Turkey - Competition/Antitrust Lawyers & Law Firms - Europe - Chambers and Partners
Chambers & Partners has detected the use of an ad blocker.
We make use of tailor-made ads to enhance your experience of our website.
Please 'whitelist' https://www.chambersandpartners.com.
Close
Europe Guide

Competition/Antitrust — Turkey

Overview

TURKEY: An Introduction to Competition/Antitrust Contributed by ELIG Attorneys at Law

TURKEY: An Introduction to Turkey Contributed by ELIG Attorneys at Law

The relevant legislation establishing competition law principles in Turkey is Law No. 4054 on Protection of Competition of 13 December 1994 (‘Law No. 4054’). This legislation is reinforced by various regulations, communiqués and guidelines, which are adopted in parallel to secondary legislation of EU competition law. The national competition agency enforcing competition law rules is the Turkish Competition Authority (the ‘Authority’), a legal entity with administrative and financial autonomy.

Even though the Turkish Competition Board (‘Board’) does not have many recent precedents where it imposed an administrative monetary fine due to restrictive agreements or concerted practices (Article 4 of Law No. 4054), the Board has recently levied an administrative monetary fine within the investigation launched against thirteen financial institutions, including local and international banks, active in the corporate and commercial banking markets in Turkey (28 November 2017, 17-39/636-276). The main allegations concerned the exchange of competitively sensitive information on loan conditions (such as interest and maturity) regarding current loan agreements and other financial transactions. After nineteen months of an in-depth investigation, the Board has unanimously concluded that Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Turkey A.Ş. (‘BTMU’), ING Bank A.Ş. (‘ING’) and the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc. Merkezi Edinburgh İstanbul Merkez Şubesi (‘RBS’) have violated Article 4 of Law No. 4054. In this respect, the Board imposed an administrative monetary fine on ING and RBS in the amount of TRY21.1 million and TRY66.4 thousand, respectively, over their annual turnover in the financial year of 2016. However, the Board resolved that BTMU should not have an administrative monetary fine imposed pursuant to its leniency application, granting full immunity to BTMU while also relieving the other investigated undertakings from an administrative monetary fine.

The investigation conducted to determine whether Mey İçki Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (‘Mey İçki’) abused its dominant position through engaging in exclusionary practices against competitors in the vodka and gin markets has been concluded. After eighteen months of investigation, the Board unanimously concluded that Mey İçki holds the dominant position in the vodka and gin markets and has abused its dominance through hindering competitor activities and, therefore, violated Article 6 of Law No. 4054. The Board also decided by majority that Mey İçki has already had an administrative monetary fine imposed for the consequences of the same conduct in the raki (traditional Turkish spirit) market and thus, there is no need to impose a further administrative monetary fine on Mey İçki. The decision is candidate to set a landmark precedent in terms of the interpretation of the “non bis in idem” principle under the Turkish competition law regime as this vodka and gin investigation relates to the same allegations within the same time period which were already condemned in the Board’s previous raki decision (16 February 2017, 17-07/84-34).

In November 2017, the Board granted an unconditional approval to the reinstatement of certain minority protection rights granted to Anheuser-Busch InBev (‘ABI’) over Anadolu Efes and the formation of a joint venture between those two undertakings (23 November 2017, 17-38/611-267) through concluding that the relevant transaction will not result in the creation of a dominant position, or strengthening of an existing dominant position, and will not significantly impede competition. The transaction is of importance as it was a cross-border deal between ABI, one of the biggest players in the production of beer worldwide, and Anadolu Efes, the largest beer producer in Turkey and a significant player in Eastern Europe. ABI acquired joint control over Anadolu Efes due to reinstatement of certain strategic veto rights. Additionally, in November 2017, the Board concluded its Phase II review of the acquisition of Ulusoy Deniz Taşımacılığı A.Ş, Ulusoy Gemi İşletmeleri A.Ş., Ulusoy Ro-Ro İşletmeleri A.Ş., Ulusoy Ro-Ro Yatırımları A.Ş., Ulusoy Gemi Acenteliği A.Ş., Ulusoy Lojistik Taşımacılık ve Konteyner Hizmetleri A.Ş. and Ulusoy Çeşme Liman İşletmesi A.Ş. (‘Ulusoy Ro-Ro’) by U.N. Ro-Ro İşletmeleri A.Ş. (‘U.N. Ro-Ro’). The Board concluded that the transaction will strengthen U.N. Ro-Ro’s dominant position in the market for Ro-Ro transport between Turkey and Europe, U.N. Ro-Ro will be in a dominant position in the market for port management concerning Ro-Ro ships upon the consummation of the transaction, the transaction will significantly impede competition in these markets and the behavioural remedies submitted by the parties are not sufficient to eliminate the competition law concerns arising from the transaction. In this respect, the Board did not grant approval to the transaction.

On 20 July 2017, the Authority’s Information Note regarding the Proposed Guidelines on Vertical Agreements (‘Proposed Guidelines’) was exposed to public opinion through the official website of the Authority. The Proposed Guidelines incorporate certain significant amendments as regards the Authority’s current Guidelines on Vertical Agreements No. 15-36/537-RM(2) (‘Guidelines’) as well as several assessments relating to the Block Exemption Communiqué No. 2002/2 on Vertical Agreements (‘Communiqué No. 2002/2’). The Proposed Guidelines address the need to regulate and/or update the legislation which relate to agency agreements, the most favoured nation/customer (‘MFN’) clauses and internet sales, in light of the changing market conditions. With regard to the agency agreements, the Authority has pursued a more rigid approach in terms of the restrictive nature of the agency agreements. The Proposed Guidelines indicate that non-compete restrictions should not be evaluated under the scope of a rule of reason approach and set forth that if non-compete obligations lead to foreclosure effects in the market where the products or services subject to the agreement are being sold, such obligations will be considered within the scope of Article 4 of Law No. 4054. Additionally, the Proposed Guidelines also provide detailed explanations on MFN clauses with a view to clarify such a greenfield topic in the competition law, and thereby update the legislation in light of the market dynamics. Specifically, the Proposed Guidelines recognise the pro-competitive nature of MFN clauses and prescribe a rule of reason analysis while setting out that the anti-competitive effects of MFN clauses could be determined based on an effect analysis that covers aspects such as the relevant undertakings’ positions in the market, the object for incorporating the MFN clause and the characteristic features of the relevant market. Lastly, the Proposed Guidelines also project some fresh amendments on internet sales and explicitly define them as a passive sales method for the first time. The Proposed Guidelines emphasise every retailers’ and distributors’ right to perform sales over the internet, and thereby set out the restrictions which leave the vertical agreements outside the scope of the block exemption.

READ MORE

READ LESS


Balcıoğlu Selçuk Akman Keki Attorney Partnership (BASEAK) - Competition/Antitrust Department

-

Band 1

第一等

Chambers Commentary (based on the Chambers research)

What the team is known for Highly regarded competition practice advising a range of Turkish and international clients from sectors such as food and beverages, energy and TMT. Active on merger filings and competition investigations regarding abuse of dominant position, cartels and other anti-competitive practices, as well as compliance and regulatory issues. Boasts strong experience of acting on high-profile competition litigation cases. Benefits from two Ankara-based team members who help to support clients' needs in the capital.

Strengths According to sources, the firm has "specialised individuals for each sector, who come back to you straight away."

One client appreciates that "the competition team is very helpful, co-operative, responsive and understands our business."

Work highlights Acted for Enerjisa before the Turkish Competition Authority on a potential abuse of dominance case. This was the first investigation into the Turkish electricity market.

Advised Kavnak Beton on an investigation by the Competition Authority into allegations of anti-competitive information exchange and price fixing.

Notable practitioners

Şahin Ardıyok routinely assists clients with investigations, compliance programmes and damages litigation. He has prior experience working for the Turkish Competition Board. Clients respect the fact that he is an "expert in the area and has a problem-solving personality."

About the Team (content provided by Balcıoğlu Selçuk Akman Keki Attorney Partnership (BASEAK))

BASEAK Competition and Regulation team advises national and multinational companies operating in various sectors  for determining sector-specific risks and liabilities, providing support planning and monitoring compliance. Our lawyers, academicians and economists experienced in competition rules are competent in representing clients before the Turkish Competition Authority on matters ranging from on the spot inspections to investigations. 

Our team notifies negative clearance/exemption and M&A applications to the Authority and represents in all phases of litigation in relation to Board’s decisions. With a high level of experience in competition rules and public policies, we provide regular advice to companies on compliance of agreements and practices which govern daily commercial activities, support drafting or amendments to various laws and carry out innovative and interactive competition compliance programs tailored to anticipated risks. Teams active involvement in the regulatory matters helps them to easily grasp the competition related needs of its clients in regulated industries. 

Our team is acclaimed for being the only team consisting of lawyers and former board member and practitioners from regulatory institutions, academicians and specialist economists. This allows adoption of a versatile approach in relation to competition matters and helps them to create workable solutions in complex cases and markets.

No Content Provided

Industries

  • {{member.name}}

No Content Provided

Clients

  • {{member.name}}

No Content Provided

Date

Title

{{ article.publishedDate | date: 'longDate' }}

{{article.title}}


ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law - Competition/Antitrust Department

-

Band 1

第一等

Chambers Commentary (based on the Chambers research)

What the team is known for Stellar practice representing clients in antitrust investigations and proceedings before the Turkish Competition Authority. Acts for claimants and defendants on abuse of dominance matters. Highly esteemed for assisting multinational corporations with Turkish merger control law and non-compete agreements. Handles matters in diverse sectors such as healthcare, technology and manufacturing. Sephora and Nissan are new additions to the team's impressive roster of clients.

Strengths One client praises the firm's "willingness to adapt and learn," as well as its "ability to grasp complexities of the business and apply legal and economic theories to a complex reality."

Another interviewee highlights that the firm has "great technical expertise and strategic input" and is "able to handle large amounts of data and documents with ease."

The firm is also said to be "proactive, easily approachable and very pragmatic when providing legal advice."

Work highlights Assisted Anheuser-Busch InBev with competition matters related to its GBP79 billion acquisition of SABMiller.

Advised Mey İçki following the Turkish Competition Board's investigation into the potential abuse of its dominant position in the raki market.

Notable practitioners

Gönenç Gürkaynak combines excellent academic credentials with a wealth of commercial experience. He frequently assists blue-chip domestic and international clients with merger control procedures, and cartel and abuse of dominance investigations. One source regards him as "a cut above the rest and very knowledgeable." Another interviewee describes him as a "first-rate lawyer who anticipates our needs and seeks to address them before they become an issue."

About the Team (content provided by ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law)

ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law delivers the top competition practice in Turkey with 45 competition law specialists. The firm has four partners and three counsel in the practice, with the team led by Mr Gönenç Gürkaynak, ELIG Gürkaynak's founding partner.

In addition to unparalleled experience in merger control issues, ELIG Gürkaynak has vast experience in defending companies before the Turkish Competition Board in all phases of antitrust investigations, abuse of dominant position cases, leniency handlings and before the courts on issues of private enforcement of competition law, along with appeals of administrative decisions of the Turkish Competition Authority.

ELIG Gürkaynak has in-depth knowledge of representing defendants and complainants in complex antitrust investigations concerning all forms of abuse of dominant position allegations, and all forms of restrictive horizontal and/or vertical arrangements, including price-fixing, retail price maintenance, refusal to supply, territorial restrictions and concerted practice allegations.

ELIG Gürkaynak also has considerable expertise in administrative law, and is well equipped to represent clients before the High State Court, both on merits of a case and for injunctive relief. ELIG Gürkaynak also advises clients on a wide range of business transactions that almost always contain antitrust law issues including distributorship, licensing, franchising and toll manufacturing issues.

No Content Provided

Industries

  • {{member.name}}

No Content Provided

Clients

  • {{member.name}}

No Content Provided

Date

Title

{{ article.publishedDate | date: 'longDate' }}

{{article.title}}


Esin Attorney Partnership, a Member Firm of Baker McKenzie International, a Swiss Verein - Competition/Antitrust Department

-

Band 2

第二等

Chambers Commentary (based on the Chambers research)

What the team is known for Particularly strong on abuse of dominance matters, advising clients from heavily regulated sectors such as healthcare, tobacco and animal feed. Primarily acts for multinational corporations and their local subsidiaries on merger filings and investigations before the competition board. Also provides ongoing compliance and distribution advice to multinationals with branches in Turkey, as well as assisting new entrants to the Turkish market. Vestel, Publicis Groupe and IMS Health Turkey are new client wins for the competition team.

Strengths According to clients, the firm is "always hands-on and responsive, continually providing timely, accurate and commercially shrewd information and direction."

Work highlights Advised Generali on a cartel investigation launched by the Turkish Competition Authority over allegations of collectively raising insurance premiums and market allocation.

Assisted BRF with the Turkish merger filing relating to its TRY915 million acquisition of Banvit.

Notable practitioners

Zümrüt Esin is a key contact for this practice area.

About the Team (content provided by Esin Attorney Partnership, a Member Firm of Baker McKenzie International, a Swiss Verein)

No Content Provided

Industries

  • {{member.name}}

No Content Provided

Clients

  • {{member.name}}

No Content Provided

Date

Title

{{ article.publishedDate | date: 'longDate' }}

{{article.title}}


GKC Partners - Competition/Antitrust Department

-

Band 2

第二等

Chambers Commentary (based on the Chambers research)

What the team is known for Advises multinational clients from the insurance, pharmaceutical and food and beverage sectors on the competition law elements of major cross-border M&A, particularly merger control. Offers clients international expertise thanks to a close collaboration with associated firm White & Case. Represents clients in competition board investigations, including cartel investigations. Also provides advice on compliance issues and vertical agreements. Particularly active in representing clients from the financial services sector.

Strengths One client highlights the firm's knowledge of behavioural issues: "The credentials of the firm in cartel investigations are very impressive."

Another client says: "They have been great; they are very knowledgeable, met all our needs and defended us well."

Work highlights Advised Gama Holding on competition law issues connected with the proposed sale of a stake in it to a private equity investor.

Acted for Société Générale Turkey on an investigation into the FX market and price increases linked to alleged anti-competitive behaviour.

Notable practitioners

Sezin Elçin Cengiz is a key contact for this practice area.

About the Team (content provided by GKC Partners)

Department profile not yet provided by GKC Partners. Please see their firm profile.

No Content Provided

Industries

  • {{member.name}}

No Content Provided

Clients

  • {{member.name}}

No Content Provided

Date

Title

{{ article.publishedDate | date: 'longDate' }}

{{article.title}}


Hergüner Bilgen Özeke Attorney Partnership - Competition/Antitrust Department

-

Band 3

第三等

Chambers Commentary (based on the Chambers research)

What the team is known for Provides local and international clients from the media, technology and food production sectors with a broad range of competition services. Often assists with pre- and post-acquisition matters relating to the Turkish competition law aspects of multi-jurisdictional M&A transactions. Also well placed to advise clients on contentious competition matters. Represents clients in distribution agreements and compliance issues. Team members also provide dawn raid training, response and support.

Strengths Clients say: "The firm has a good relationship with the Competition Board and understands complex situations well."

Other market sources praise the firm's "understanding of local law."

Work highlights Assisted CNH Industrial with competition law compliance issues in Turkey. The work covered cross-border data protection matters.

