The Obligation to Provide Accurate and Full Data in a Timely Manner: Consequences of Incorrect, Misleading, or Delayed Submissions to the Turkish Competition Authority

2. Legal Framework: The TCA’s Power to Request Information

The Authority’s power to request information is primarily grounded in Article 14 of Law No. 4054. The official English version of the provision reads as follows:

“Request for Information

Article 14 – In carrying out the duties assigned to it by this Act, the Board may request any information it deems necessary from all public institutions and organizations, undertakings and associations of undertakings.

These authorities, officials of undertakings and associations of undertakings are obliged to provide the requested information within the period to be determined by the Board.”

This provision empowers the Board to seek information not only from private undertakings but also from all public bodies and associations of undertakings. The Board routinely relies on this authority across preliminary inquiries, full investigations, and merger and acquisition reviews, ensuring that its assessments are based on accurate and timely data.

Article 44 of Law No. 4054, titled “Collecting Evidence and Informing the Parties,” also refers to the use of information-request powers specifically within the investigation phase. By explicitly listing information-request letters among the Board’s evidentiary tools, this provision strengthens both the legal and practical basis of the Board’s authority in this regard.

The administrative monetary fines applicable in cases of non-compliance with the information-provision obligation set out in Article 14 of Law No. 4054 are detailed in Articles 16 and 17 of the Law No. 4054: (I) Under Article 16(1)(a), if an undertaking provides false or misleading information in exemption or negative clearance applications, or in authorization applications for mergers and acquisitions, the Board imposes an administrative fine of one per thousand of the undertaking’s annual gross revenues. (II) Similarly, under Article 16(1)(c), providing incomplete, false or misleading information and not providing the information within the deadline – or failing to provide any information at all – in the implementation of Articles 14 and 15 (information requests and on-site inspections) is also subject to the same type of administrative fine. (III) Pursuant to Article 17(1)(c), if the requested information or document is not provided within the period determined by the Board, undertakings may face a daily administrative fine of five per ten thousand of their annual gross revenues.

The Board’s power to request information is regulated not only under the Law, but also in detail under the Communiqué No. 2010/4 on Mergers and Acquisitions Calling for the Authorization of the Competition Board (“Communiqué No. 2010/4”). Article 15 of the Communiqué expressly states that, during the assessment of concentration transactions, the Board may exercise its information-request powers within the meaning of Article 14 of Law No. 4054. Furthermore, Article 10(3) of Communiqué No. 2010/4 provides that where the parties to a transaction submit false or misleading information in the notification form, they are subject to an administrative fine pursuant to Article 16 of Law No. 4054. This rule strengthens the obligation to ensure that merger notifications are accurate and complete. Under Article 11, if the parties provide incomplete or incorrect information, the notification is deemed to have been made only on the date when the missing or corrected information is submitted. As a result, incomplete or misleading submissions may not only lead to administrative fines but may also prolong the notification process. More importantly, Article 16 of Communiqué No. 2010/4 authorizes the Board to re-examine a transaction where an approval decision was based on false or misleading information. In such a case, the Board may revoke an approval granted on the basis of inaccurate information. Accordingly, inaccuracies in the information submitted during merger control proceedings can result not only in monetary penalties but also in consequences serious enough to invalidate the Board’s clearance decision.

Article 13 of Law No. 4054 provides that exemption or negative clearance decisions may be withdrawn if they were granted on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information. Where the inaccuracy or omission results from the undertaking’s fraud or intent, the decision in question is deemed to have “never been taken”. The Board does not allow decisions adopted on the basis of false or misleading information to remain in effect and prioritizes safeguarding the integrity of the decision-making process[3].

3. Importance of the Accuracy and Completeness of Information

Procedurally, providing incorrect information is treated as an independent infringement, regardless of whether the false information actually influenced the Board’s final decision or whether the undertaking is ultimately found to have infringed competition in the market. The core rationale behind sanctioning misleading information is to ensure that the Board can access accurate, reliable, and complete facts when carrying out its assessment.

