Competition Board’s Final Decision on SAHİBİNDEN Investigation (Summary) – Rekabet Kurumu’nun SAHİBİNDEN Soruşturması Hakkındaki Kararı (Özet)

Merhaba sevgili okuyucularımız.

Bu yazımızda Sahibinden Bilgi Teknolojileri Pazarlama ve Ticaret AŞ, emlak ve vasıta satış/kiralama platform hizmetlerinde veri taşınabilirliğinin engellenmesi ve 4054 sayılı Kanun’un 6. maddesinin ihlali konularında Rekabet Kurumu tarafından yürütülen önemli bir soruşturmanın sonucu ve Kurum tarafından verilen kararın işlendiği bir Hukuk İngilizcesi metni hazırladık.

Metin sonunda Hukuk İngilizcesi alanında ve Genel İngilizce C1 seviyesi önemli kelime ve kalıplara ait bir liste yer almatadır.

Ayrıca, 15 soruluk bir Cloze Test de sizleri bekliyor olacak.

Keyifli Çalışmalar dileriz …

LEGAL DECISION

In the Matter of:
The Investigation on Sahibinden Bilgi Teknolojileri Pazarlama ve Ticaret AŞ

Pursuant to:
Article 49 of the Act no 4054 on the Protection of Competition

Decision Rendered by:
The Competition Board

Decision Summary:
The Competition Board, having considered the Report, Additional Opinion, collected evidence, written pleas, statements made during the hearing, and the contents of the case file in accordance with its decision dated 30.09.2021, numbered 21-46/655-M, hereby renders its final decision.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Dominant Position: It is unanimously determined that SAHİBİNDEN holds a dominant position in the online platform services market for real estate sale/renting activities and vehicle sales activities of corporate members.
Abuse of Dominant Position: SAHİBİNDEN is found to have abused its dominant position by making it difficult for corporate members to use multiple platforms through the prevention of data portability. SAHİBİNDEN implemented actual/contractual exclusivity and non-compete obligations in its contracts, which obstructed the operations of its competitors, thereby violating Article 6 of the Act no 4054.
Administrative Fine: In accordance with the provisions of Article 16.3 of the Act no 4054 and Articles 5.1(b) and 5.2 of the “Regulation on Fines to Apply In Cases of Agreements, Concerted Practices, and Decisions Limiting Competition, and Abuse of Dominant Position,” an administrative fine of 40.150.533,15-TL is imposed on Sahibinden Bilgi Teknolojileri ve Pazarlama AŞ. This fine is calculated based on the annual gross revenues generated by the end of the fiscal year of 2021 as determined by the Board.
Remedial Measures: The following obligations are imposed on SAHİBİNDEN to ensure the termination of the violation and the establishment of effective competition in the market:
i. Within a 3 (three) month period following the notification of the reasoned decision, SAHİBİNDEN must redraft the agreement signed between SAHİBİNDEN and its corporate members to exclude infringing provisions.
ii. Within a 2 (two) month period following the notification of the reasoned decision, SAHİBİNDEN must set up the necessary infrastructure, free-of-charge, to enable corporate members to efficiently port data for real estate and vehicle ads to competing platforms and keep the data updated.
iii. In case corporate members of competing platforms request to port their real estate and vehicle ad data to the SAHİBİNDEN platform and the competing platforms accept this request, SAHİBİNDEN must set up the infrastructure, free-of-charge, to allow members to port and update their data promptly.
iv. SAHİBİNDEN must document both the start and the end of the process before the Authority to confirm the implementation of the obligations.
v. For a period of 3 (three) years, starting from the date of implementation of the first compliance measure, SAHİBİNDEN must periodically submit annual reports to the Authority.
Rejection of Allegations: Allegations claiming that SAHİBİNDEN made it harder for corporate members to use multiple platforms by imposing minimum user limitations, did not publish “doping” ads transparently, did not act transparently in its natural ads implementation, engaged in self-preferential practices through its ranking algorithm, and displayed misleading results in other services are rejected.