Advised ArcelorMittal and its joint venture in Turkey on competition law matters related to an exclusivity contract that included the transfer of technology and the cessation of importation.

Notable practitioners

Süleyman Cengiz and Kayra Üçer are key contacts for this practice area.

About the Team (content provided by Hergüner Bilgen Özeke Attorney Partnership)

The competition team stands out in the market for being led by a former Turkish Competition Authority (TCA) antitrust case manager who can provide unique expert guidance in obtaining approvals and exemptions from the TCA and effectively deal with unfavorable TCA decisions.

No Content Provided

Industries

  • {{member.name}}

No Content Provided

Clients

  • {{member.name}}

No Content Provided

Date

Title

{{ article.publishedDate | date: 'longDate' }}

{{article.title}}


Paksoy - Competition/Antitrust Department

-

Band 3

第三等

Chambers Commentary (based on the Chambers research)

What the team is known for Assists international clients from the insurance sector with merger filings and offers antitrust advice relating to the Turkish elements of international transactions. Provides ongoing compliance advice and advises on distribution agreements. Also well placed to represent clients in cartel and abuse of dominance investigations by the competition board. Abbott Laboratories and Zurich are new client wins for the firm this year.

Work highlights Assisted Migros with merger control issues related to its TRY302.3 million acquisition of Tesco's Kipa business.

Advised ChemChina on the Turkish Competition Board filing for its USD44 billion acquisition of Syngenta.

Notable practitioners

Practice head Togan Turan has a broad practice that encompasses both M&A and competition matters. He regularly assists with merger control, cartel investigations and abuse of dominance claims.

About the Team (content provided by Paksoy)

Department profile not yet provided by Paksoy. Please see their firm profile.

No Content Provided

Industries

  • {{member.name}}

No Content Provided

Clients

  • {{member.name}}

No Content Provided

Date

Title

{{ article.publishedDate | date: 'longDate' }}

{{article.title}}


Selçuk Attorneys at Law - Competition/Antitrust Department

-

Band 3

第三等

Chambers Commentary (based on the Chambers research)

What the team is known for Competition boutique which draws praise for its notable experience representing high-profile clients in Competition Authority investigations. Often assists international clients with the Turkish competition law elements of multi-jurisdictional mergers. Well placed to advise on complex domestic competition law issues, as well as EU law and US antitrust matters. Advises clients from the telecoms, life sciences and TMT sectors on compliance issues. Benefits from partners' experience of working at the Turkish Competition Authority.

Strengths Market commentators regard the firm as "a good boutique firm specialising in competition law."

Notable practitioners

Managing partner İlmutluhan Selçuk is well respected among his peers for his competition and telecoms expertise. He regularly assists with investigations and merger control matters. He has noteworthy experience of working for the Competition Board.

About the Team (content provided by Selçuk Attorneys at Law)

Department profile not yet provided by Selçuk Attorneys at Law. Please see their firm profile.

No Content Provided

Industries

  • {{member.name}}

No Content Provided

Clients

  • {{member.name}}

No Content Provided

Date

Title

{{ article.publishedDate | date: 'longDate' }}

{{article.title}}


Overview

TURKEY: An Introduction to Competition/Antitrust Contributed by ELIG Attorneys at Law

TURKEY: An Introduction to Turkey Contributed by ELIG Attorneys at Law

The relevant legislation establishing competition law principles in Turkey is Law No. 4054 on Protection of Competition of 13 December 1994 (‘Law No. 4054’). This legislation is reinforced by various regulations, communiqués and guidelines, which are adopted in parallel to secondary legislation of EU competition law. The national competition agency enforcing competition law rules is the Turkish Competition Authority (the ‘Authority’), a legal entity with administrative and financial autonomy.

Even though the Turkish Competition Board (‘Board’) does not have many recent precedents where it imposed an administrative monetary fine due to restrictive agreements or concerted practices (Article 4 of Law No. 4054), the Board has recently levied an administrative monetary fine within the investigation launched against thirteen financial institutions, including local and international banks, active in the corporate and commercial banking markets in Turkey (28 November 2017, 17-39/636-276). The main allegations concerned the exchange of competitively sensitive information on loan conditions (such as interest and maturity) regarding current loan agreements and other financial transactions. After nineteen months of an in-depth investigation, the Board has unanimously concluded that Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Turkey A.Ş. (‘BTMU’), ING Bank A.Ş. (‘ING’) and the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc. Merkezi Edinburgh İstanbul Merkez Şubesi (‘RBS’) have violated Article 4 of Law No. 4054. In this respect, the Board imposed an administrative monetary fine on ING and RBS in the amount of TRY21.1 million and TRY66.4 thousand, respectively, over their annual turnover in the financial year of 2016. However, the Board resolved that BTMU should not have an administrative monetary fine imposed pursuant to its leniency application, granting full immunity to BTMU while also relieving the other investigated undertakings from an administrative monetary fine.

The investigation conducted to determine whether Mey İçki Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (‘Mey İçki’) abused its dominant position through engaging in exclusionary practices against competitors in the vodka and gin markets has been concluded. After eighteen months of investigation, the Board unanimously concluded that Mey İçki holds the dominant position in the vodka and gin markets and has abused its dominance through hindering competitor activities and, therefore, violated Article 6 of Law No. 4054. The Board also decided by majority that Mey İçki has already had an administrative monetary fine imposed for the consequences of the same conduct in the raki (traditional Turkish spirit) market and thus, there is no need to impose a further administrative monetary fine on Mey İçki. The decision is candidate to set a landmark precedent in terms of the interpretation of the “non bis in idem” principle under the Turkish competition law regime as this vodka and gin investigation relates to the same allegations within the same time period which were already condemned in the Board’s previous raki decision (16 February 2017, 17-07/84-34).

In November 2017, the Board granted an unconditional approval to the reinstatement of certain minority protection rights granted to Anheuser-Busch InBev (‘ABI’) over Anadolu Efes and the formation of a joint venture between those two undertakings (23 November 2017, 17-38/611-267) through concluding that the relevant transaction will not result in the creation of a dominant position, or strengthening of an existing dominant position, and will not significantly impede competition. The transaction is of importance as it was a cross-border deal between ABI, one of the biggest players in the production of beer worldwide, and Anadolu Efes, the largest beer producer in Turkey and a significant player in Eastern Europe. ABI acquired joint control over Anadolu Efes due to reinstatement of certain strategic veto rights. Additionally, in November 2017, the Board concluded its Phase II review of the acquisition of Ulusoy Deniz Taşımacılığı A.Ş, Ulusoy Gemi İşletmeleri A.Ş., Ulusoy Ro-Ro İşletmeleri A.Ş., Ulusoy Ro-Ro Yatırımları A.Ş., Ulusoy Gemi Acenteliği A.Ş., Ulusoy Lojistik Taşımacılık ve Konteyner Hizmetleri A.Ş. and Ulusoy Çeşme Liman İşletmesi A.Ş. (‘Ulusoy Ro-Ro’) by U.N. Ro-Ro İşletmeleri A.Ş. (‘U.N. Ro-Ro’). The Board concluded that the transaction will strengthen U.N. Ro-Ro’s dominant position in the market for Ro-Ro transport between Turkey and Europe, U.N. Ro-Ro will be in a dominant position in the market for port management concerning Ro-Ro ships upon the consummation of the transaction, the transaction will significantly impede competition in these markets and the behavioural remedies submitted by the parties are not sufficient to eliminate the competition law concerns arising from the transaction. In this respect, the Board did not grant approval to the transaction.