In its decision No. 09-46/1154-290, the Board articulated this principle as follows[4]:

“By imposing a separate sanction for providing false or misleading information—irrespective of whether the conduct under review constitutes an infringement—the Competition Board ensures its ability to obtain accurate information. If the provision of false or misleading information were to be linked to the existence of a substantive infringement, this would lead to the unacceptable conclusion that no penalty should be imposed in cases where a substantive violation cannot be established or, for instance, where no investigation is initiated following a preliminary inquiry.”

The Board has emphasized in various decisions that information requests issued under Article 14 serve the purpose of enabling the Authority to make findings that either substantiate or refute the allegations at issue. Accordingly, compliance with deadlines and the obligation to provide complete information are, in themselves, of fundamental importance[5].

As explicitly stated in the Board’s decision 18-04/64-37, merger and acquisition notifications are assessed on the basis of the information submitted by the notifying parties; any assumption to the contrary (such as treating every piece of information with suspicion) would contradict the very philosophy of the notification system[6]. In the same decision, the Board underscores that the information submitted in exemption, negative clearance, and merger/acquisition notifications must be “genuine, accurate, and reliable”, and that this constitutes a clear obligation for the notifying parties. This principle is further elaborated in decision 10-24/339-123[7], where the Board states:

“Leaving aside the practical competition-law implications and considering the issue theoretically, merger and acquisition reviews are conducted essentially on the basis of the file and the information provided by the notifying undertakings, and the Board’s decisions are issued accordingly. This approach contributes, on the one hand, to the effective use and allocation of public resources and, on the other hand, to ensuring that the commercial activities of undertakings are not significantly disrupted—thus serving the overarching objective of administrative action, namely the ‘public interest.’ In this regard, providing complete and, more importantly, accurate and reliable information in the notification form is a duty of the notifying parties.”

A similar emphasis appears in the Board’s decision 08-62/1017-393[8]:

“Merger and acquisition reviews are conducted essentially on the basis of the case file and the information provided by the notifying undertakings, and the Board’s decisions are rendered accordingly. This approach contributes, on the one hand, to the effective management and use of public resources and, on the other hand, to ensuring that the commercial activities of undertakings are not significantly disrupted—thus serving the fundamental purpose of administrative action, namely the ‘public interest.’ In this regard, providing complete and, more importantly, accurate and reliable information in the Notification Form is a duty of the notifying parties.”

The same principle has been affirmed in the case law of the 13^th Chamber of the Council of State[9], which has held that Article 16 of the Law No. 4054 aims to “enable the Board to reach swift decisions based on accurate information without requiring an additional round of inquiry, and to deter similar conduct in the future”. The Council of State thus clearly establishes that the information submitted by notifying parties must be sufficient, genuine, accurate, and reliable.

4. Definition and Scope of False or Misleading Information

When determining whether a submission constitutes false or misleading information, the Turkish Competition Board focuses on whether the information objectively contradicts the facts. The Board does not take into account the undertaking’s intent or the potential of the information to influence the final decision.

This principle is clearly articulated in the Board’s decision 13-72/997-428[10]:

“As explicitly stated in the Competition Board’s decisions 08-54/847-338 and 10-24/339-123, and in the Council of State’s 13th Chamber decisions 2009/869 E., 2012/3794 K. and 2009/1523 E., 2012/3795 K., the mere submission of false or misleading information or documents is sufficient for determining the existence of a violation and imposing an administrative fine. Neither the presence of intent—such as an aim to deceive or mislead—nor the ability of the false or misleading information to influence the Board’s decision is required. In other words, the existence of a statement that contradicts the facts is, by itself, sufficient to establish that false or misleading information has been submitted.”

Another decision of the Board[11] likewise underscores the necessity of accurate information for the proper functioning of the system:

“In exemption, negative clearance, and merger/acquisition notifications submitted to the Authority, the review is essentially conducted on the basis of the file and the information provided by the notifying undertakings, and the Board’s decisions are rendered accordingly. Therefore, in such notifications, the information submitted by undertakings must be genuine, accurate, and reliable; this constitutes an obligation for the notifying party. Indeed, in its judgment dated 13 December 2012 (E.2009/869, K.2012/3794), the 13th Chamber of the Council of State emphasized that with the provision set out in Article 16 of Law No. 4054, the legislator clearly intended ‘to enable the Board to reach swift decisions based on accurate information without requiring an additional round of inquiry, and to deter similar conduct.’ In the same judgment, the Court further held that ‘the information contained in the documents submitted must be sufficient and, more importantly, genuine, accurate, and reliable,’ thereby outlining the scope of the notifying undertaking’s responsibility.”

