TURKEY Law and Practice Contributed by: Gökşin Kekevi, Yıldız Akınsal and Öykü İncekara, Özay Law Firm
• the causal link between the competition law infringement and the resulting damage. Since competition law infringements are generally carried out in secrecy, it is extremely difficult for a claimant to obtain evidence that directly establishes the infringement. However, Article 59 of the Com - petition Act introduces a broad principle of freedom of evidence, allowing anti-competitive agreements, decisions and practices to be proven by any type of evidence. Furthermore, if the claimant submits evi - dence giving rise to a presumption of the existence of an agreement or a distortion of competition (such as market sharing, price stability in the market, or simul - taneous price increases by competitors), the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. In such a case, the defendant must prove that it has not engaged in a concerted practice. Please also see 2.3 Impact of Competition Authori- ties regarding the probative value of TCA decisions. 2.5 Pass-On Defence There is no explicit provision regarding the “passing- on” defence under Turkish competition law. However, there is no legal impediment to raising such a defence in judicial proceedings. 3. Limitation Periods and the Duration of Litigation 3.1 Statute of Limitations As the Competition Act does not prescribe a specific statute of limitations for competition law infringe - ments, claims for damages are governed by the gen - eral provisions set forth in Article 72 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No 6098, which provide for three distinct limitation periods: • the ordinary limitation period is two years from the date on which the claimant becomes aware of both the damage and the identity of the person liable for the damage; • the maximum limitation period is ten years from the date of the infringement; and
• the exceptional limitation period is longer, where the relevant unlawful conduct is subject to a longer statute of limitations under Turkish criminal law. Indeed, competition law infringements are classified as “administrative offences” (misdemeanours) that carry administrative fines, so the “extended statute of limitations” rule mentioned above applies to com - pensation lawsuits. This rule ensures that the longest limitation period prescribed by law for the action also applies to the compensation claim. Law No 5326 on Misdemeanours sets an eight-year statute of limita - tions for such administrative fines. In this regard, the Court of Appeals also held in its rulings that this eight- year period must be taken as the basis for compen - sation lawsuits (Judgment dated 28 March 2022 and numbered E.2021/7383, K.2022/2486). The limitation period begins to run on the date the claimant becomes aware of both the damage and the identity of the person liable for the damage. Accord - ingly, where the claimant becomes aware of these ele - ments at different times, the limitation period com - mences on the date of the later discovery. In applying the general rules governing the com - mencement of the limitation period to damages claims arising from competition law infringements, determin - ing the point in time at which the damage is deemed to have been discovered is of critical importance. In practice, the publication date of the TCA’s decision is regarded as the key reference date for determining when the claimant became aware of both the damage and the identity of the liable party. 3.2 Typical Length of Private Antitrust Litigation Antitrust-related damages claims brought before the courts of first instance are generally resolved within two to four years. However, if the judicial review of the underlying TCA decision has not yet been completed, the court of first instance treats the finalisation of that decision as a preliminary issue; as a result, the pro - ceedings are prolonged. Furthermore, both the claimant and the defendant may appeal the judgment of the relevant court. Con -
203 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook