NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

185 COMPETITION LAW aside from related markets and, so, it provides a broader category of services as compared to its competitors, which strengthens its domi- nant position. The court criticizes that a business model chosen by an undertaking and its reflections may only be determined by a thorough analysis of the behaviors of its end consumers. Therefore, it criticizes the making of such a judgment without any analysis. The most important criticism made by the court is that the margin between costs and prices in the Sahibinden Decision was not deter- mined. In the aforementioned decision, it is stated that the costs of Sahibinden.com cannot be separated for the relevant markets. The court notes that this is an indication that the margin between prices and costs cannot be determined by the Authority. In addition, by stat- ing that the Authority could compare the applied discount and non- discount prices, the Court determined that the Authority did not do this due to the difficulty of comparison. The Court criticizes that although the Authority did not make this comparison, its statement that the price difference between Sahibinden.com and its competitors will not be closed, even if the discounted prices are taken into account, was based only on observations made during the investigation period. The last point drawing interest to the Annulment Decision is the conclusion of the Court regarding excessive pricing and barriers to market entry. The Court notes that according to the interpretation of the Authority, in order not to interfere with excessive prices of an un- dertaking, there cannot be barriers to entry, and competitors must put competitive pressure on the dominant undertaking. The Court makes the criticism that such an approach means that the commercial activity and the pricing strategy of the dominant undertaking are linked to the success or failure of its competitors. This situation is described as be- ing illegal by the Court. Conclusion Sahibinden Decision is one of the few Competition Authority decisions that includes an excessive pricing determination. It is a deci- sion that contains important statements, not only because it addresses the concept of ‘excessive pricing,’ which is a controversial subject, but also includes important statements related to market power, domi-