NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

167 COMPETITION LAW not have traders and operation licenses, in Turkey, and also added that it will not provide any data on their traders employed abroad by the undertakings that are within the same economic unit, pursuant to the definition of undertaking under Law No. 4054. On the other hand, JPMorgan, Citibank, ING and Garanti replied to the initial informa- tion request and sent the information to the Authority; however, in response to the second information request, they stated that they could provide no documentation or information to the Authority. The afore- mentioned undertakings put forward various reasons to the Authority, accordingly. Among those reasons, they stated that the requested data was not under their control, and that the information request should have been made to the foreign undertakings, provided that the relevant procedural rules are taken into account, that the requested information and documents were beyond the authority of the Board, and that the information and documents should have been requested from the par- ent companies in line with the European Union General Data Protec- tion Regulation (“GDPR ”) . The Claim that the Requested Information and Documents are not Accessible and Irregular Notice was given In reply to the explanations of the parties that are stated, above, the Board rendered an extensive assessment, the first of them to rebut the claim as to irregular notice. The Board stated that notice was duly given to the relevant undertakings in line with the previous decisions of the Board (Board’s decision on Syndication Credits 4 ) and EU prac- tices, together with the effects principle and the economic integrity ap- proach, and concluded that the notice to the subsidiary to be delivered to the parent company complies with the law. In addition, the Board carried out a conformity assessment within the scope of the articles of the group of companies regulated under the Turkish Commercial Code. In this respect, the Board concluded that on the grounds of the dominant undertaking’s obligation to act prudently, a dominant under- taking, who is deemed to be a merchant, cannot claim that the relevant 4 See: Decision No. 17-39/636-276, 28.11.2017, https://www.rekabet.gov . tr/Karar?kararId=b8a26358-485b-4af7-9d42-dc40652899fb (Access date: 11.11.2020).