NEWSLETTER-2019-metin

123 COMPETITION LAW short and medium run. Therefore, the pricing behavior of Sahibinden. com for the period of 2015-2017 was found to be excessive and, thus, violated Article 6 of Law No. 4054. At this point, it is stated that in order to for this violation to cease, the price increases are expected to be made at reasonable levels that can be explained by cost increases. The Competition Board rejected the detailed defense of Sahib- inden.com where it was indicated that the prices of Sahibinden.com were not high, that the prices could not be considered as excessive prices, and that implementation of the EVT was not accurate. Conclusion As a result of the Decision, the base monetary fine imposed on Sahibinden.com took into account the “other violations” category as defined under the Regulation on Fines 3 . In addition, as the infringement lasted for more than one year, the rate determined was aggravated, and no reduction was applied to the amount determined. As a result, it was decided that Sahibinden.com violated Article 6 of Law No. 4054 by imposing excessive prices in the markets for online platform services for vehicle and real estate sale/rental services, and an administrative monetary fine of TL 10,680,425.98 was imposed on the undertaking. The Decision includes one dissenting opinion. The Decision is important to evaluate the excessive pricing alle- gations in a two-sided market. In this sense, we believe that the Deci- sion provides guidance in terms of the manner in which competition authorities intervene in excessive pricing behavior, and in terms of the characteristics of multilateral platforms. 3 Regulation on Fines to Apply in Cases of Agreements, Concerted Practices and Decisions Limiting Competition, and Abuse of Dominant Position promulgated, OG, No. 27142, 15.02.2009.