TURKEY Law and Practice Contributed by: Gökşin Kekevi, Yıldız Akınsal and Öykü İncekara, Özay Law Firm
2.2 Courts In the Turkish judicial system, there is no specialised court designated exclusively to hear antitrust dis - putes. Instead, the competent court is determined by the nature of the dispute and the legal status of the parties involved. In this regard, the commercial courts of first instance have jurisdiction over disputes related to the parties’ commercial enterprises. If a claim is brought by consumers, the consumer courts have jurisdiction; the civil courts of first instance hear all other non-commercial disputes. 2.3 Impact of Competition Authorities TCA decisions do not constitute res judicata and are not binding on the courts, but they are of critical importance in damages claims. Although this is not expressly regulated as a prerequisite under the legis - lation, under the settled jurisprudence of the Court of Appeals, courts either dismiss damages claims filed before a final TCA decision has been rendered or hold the proceedings in abeyance by treating the TCA deci - sion as a preliminary issue. In practice, TCA decisions are regarded as strong evidence of the existence of an infringement and are given significant weight by the courts. Accordingly, the existence of a TCA decision issued against the defendant significantly alleviates the claimant’s burden of proving the competition law infringement. Decisions of other national competition authorities are not binding on Turkish courts. However, there is no legal impediment to the parties submitting such deci - sions as evidence. 2.4 Proof Under the Code of Civil Procedure, claims for dam - ages arising from competition law infringements are subject to the general rules governing tort liability and the rules of evidence. Pursuant to the fundamental principles of Turkish law, as a general rule the bur - den of proof lies with the party making the allegation. Accordingly, a claimant asserting that it has suffered damages as a result of a competition law infringement must prove the following elements: • that the defendant committed a competition law infringement; • the existence of the damage suffered; and
competition law infringement may request compensa - tion equal to three times the actual loss incurred or the profit generated by the infringers. In judicial decisions, this rate is generally not accepted as a mandatory or automatic multiplier, but rather as an upper limit that allows the judge to make an assessment based on the specific facts of the case. The 4th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice stated that Article 58 of the Competition Act sets a maximum limit for the compensation amount and grants the judge discretion to determine the final figure within this limit; however, it does not grant free discretion regarding the multi - plier rate itself. In the same ruling, it was emphasised that the judge may award either one or three times the damages according to the circumstances of the case, provided that the award stays within the statutory upper limit and is not less than the hypothetical loss suffered by the plaintiff (Judgment dated 08 Novem - ber 2021 and numbered E.2021/305, K.2021/2178). 1.2 Recent Developments No significant legislative updates have recently been introduced in the field of private antitrust litigation. Some high-profile damages actions remain pending before the courts, with the vast majority still subject to ongoing judicial scrutiny and appellate review. 2. Private Antitrust Claims: Basis and Procedure 2.1 Statutory Basis In Turkish law, the statutory basis for private disputes arising from antitrust violations is established under the private law provisions set forth in Articles 56 to 59 of the Competition Act. Accordingly, any party that violates the law and thereby restricts competition is liable for any damages suffered by the injured parties. In such competition-related damages claims, plaintiffs may seek compensation for both their actual losses and the loss of profits. Furthermore, under the “triple damages rule”, the court may award compensation of three times the actual damages suffered or three times the profits gained, or likely to be gained, by the infringers.
202 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook