Newsletter-21

143 COMPETITION LAW at undertakings, and associations of undertakings, in cases where it is deemed necessary. To this end, it is entitled to: (i) examine the books, any paperwork and documents of undertakings, and associations of un- dertakings, and make copies of the same if needed, (ii) request written or oral statements on particular issues, and (iii) perform examinations on the spot with regard to any assets of undertakings. Those concerned are obliged to provide the copies of information, documents, books and other instruments as requested. Information and Documents Obtained Within the Scope of Dow Investigation Certain information and documents obtained during the investi- gations of the Board may be the based on the lawyer-client relation- ship. As per the Board’s decision dated 10.11.2015 and numbered 15- 40/667-M, it has been decided to open an investigation with respect to whether Dow Türkiye has infringed Art. 6 of the Act No. 4054. During the on-the spot inspection, the return of some of the documents that were taken when on-the-spot inspection was conducted as per Art. 15 of the Act No. 4054 has been requested since they were within the scope of confidentiality of written communications between lawyer and client. As stated in the Board’s Dow Decision, “ The principle of con- fidentiality (principle of legal professional privilege) prohibits the forced disclosure of information provided by the enterprises or per- sons to their lawyers and written communications made between them when receiving legal consultancy services and protect this communi- cation. This protection aims to release the persons’ -who receives con- sultancy- concerns about the forced disclosure of the information and written communications that are obtained, and direct them to provide all the information that they have in their possession to their lawyers, and to exercise their rights of defence in a real sense. Therefore, the lawyers would implicitly be able to defend their clients that they rep- resent, effectively. Additionally, this protection is in conflict with per- sons’ obligations to reveal all of the information on the dispute, and it otherwise contradicts truth being achieved through justice. Thus, it should be generally accepted that the limit of protection granted to such written communications must fit the purpose.”