On 20 July 2017, the Authority’s Information Note regarding the Proposed Guidelines on Vertical Agreements (‘Proposed Guidelines’) was exposed to public opinion through the official website of the Authority. The Proposed Guidelines incorporate certain significant amendments as regards the Authority’s current Guidelines on Vertical Agreements No. 15-36/537-RM(2) (‘Guidelines’) as well as several assessments relating to the Block Exemption Communiqué No. 2002/2 on Vertical Agreements (‘Communiqué No. 2002/2’). The Proposed Guidelines address the need to regulate and/or update the legislation which relate to agency agreements, the most favoured nation/customer (‘MFN’) clauses and internet sales, in light of the changing market conditions. With regard to the agency agreements, the Authority has pursued a more rigid approach in terms of the restrictive nature of the agency agreements. The Proposed Guidelines indicate that non-compete restrictions should not be evaluated under the scope of a rule of reason approach and set forth that if non-compete obligations lead to foreclosure effects in the market where the products or services subject to the agreement are being sold, such obligations will be considered within the scope of Article 4 of Law No. 4054. Additionally, the Proposed Guidelines also provide detailed explanations on MFN clauses with a view to clarify such a greenfield topic in the competition law, and thereby update the legislation in light of the market dynamics. Specifically, the Proposed Guidelines recognise the pro-competitive nature of MFN clauses and prescribe a rule of reason analysis while setting out that the anti-competitive effects of MFN clauses could be determined based on an effect analysis that covers aspects such as the relevant undertakings’ positions in the market, the object for incorporating the MFN clause and the characteristic features of the relevant market. Lastly, the Proposed Guidelines also project some fresh amendments on internet sales and explicitly define them as a passive sales method for the first time. The Proposed Guidelines emphasise every retailers’ and distributors’ right to perform sales over the internet, and thereby set out the restrictions which leave the vertical agreements outside the scope of the block exemption.

READ MORE

READ LESS

Band 1

Balcıoğlu Selçuk Akman Keki Attorney Partnership (BASEAK)

From the Chambers Europe guide

Şahin Ardıyok routinely assists clients with investigations, compliance programmes and damages litigation. He has prior experience working for the Turkish Competition Board. Clients respect the fact that he is an "expert in the area and has a problem-solving personality."

^ See whole ranking table

Band 1

Gönenç Gürkaynak

ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law

From the Chambers Europe guide

Gönenç Gürkaynak combines excellent academic credentials with a wealth of commercial experience. He frequently assists blue-chip domestic and international clients with merger control procedures, and cartel and abuse of dominance investigations. One source regards him as "a cut above the rest and very knowledgeable." Another interviewee describes him as a "first-rate lawyer who anticipates our needs and seeks to address them before they become an issue."

^ See whole ranking table

Band 2

Aslan Hukuk Bürosu

From the Chambers Europe guide

Yılmaz Aslan of Aslan Hukuk Bürosu is well respected by his peers for his experience as an academic. Sources underline his "good reputation in competition law" and note that he is "very experienced at dealing with clients."

^ See whole ranking table

Band 2

İlmutluhan Selçuk

Selçuk Attorneys at Law

From the Chambers Europe guide

Managing partner İlmutluhan Selçuk is well respected among his peers for his competition and telecoms expertise. He regularly assists with investigations and merger control matters. He has noteworthy experience of working for the Competition Board.

^ See whole ranking table

Band 2

Paksoy

From the Chambers Europe guide

Practice head Togan Turan has a broad practice that encompasses both M&A and competition matters. He regularly assists with merger control, cartel investigations and abuse of dominance claims.

^ See whole ranking table

Up and Coming

Gedik & Eraksoy Avukatlık Ortaklığı

From the Chambers Europe guide

Emre Önal of Gedik & Eraksoy Avukatlık Ortaklığı assists with merger control and behavioural competition cases. He receives excellent client feedback. One source comments: "Emre knows the legal and regulatory process in detail and is able to advise on every step of the way, including strategic options. He has a fluent level of English, understands the in-house counsel challenges and delivers on time."

^ See whole ranking table