private commercial disputes that follow an infringement, such as damages claims or contract disputes between the parties, can proceed through court litigation or, where the contract contains a valid arbitration clause, through arbitration. The right route depends on the contract, the relief sought, and the cross-border element. The comparison below sets out the practical trade-offs.
| Factor | Court litigation | Arbitration |
|---|---|---|
| Forum | Administrative court for TCA decisions; civil courts for damages claims | Agreed institution under a valid arbitration clause |
| Public enforcement | Only route for challenging a TCA decision | Not available against the TCA itself |
| Confidentiality | Generally public proceedings | Generally private and confidential |
| Cross-border enforcement of award | Subject to local civil enforcement rules | Enforceable abroad under the New York Convention |
| Best suited to | Appealing regulatory decisions; statutory damages claims | Contract-based commercial disputes between the parties |
Challenging a TCA decision is always a matter for the administrative court; arbitration cannot review a regulator’s act. Arbitration becomes relevant for the downstream private disputes between commercial parties, where the New York Convention makes a resulting award enforceable across borders. Choosing the right forum at the contract-drafting stage avoids a costly jurisdictional fight later.
Frequently asked questions
Which law governs competition in this jurisdiction?
Competition is governed by Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition, enforced by the Competition Authority (Rekabet Kurumu). The law is built around three prohibitions: anti-competitive agreements (Art. 4), abuse of dominant position (Art. 6), and mergers that significantly impede competition (Art. 7). Its structure mirrors EU Treaty Articles 101 and 102, which helps cross-border groups align their existing EU compliance programmes.
Does my merger or acquisition need clearance before closing?
A transaction must be notified to the Competition Authority under Article 7 of Law No. 4054 and Merger Communique No. 2010/4 where the parties’ turnover meets the notification thresholds. Those thresholds are set by regulation and revised periodically, so confirm the figures and tests in force at the time of filing. If a deal is notifiable, closing before clearance is gun-jumping and exposes the parties to penalties, so build a standstill into your timetable.
Can managers be personally fined for a competition breach?
Yes. Under Article 16 of Law No. 4054, responsible managers can face personal administrative fines linked to the company penalty, separate from the fine on the undertaking itself. This is why competition compliance is a board-level responsibility, not just a legal-department task. Senior executives involved in pricing, tenders, or commercial coordination should receive targeted training and clear escalation rules.
What is the leniency programme and how does it help?
Leniency allows an undertaking involved in a cartel to report it and cooperate with the Competition Authority in exchange for a reduced or eliminated fine, with the most favourable treatment reserved for a qualifying first applicant. The exact reductions and conditions are fixed by regulation and the timing is decisive. Because a disclosure cannot be undone, the decision to apply for leniency should always be assessed with counsel before any approach to the TCA.
How can a business stay compliant with Law No. 4054?
Compliance starts with a written programme: regular training on Articles 4 and 6, clear rules on contact with competitors, vetting of distribution and pricing agreements, and a merger-control checklist tied to the notification thresholds. Documenting decisions and running periodic audits lets a company detect risk early and, where a cartel issue surfaces, evaluate leniency in time. Treating competition law as a standing governance function, not a one-off review, is the most reliable protection against fines and void agreements.
Speak to our competition and commercial team
If you are planning a transaction, reviewing a commercial arrangement, or facing a Competition Authority investigation, early advice protects both the deal and the people behind it. Our lawyers advise foreign investors and cross-border groups on merger notifications, compliance programmes, and disputes under Law No. 4054. Learn more about our corporate and commercial law services, and contact the firm to discuss your specific position.
For related guidance, see our work on mergers and acquisitions, ongoing corporate legal counselling, and shareholder deadlock and dispute remedies.
General information, not legal advice. Turkish law; verify your specific situation with qualified counsel.
Related legal guides
- For related guidance, see our commercial law and business advisory.