In response to the 7th Administrative Trial Chamber of the Ankara District Administrative Court, Competition Board re-assessed the complaint claiming that articles 4 and 6 of the Act no 4054 were violated by those practices of the economic entity comprised of Google Inc, Google International LLC and Google Reklamcılık ve Pazarlama Ltd. Şti. (GOOGLE) concerning the provision of mobile operating systems and mobile applications and services, as well as by the agreements concluded between GOOGLE and original equipment manufacturers.
In the previous preliminary inquiry into the aforementioned complaint, GOOGLE’s activities were examined and the decision dated 28.12.2015 and numbered 15-46/766-281 was taken, stating that launching an investigation under article 41 of the Act no 4054 was not necessary, and that an opinion should be rendered to GOOGLE under paragraph 3, article 9 of the same Act.
In the lawsuit filed before the 5th Administrative Court of Ankara concerning the aforementioned Board decision, the Court dismissed the request for a suspension of execution, which was appealed by the complainant. Consequently, the 7th Administrative Trial Chamber of the Ankara District Administrative Court took the decision dated 09.11.2016, with the Suspension of Execution Appeal number 2016/134, suspending the execution of article 1 of the Board decision stating that “it was not necessary to launch an investigation,” on the grounds that GOOGLE’s practices under examination may violate articles 4 and 6 of the Act.
After discussing the information and documents included in the file in its meeting of 09.02.2017, the Board took the points listed in the relevant court decision into account and issued the decision numbered 17-06/54-M, launching an investigation on
- Google Inc.,
- Google International LLC, and
- Google Reklamcılık ve Pazarlama Ltd. Şti.
under article 41 of the Act no 4054, in order to determine whether articles 4 and 6 of the Act no 4054 were violated.
As known, article 4 of the Act no 4054 prohibits anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices between undertakings, while article 6 prohibits abuses of dominant position. The investigation was initiated in order to determine whether various activities of the aforementioned companies constituted a violation under articles 4 and 6 of the Act no 4054.
*Investigation decisions taken by the Competition Board are announced to the public following the notification of the decision to the undertakings or associations of undertakings under investigation. These declarations, which are made within the framework of informing the public on Competition Board decisions, cannot be interpreted to mean the undertakings or associations of undertakings under investigation have violated the Act no 4054 and that they have faced or will face sanctions under the Act.