Below are the examples of actions deemed to be false, misleading, or incomplete by the TCB in its reasoned decisions.

4.1.Distortion of Financial and Quantitative Data

Cases in which undertakings submit market size, turnover, market share, production volumes, or information on the presence of rival facilities that is inaccurate, incomplete, or inconsistent constitute the clearest examples of providing false or misleading information.

Example 1: Omya (Decision No. 08-62/1017-393[12])– Incorrect Sales Volumes and Market Information

In the notification process concerning a proposed acquisition, Omya submitted inconsistent, contradictory, and misleading information, particularly regarding sales made to the Aegean Region and the production capacities of rival firms. The Board identified significant discrepancies between the data submitted by Omya and the information obtained directly from Komsar:

“The discrepancy between the total sales figures stated in Omya’s submission—claimed to represent the sum of sales made from Komsar’s Aydın and Aksaray plants to the Aegean Region—and the information obtained directly from Komsar is of critical importance for determining the parties’ combined market share in the Aegean Region. Accordingly, Omya’s representative was asked, by letter dated 18.08.2008 and numbered 2968, to resolve this inconsistency and to provide supporting documentation. … Regardless of the specific reason, the fact that the true sales figures of Komsar to the Aegean Region could not have been obtained without a face-to-face meeting conducted by the rapporteurs, and that such information should have been known by Omya—or was readily accessible without any difficulty—means that the data submitted by Omya in its letter dated 24.07.2008 concerning total sales by Komsar (including those from the Aksaray plant) to the Aegean Region must be considered misleading. Since it’s capable of misleading the Board regarding the competitive structure, this information was deemed to be misleading in nature.”

Example 2: Akzo Nobel (Decision No. 10-24/339-123[13]) – Failure to Report Turnover Figures

In the merger notification, one of the parties failed to report its turnover relating to liquid metal coatings. Although the undertaking argued that the omission stemmed from uncertainties regarding the definition of the relevant product market, the Board held that this did not justify the failure to provide the required information:

“It must once again be emphasized that there is no defensible link between the different market definitions discussed in several European Commission decisions concerning undertakings active in the same sector, and the failure to report—regardless of the reason—the turnover relating to liquid metal coatings amounting to approximately (… ) TL. Moreover, as stated by the rapporteurs, the act of providing false or misleading information is independent of the market definition; had the relevant product market been identified asthe metal coatings market, the failure to report turnover relating to that market—an essential element of the assessment under Communiqué No. 1997/1 on Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring the Approval of the Competition Board—would undoubtedly constitute a significant omission capable of influencing the Authority’s decision.”

Example 3: Biota (Decision No. 25-07/157-79[14]) – Misleading Sales Figures and Incomplete Financial Information

In its Biota decision, the Board emphasized that inaccuracies in financial and operational data submitted by undertakings can undermine the integrity of the competitive assessment and may have serious consequences. The decision cites earlier precedents and recalls similar examples from different sectors:

“An examination of the Board’s previous decisions shows that: In the decision concerning the poultry sector, although TADPİLİÇ stated in its first written defense that its sales were predominantly made abroad, the sales data it submitted related solely to domestic sales. When this discrepancy was brought to the attention of the undertaking during a meeting with its representatives, no correction was made, and since the same error was repeated in the second written defense, an administrative fine was imposed pursuant to Article 16(1)(c) of Law No. 4054.

In the Farmasi decision, the information submitted regarding the duration of the infringement and the relevant contractual documents did not reflect the truth, and the figures relating to resale for export purposes differed across documents. These acts were deemed to constitute the submission of false or misleading information or documents, and separate administrative fines were imposed for each act under Article 16(1)(c) of Law No. 4054.”

