In short
The question of how a complaint to the Competition Board is read separates an application within Law No. 4054 from an action for unfair competition. The subject is a situation that enters the Board's field, such as an agreement restricting competition, abuse of a dominant position, or merger control. This application is not the action for unfair competition in the Turkish Commercial Code. The rate of an administrative fine is not in this text. A complaint is not a decision to open an investigation.
A complaint is not a decision to open an investigation
A complaint is an application the Board may examine. The Board may not open an investigation. The application petition is not the fine decision itself. The result the complainant wants does not write the Board's decision in advance. It should be clear in the application which undertakings, in which market, and which conduct is described. An infringement is not announced while there is no market and no undertaking.
Similarity of a signboard, or a single commercial disparagement, does not by itself become the subject of this application. Facts of that kind stand under the heading of unfair competition. When a petition joins the two routes on the same form, the authority gets mixed up. A document shows the conduct that was described. It is not said that there is an agreement while there is no document. If the Board's act is there, the decision is read from that act. It is not said that a fine was imposed while there is no act.
An action for unfair competition is not this form
Unfair competition discusses in court a commercial practice contrary to the rule of honesty. An infringement of competition is read before the Board and in Law No. 4054. The same event may call both names at once. The authority and the statute change. A court petition is not a copy of the application to the Board. An application to the Board does not stand in for a court decision either.
The comparison separates which conduct entered which statute. A signboard, packaging, or a single disparagement is, as a rule, not the subject of this complaint. An agreement between undertakings, a dominant position, or a merger may enter the Board's field. Which door is open is taken from the account of the facts themselves. While there is no account, the two actions are not treated as both filed. A contract may carry the trace of the agreement. A restriction is not announced while there is no contract.
A fine rate is not in this text
The amount of a sanction the Board imposed is not written here as a percentage. Procedures such as a commitment, a settlement or an exemption are not set out step by step either. Which tool is open in the file is read from the Board's act. The act may also be a decision not to open an investigation. Not opening one does not mean the complaint was never written. The application is a petition. The petition does not produce a sanction decision by itself.
An on-site inspection is a separate act. A minute is not invented from this text as if an inspection had taken place. An action against a fine is a separate heading as well. The rate is not copied onto this complaint's petition in that heading either. The decision is made according to the name of the Board's act in hand. If there is no name, the sanction is treated as absent as well.
How the market was drawn in the application, who the undertakings are, and what the conduct is should stand separately. If one of the three is missing, the account before the Board stays incomplete. An incomplete account is not treated as an investigation having been opened. Whether it will be opened becomes clear with the Board's act. While there is no act, there is no fine either.
The same event may also be told in court as the rule of honesty. The name of the account changes the authority. A petition to the Board is not a draft of a court decision. A court petition is not a copy of the application to the Board either. Which paper is in hand is read from the cover of the file.
A Çankaya address does not stand in for the Board
Counsel in Ankara who asks about the complaint does not produce a Board decision or a rate from the Çankaya address of the office. An office in Çankaya does not stand in for the Competition Board and does not change the competent authority. The name of a district is not written in place of Law No. 4054. The competent place is read from the rule of the dispute itself. The address of the office does not turn the complaint into a decision to open an investigation.
How the application is read from the statute
The application is read from Law No. 4054 and, if the Board's act is there, from that act. This form is not counted as an action for unfair competition. A fine rate is not written from this text either.
Conclusion
A complaint to the Competition Board is an application in the field of Law No. 4054. An action for unfair competition is not the name of this form. The Board is not obliged to open an investigation. The facts are not named a complaint before they enter the Board's field. The rule of honesty is in unfair competition, and the separation of the two routes is under an infringement of competition. The action on the sanction is in an action against a fine. The on-site act is under an on-site inspection, and the frame is on the commercial law page. The basis is Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition.