NEWSLETTER-2019-metin

89 COMPETITION LAW decisions are final. The relevant provision provides that anyone with a direct or indirect interest may resort to judicial remedy of the Board’s rejection decisions. The decisions of the Council of State also confirm this rule 2 . Decisions that can be taken as a result of an Investigation As a rule, the decisions made by the Board as a result of inves- tigations carried out within the framework of the procedure provided for in Articles 43-54 of the Law are final decisions. It is noteworthy that the title of Article 48 of the Law, in which the decision that was rendered as a result of the investigation, is entitled “ Final Decision. ” If, as a result of the investigation, the Board determines that the undertakings under investigation do not violate any provision of the Law - that is to say that competition is not restricted – the Board will decide that no violation has been made. This is a final decision, but the stakeholders may appeal the decision before the administrative courts. On the other hand, in the event that any violation is determined - for example, if it is found that an agreement with a purpose or effect restricting competition, or that the dominant undertaking abuses its dominant position - the Board will prohibit this agreement/transaction. The Board may impose administrative fines pursuant to Article 16 of the Act upon undertakings investigated as a result of the violation. In addition, pursuant to Article 9/1 of the Law, the Board will render a decision to end this prohibited behaviour that violates competition, and will order any actions that must be fulfilled or avoided in order to reverse the violation. Negative Clearance /Exemption Decisions It is possible to apply to the Authority for examination and deter- mination of whether the agreements between undertakings, decisions of association of undertakings and merger/acquisition transactions are within the scope of Article 4, 6 or 7 of the Law. If the Board renders such a decision, it will mean that the agreement/decision is not con- 2 For example, the judgment of the 10th Administrative Chamber of Council of State, E. 2002/4519 K. 2003/3811, 12.11.2003.