The Board further noted that in earlier decisions such as decision concerning to Poultry Sector[15], Martı decision[16], Farmasi decision[17], and decision pertaining to Private Schools[18], the submission of inaccurate information relating to concrete, objective data—such as sales figures, subscription and per-minute fees, resale-for-export amounts, or additional-lesson fees—was consistently treated as providing false or misleading information, leading to administrative fines under Article 16(1)(c).

In the Biota decision, the Board made clear that incorrect financial data is not regarded merely as a technical error, but rather as an infringement capable of undermining the effective enforcement of competition law. Referring to its previous precedents, the Board stressed that undertakings must submit complete and accurate information regarding sales, turnover, costs, and duration. As the Board put it, inaccuracies in such concrete data “undermine the analytical foundation on which the reports are based” and are therefore capable of directly affecting the correctness of the final decision.

4.2.Concealment or Alteration of Documents

Concealing contracts or legal arrangements that reflect anti-competitive practices, or altering such documents before submitting them to the Authority, is also considered a form of providing misleading information.

Example 1: CNR (Decision No. 09-46/1154-290^[19]) – Concealing the Facts Through Fictitious Back-Dated Contracts

In this case, CNR—active in a market in which it held a dominant position—was found to have refused to allocate exhibition space to its rival NTSR. To conceal this refusal-to-supply conduct, CNR claimed that the requested dates were already booked and attempted to substantiate this claim by preparing sham, back-dated contracts with companies within its own economic group. The Board summarized its findings as follows:

“CNR responded to NTSR’s requests for exhibition space by stating that the requested dates had already been rented for other fairs. It was subsequently asked to indicate to which organizers these dates had allegedly been allocated. The information provided appeared to show that the dates requested by NTSR had been allocated to companies belonging to the same economic entity as CNR. This prompted a renewed examination at the preliminary-inquiry stage as to whether the dates were indeed fully booked. Following the review—and in particular after retrieving e-mail correspondence with Gökçen Law Office, the details of which are set out under finding I.4.1.—it was established that CNR had executed sham, back-dated contracts with companies within its own group to avoid allocating space to NTSR.”

The Board applied an administrative fine under Article 16(1)(c) of Law No. 4054.

Example 2: Yaşam Özel Sağlık (Decision No. 08-08/92-32^[20]) – Misrepresentation of the Timing of the Transaction

When notifying the acquisition of Yaşam Özel Sağlık, Fresenius Medical Care (“FMC”) represented that the transaction would be completed following the approval of the Competition Board. However, the Board’s review revealed that the acquisition had, in fact, been completed before the notification was submitted:

“As established during the review—and as previously noted—the share transfer and the change in the board of directors were carried out by resolutions of the company’s Administrative Board dated 28.03.2007, and these resolutions were registered on 13.04.2007. The parties later stated that the acquisition had been completed on 12.04.2007. Accordingly, the transaction had already been completed as of the notification date. Nevertheless, rather than informing the Competition Authority that the transaction had already taken place, the parties used expressions in the notification petition and in several sections of the Notification Form (Articles 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, etc.) such as ‘FMC intends/plans to acquire Yaşam,’ ‘the structure envisaged following the transaction,’ and ‘the transaction will be completed after the Board’s approval,’ thereby providing misleading information. Moreover, the parties refrained from submitting accurate information to the Competition Authority for approximately three and a half months while the review and the deficiencies were ongoing. In light of these findings, the notifying party FMC was deemed to have submitted misleading information and, pursuant to Article 16(1)(a) of Law No. 4054, an administrative fine of 3,432 YTL was imposed on Fresenius Medical Care Turkish Holding BV.”

Example 3: Kentkart (Decision No. 06-63/859-249[21]) – Applying for Clearance for an Agreement That Had Already Been Terminated

Kentkart applied to the Board for a negative clearance or exemption in relation to an agreement that it had already terminated. This amounted to a false or misleading representation regarding the legal validity of the agreement:

“It was decided, by majority vote, that submitting a notification for negative clearance or exemption concerning an agreement that had already been terminated by Kentkart İşletme Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. constituted the submission of misleading information. Accordingly, an administrative fine of 3,184 YTL was imposed on Kentkart İşletme Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. pursuant to Article 16(1)(a) of the Law No. 4054 and Communiqué No. 2006/1.”

Example 4: Bimaş (Decision No. 06-02/48-9^[22]) – Misrepresentation of the Agreement’s Actual Implementation

In its negative clearance/exemption application, Bimaş submitted misleading statements concerning the way the agreed conditions for the sale of advertising space were implemented in practice. In particular, the commitments and explanations provided in the notification form regarding the implementation of the agreement did not reflect the actual conduct:

“Since the statements in the notification form regarding the implementation of the agreement did not correspond—even for a limited period—to how the agreement was applied in practice, and thus constituted the submission of false and misleading information, Bimaş Birleşik Medya Pazarlama A.Ş. was fined 2,908.05 YTL pursuant to Article 16(1)(a) of Law No. 4054 and Communiqué No. 2002/1.”

Example 5: Sürücü Kursları Derneği (Decision No. 10-25/350-124^[23]) – Submission of an Agreement Containing Omissions

When the Board requested the protocol concluded among the Sivas Private Driving Schools Association, the text submitted by the Association was found to contain omissions and discrepancies when compared with the original version. This constituted an attempt to conceal the true legal framework of a cartel-type arrangement (including a quota pool and penalty mechanisms):

“The text submitted by the Association contains omissions and differences compared with the Protocol signed in 2008, as indicated in the information-request letter. It was concluded that the Association acted with the intent of providing misleading information, and that its submission of incomplete and misleading information/documents falls within the scope of Article 16(1)(c) of Law No. 4054. Accordingly, an administrative fine corresponding to one per thousand of its turnover was imposed on the Sivas Private Driving Schools Association.”

Example 6: UNTAD (Decision No. 23-39/730-251^[24]) – Concealing Anti-Competitive Clauses in Contracts

In the UNTAD decision, the Board found that the undertaking had submitted contract texts from which anti-competitive clauses had been removed. This amounted to the provision of false or misleading information:

“During the preliminary inquiry, UNTAD submitted, with its letter dated 16.06.2023 and numbered 39721, a dealership agreement dated 10.05.2023 and numbered 001-2023-005, executed between UNTAD and PERLA. This agreement appeared to be the same contract obtained during the on-site inspection. However, the provisions relating to resale price maintenance and non-compete obligations (…) were absent from the version submitted by UNTAD.

An assessment of this issue, together with the price-fixing provisions forming the subject matter of the Board’s decision, shows that the contracts submitted to the Authority had been prepared by removing the anti-competitive clauses present in the original contracts, and that discrepancies existed between the contracts submitted to the Authority and those obtained during the on-site inspection.

Given that undertakings are required to submit accurate, complete, and truthful information and documents as part of the Authority’s exercise of its statutory powers, the inconsistency between the contracts submitted by UNTAD and the original contracts is considered to fall within the scope of providing false or misleading information.”

The Board’s case law demonstrates that providing misleading information—whether through deliberate distortion of contractual and legal circumstances (such as the timing of a merger or the validity of an agreement) or through the submission of incomplete, inaccurate, or contradictory economic data (such as turnover, market share, or sales volumes)—is subject to sanctions under Article 16 of Law No. 4054. In both scenarios, the underlying intent is the same: preventing the Board from conducting its assessment on the basis of accurate, truthful, and reliable information.

5. Absence of Intent (Mens Rea) and “Ability to Influence the Board’s Decision”: Objective Liability

The case law of both the Competition Board and the Council of State converges on the principle of objective liability: where false or misleading information is submitted, sanctions under Article 16 may be imposed without requiring intent, and without examining whether the information had the ability to influence the Board’s decision.

In decision 10-24/339-123, the Board identified this as one of the core principles defining the scope of false information[25]:

“An examination of the wording and the rationale of Article 16 of Law No. 4054 shows that no distinction is made between false or misleading information provided negligently or intentionally. Accordingly, the Board is not granted any discretionary room to consider mitigating or aggravating factors such as:

– whether the false or misleading information was submitted intentionally or negligently,

– whether the notifying undertaking gained a benefit,

– whether the false information had a negative or positive effect on the outcome of the notification.

To the contrary, undertakings that provide false or misleading information—whatever the reason—are subject to administrative fines.”

Similarly, in the Board decision 13-72/997-428[26], drawing on decisions 08-54/847-338[27]  and 10-24/339-123[28], as well as Council of State 13th Chamber decisions 2009/869 E., 2012/3794 K. and 2009/1523 E., 2012/3795 K., the Board reaffirmed the principle in clear terms:

• The mere submission of a false or misleading document is sufficient.
• No intent to deceive is required.
• The ability of the false information to influence the Board’s decision (“misleading capacity”) is irrelevant.
• The existence of a statement that contradicts the facts is, by itself, adequate to establish a violation.

The Uzel decision (12-68/1684-619[29]) reached the same conclusion based on the wording and rationale of Article 16: no distinction is made between negligence and intent; what matters is that the information is false or misleading; intent, benefit, or effect on the outcome do not create a separate field of discretion.

In GIC Blackstone decision (18-04/64-37[30]), the Board—referring to Article 9 of the Misdemeanours Law—emphasized that misdemeanours can be committed intentionally or negligently; therefore “the fact that false information was not provided intentionally” does not remove liability. By reference to decision 10-24/339-123[31], the Board reaffirmed that intent is not determinative in the imposition of a fine.

While the general framework is objective, the Board’s Türk Telekom decision (21-46/667-332[32]) reflects an exceptional evaluation. There, the Board concluded that the incorrect information resulted from the inexperience of the relevant personnel and that the information had not been provided “as it should have been” due to an inadvertent error; accordingly, no administrative fine was imposed. This does not indicate that intent is required; it merely shows that, in highly exceptional circumstances, the Board may use its discretion where an error is purely technical or human in nature. Indeed, in 18-04/64-37[33], the Board clarified that translation errors may be considered within the scope of negligence, but this does not alter the finding of false or misleading information.

6. The Requirement to Submit Information “in a Timely Manner”

As explained above in setting out the legal framework, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 14 of Law No. 4054, the information and documents requested by the Turkish Competition Authority must be submitted within the determined time limit/deadline. Where the requested information and documents are not submitted within the prescribed period—or are not submitted at all—two types of administrative monetary fines may be imposed: (i) under Article 16(1)(c), an administrative fine amounting to one per thousand of the undertaking’s turnover generated in the preceding financial year; and (ii) under Article 17(1)(c), an administrative fine amounting to five per ten thousand of the undertaking’s turnover generated in the preceding financial year for each day during which the information is not submitted.

The preamble of Article 17 clearly reflects the legislator’s deliberate choice to impose both a fixed turnover-based fine and a daily, time-based periodic fine in cases where information is not submitted in a timely manner (or is not submitted at all):

“In order for the Board to implement its decisions and measures, it requires a coercive power in addition to those set out in Article 16. This coercion must be such that the undertaking finds it beneficial to comply with the decision or measure as soon as possible. The most effective way to achieve this is to impose a monetary fine for each day during which the decision or measure is not complied with. This approach encourages undertakings to comply with decisions without delay.”[34]

Example 1: The Novonesis Decisions (25-13/297-140 and 25-22/535-351[35])

By its decision dated 27 March 2025 and numbered 25-13/297-140, the Turkish Competition Board decided to impose administrative monetary fine on Novonesis A/S and its subsidiaries due to their failure to submit certain information and documents requested by the Authority within the prescribed deadline in the course of an ongoing investigation. The Board found that certain contracts had not been submitted at all, while others had been entered into the Authority’s records only after the expiry of the deadline for the submission.

Accordingly, the Board ruled that, starting from 8 March 2025—the day following the final submission deadline of 7 March 2025—and continuing until the deficiencies were remedied, a daily administrative monetary fine amounting to five per ten thousand of Novonesis’ annual gross revenue should be imposed pursuant to Article 17(1)(c) of Law No. 4054.

In the subsequent phase of the process, the compliance submissions submitted by Novonesis to the Authority were reviewed. While certain deficiencies were remedied, it was determined that some information and documents were not submitted on the grounds that they “could not be found.” By its decision dated 12 June 2025 and numbered 25-22/535-351, the Board concluded that the missing information and documents had not been fully submitted. Nevertheless, taking into account that the information concerning the relevant sales conditions had been de facto obtained within the file, the Board decided to suspend the administrative monetary fine as of 28 May 2025. Accordingly, a daily administrative monetary fine was imposed on Novonesis for a total period of 81 days, covering the period between 8 March 2025 and 28 May 2025.

Example 2: The Apex Decisions (20-32/410-187, 20-34/451-199, 20-38/528-236[36])

By its decision dated 2 July 2020 and numbered 20-32/410-187, the Board imposed an administrative monetary fine on Apex Teknik Tekstil ve Sağlık Ürünleri San. Tic. Ltd. Şti. (“Apex”), a fabric and mask manufacturer, due to its failure to timely provide the information requested concerning fabrics used in mask production during the COVID-19 pandemic. As stated in the decision, Apex was served with two separate information requests—one in its capacity as a fabric supplier and another as a mask manufacturer. Following Apex’s failure to submit the requested information within the prescribed deadlines, the Authority contacted Apex by telephone on multiple occasions. Although Apex eventually submitted the information and documents, the responses were found to be incomplete. Consequently, Apex was fined one per thousand of its turnover pursuant to Article 16(1)(c) of Law No. 4054 and, for the 12-day delay in providing the information, an additional fine amounting to twelve times five per ten thousand of its turnover.

Following this sanction, the Board granted Apex an additional period to complete the missing information; however, the deficiencies were not remedied within the granted period. As stated in the decision, the Board formed the opinion that “Apex failed to exercise even the minimum degree of diligence required to obtain the requested information, thereby preventing a full and accurate assessment of the allegations and findings within the scope of the investigation.” Due to the continued failure to remedy the deficiencies, the Board re-imposed the administrative monetary fine. By its decision dated 17 July 2020 and numbered 20-34/451-199, the Board ruled that Apex would be subject to a daily administrative monetary fine amounting to five per ten thousand of its turnover for each day until the missing information was completed.

Apex ultimately did not complete the requested submissions. The Authority obtained the necessary information from other parties to the investigation, as well as from other fabric and mask manufacturers and fabric importers, and prepared the investigation report dated 7 August 2020 and numbered 2020-3-018/SR. Accordingly, the Board concluded that the information was no longer required as of the date of the investigation report and that administrative monetary fine should be imposed for a period of 30 days pursuant to Article 17(1)(c). By its decision dated 20 August 2020 and numbered 20-38/528-236, the Board imposed an administrative monetary fine on Apex amounting to 30 days × five per ten thousand of its turnover.

7. Key Takeaways

The framework established by Articles 14, 16, and 17 of Law No. 4054 and by Communiqué No. 2010/4 ensures that the Board can carry out swift, effective, and deterrent competition-law enforcement based on accurate and complete information. Because inquiry and investigation processes rely heavily on information provided by undertakings, the requirement to submit accurate information is not merely a procedural obligation—it is a structural safeguard essential to maintaining the integrity of the competition law system.

Accordingly, imposing sanctions for false, misleading or missing information regardless of whether it affected the Board’s decision or whether the undertaking acted intentionally is a consistent and deliberate choice rooted in both case law and legislative intent.

The Board’s established case law makes clear that actions such as submitting incomplete or contradictory data, misrepresenting legal or factual circumstances, altering contractual provisions, or concealing the timing of a transaction can undermine the accuracy of every stage of the assessment—from market definition to competitive-effect analysis. For this reason, the submission of false or misleading information is treated as an independent violation, and sanctions are imposed on an objective liability basis, without distinguishing between negligence and intent. The Board’s decisions also show that exceptions for inadvertent mistakes remain extremely narrow.

To mitigate these risks, undertakings should adopt a more structured and rigorous internal process. This includes seeking advice from competition-law specialists when preparing notifications and responses, implementing multi-layered and cross check enabling internal review mechanisms, ensuring that financial and operational data is drawn from a single verified source, carrying out accuracy checks on all contractual documents before submission, and involving compliance teams at an early stage of the process.

[1] Attorney Gülce Korkmaz is the external competition law consultant of Baş | Kaymaz Law Firm. After completing her master’s degree at Bilkent University, she is currently pursuing her doctoral studies in the field of competition law at the Faculty of Law of Lüneburg Leuphana University (Germany) as a PhD researcher with the scholarship of the Joachim Herz Foundation.

[2] TCB decision dated 23 February 2017 and numbered 17-08/88-38 (Dissenting Opinion).

[3] Şarbak, Elif Nurdan: AB ve Türk Rekabet Hukukunda Bilgi İsteme Yetkisi ve Buna İlişkin Yaptırımlar, Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu, Ankara 2022, s.1-5

[4] TCB decision dated 13 October 2009 and numbered 09-46/1154-290.

[5] For instance, TCB decisions dated 2 July 2020 and numbered 20-32/410-187; dated 17 July 2020 and numbered 20-34/451-199; dated 7 November 2019 and numbered 19-38/571-239; and dated 7 November 2019 and numbered 19-38/582-248.

[6] TCB decision dated 8 February 2018 and numbered 18-04/64-37.

[7] TCB decision dated 18 March 2010 and numbered 10-24/339-123.

[8] TCB decision dated 7 November 2008 and numbered 08-62/1017-393.

[9] Decision of the Council of State, 13th Chamber, dated 13 December 2012 and numbered E.2009/869, K.2012/3794.

[10] TCB decision dated 26 December 2013 and numbered 13-72/997-428.

[11] TCB decision dated 8 February 2018 and numbered 18-04/64-37.

[12] TCB decision dated 7 November 2008 and numbered 08-62/1017-393.

[13] TCB decision dated 18 March 2010 and numbered 10-24/339-123.

[14] TCB decision dated 7 March 2025 and numbered 25-07/157-79.

[15] TCB decision dated 13 March 2019 and numbered 19-12/155-70.

[16] TCB decision dated 21 July 2022 and numbered 22-33/527-213.

[17] TCB decision dated 26 January 2023 and numbered 23-06/69-20.

[18] TCB decision dated 17 August 2023 and numbered 23-39/752-261.

[19] TCB decision dated 13 October 2009 and numbered 09-46/1154-290.

[20] TCB decision dated 24 January 2008 and numbered 08-08/92-32.

[21] TCB decision dated 14 September 2006 and numbered 06-63/859-249.

[22] TCB decision dated 5 January 2006 and numbered 06-02/48-9.

[23] TCB decision dated 22 March 2010 and numbered 10-25/350-124.

[24] TCB decision dated 17 August 2023 and numbered 23-39/730-251.

[25] TCB decision dated 18 March 2010 and numbered 10-24/339-123.

[26] TCB decision dated 26 December 2013 and numbered 13-72/997-428.

[27] TCB decision dated 11 September 2008 and numbered 08-54/847-338.

[28] TCB decision dated 18 March 2010 and numbered 10-24/339-123.

[29] TCB decision dated 27 December 2012 and numbered 12-68/1684-619.

[30] TCB decision dated 8 February 2018 and numbered 18-04/64-37.

[31] TCB decision dated 18 March 2010 and numbered 10-24/339-123.

[32] TCB decision dated 30 September 2021 and numbered 21-46/667-332.

[33] TCB decision dated 8 February 2018 and numbered 18-04/64-37.

[34] For the preambles of the articles of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition please see https://www.rekabet.gov.tr/en/Sayfa/Legislation/act-no-4054/grounds-for-the-articles.

[35] TCB decisions dated 27 March 2025 and numbered 25-13/297-140 and dated 12 June 2025 and numbered 25-22/535-351.

[36] Kurulun 02.07.2020 tarih ve 20-32/410-187 sayılı, 17.07.2020 tarih ve 20-34/451-199 sayılı ve 20.08.2020 tarih ve 20-38/528-236 sayılı kararları.

As Baş | Kaymaz Law Firm, we provide comprehensive competition law, advice and representation services to both national and multinational companies with our specialized and experienced lawyers.

If you have any questions on this topic or any matter related to Turkish competition law, you may contact us via [email protected].