RIGHT TO APPEAL

This decision may be appealed before Ankara Administrative Courts within 60 days following the notification of the reasoned decision.

This decision is final and binding upon the parties involved.

The Legal vocabulary and C1 level English words or phrases:

Legal Vocabulary:

Pronouncement: Duyurulma, açıklama
Investigation: Soruşturma
Protection of Competition: Rekabetin Korunması
Additional Opinion: Ek Görüş
Evidence: Kanıt
Written Pleas: Yazılı İfade
Statements: Beyanlar
Hearing: İşitme, dinleme
Scope: Kapsam
File: Dosya
Dominant Position: Hakim Durum
Online Platform Services: Çevrimiçi Platform Hizmetleri
Corporate Members: Kurumsal Üyeler
Data Portability: Veri Taşınabilirliği
Exclusivity: Tekelcilik
Non-compete Obligations: Rekabeti Kısıtlama Yükümlülükleri
Abusing Dominant Position: Hakim Durumu Kötüye Kullanma
Administrative Fine: İdari Cezai Para
Annual Gross Revenues: Yıllık Brüt Gelirler
Redraw: Revize etmek, Yeniden düzenlemek
Fiscal Year: Mali Yıl
Infrastructure: Altyapı
Compliance Measures: Uyum Önlemleri
Documentation: Belgelendirme
Appeal: Temyiz, üst mahkemeye başvuru
Reasoned Decision: Gerekçeli Karar

C1 Level English Words and Phrases:

Unanimously: Oybirliği ile
Competition Board: Rekabet Kurulu
Rendered: Sunulan
Findings and Conclusions: Bulgular ve Sonuçlar
Implemented: Uygulanmış
Allegations: İddialar
Establishment of Effective Competition: Etkin Rekabetin Kurulması
Remedial Measures: Düzeltici Tedbirler
Promptly: Hemen, derhal
Binding: Bağlayıcı
Final: Nihai
Involved Parties: İlgili Taraflar

Cloze Test

The ___________ of the final decision is a critical step in legal proceedings.
a) pronouncement
b) investigation
c) protection
d) evidence
The Competition Board has the authority to investigate matters related to the ___________of competition.
a) findings
b) scope
c) protection
d) dominance
The Additional Opinion is a supplementary ___________ prepared by experts.
a) hearing
b) scope
c) document
d) evidence
The accused provided compelling ___________ to support their case.
a) pleas
b) dominance
c) file
d) competition
During the ___________, witnesses testified under oath.
a) scope
b) hearing
c) investigation
d) evidence
SAHİBİNDEN’s ___________ in the market gave it a significant advantage.
a) dominance
b) exclusivity
c) allegations
d) rendered
SAHİBİNDEN was accused of ___________its dominant position by restricting competition.
a) abusing
b) binding
c) remedial
d) findings
An ___________fine was imposed on the company for its anti-competitive behavior.
a) evidence
b) administrative
c) annual
d) allegations
To rectify the violation, SAHİBİNDEN must ___________certain compliance measures.
a) render
b) implement
c) prompt
d) dominance
The obligation to ___________data portability is a key component of the remedy.
a) redraft
b) implement
c) binding
d) investigation
SAHİBİNDEN is required to ___________the compliance measures within the specified timeframe.
a) documentation
b) allegations
c) implemented
d) prompt
The Competition Board’s decision is ___________, and parties must comply with it.
a) unilateral
b) final
c) exclusivity
d) binding
The allegations against SAHİBİNDEN were thoroughly ___________by the Board.
a) dominance
b) implemented
c) investigated
d) exclusivity
SAHİBİNDEN’s actions were found to be in ___________of competition law.
a) scope
b) dominance
c) compliance
d) violation
Parties have the right to ___________ the Board’s decision within 60 days.
a) pronouncement
b) exclusivity
c) appeal
d) remedial