Home About Us Services Awards Team Insights Career Contact Us TÜRKÇEENGLISH Devin Law & IP — Istanbul
Competition/Insights

Competition Law Developments in Türkiye: September 2026

Rekabet Hukukunda Eylül 2026 Gelişmeleri
Authors
Uğurcan Tekinİnci ÖzçilsalBeyza ErdemirUğurcan Tekin · İnci Özçilsal · Beyza Erdemir
Published28 September 2026
Reading time15 min
PDF
← All Insights
CategoryCompetition
Published28 September 2026
Authors
Uğurcan TekinPartner
İnci ÖzçilsalAttorney at Law
Beyza ErdemirAttorney at Law
In this article
Labour market investigationOral hearingsPharmaceutical sector inquiryMerger control
Contents01Labour Market Investigation: Automotive Supply Industry02Investigations Reaching the Oral Hearing Stage03Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry and Workshop04Merger and Acquisition Decisions of 20 August 202605Reappointments to the Competition Board06Assessment and Conclusion
SummaryÖzet

This note examines the developments announced on the Turkish Competition Authority's website in September 2026: the labour market investigation opened in the automotive supply industry by the Board's decision No. 26-29/831-M of 13 August 2026, the oral hearing announcements in the maritime pilotage and towage file and the MDF and particleboard file, the workshop held on 21 September 2026 as part of the pharmaceutical sector inquiry, the merger and acquisition decisions taken at the meeting of 20 August 2026, and the reappointments to the Competition Board. The developments are assessed in the light of the Guidelines on Competition Infringements in Labour Markets and the relevant statutory provisions.

Key takeaway · Kilit sonuç

The automotive supply industry investigation concerns labour market allegations without any accompanying product market allegation, and names a sector association and an organised industrial zone as parties in their capacity as associations of undertakings.

September 2026 developments and the common frameworkFigure 1
InvestigationLabour market · 26-29/831-M
Oral hearingsPilotage and towage · MDF
Sector inquiryPharmaceutical workshop · 21 September 2026
Common frameworkArticles 4, 5, 6, 7 · Guidelines 24-49/1087-RM(4), paras 28–31 · Oral Hearings Communiqué · Communiqué No. 2010/4

The principal development of the period is the Board's decision No. 26-29/831-M of 13 August 2026 to open an investigation into thirty-seven undertakings active in the automotive supply industry, together with TAYSAD, the Association of Automotive Parts and Components Manufacturers, and TOSB, the Automotive Supply Industry Specialised Organised Industrial Zone, on allegations of no-poaching agreements and the exchange of wage information. The decision was announced on the Authority's website on 7 September 2026. The opening of an investigation is not a finding of infringement; the allegations will be assessed at the end of the investigation.

In the same period, the investigation conducted in the maritime pilotage and towage sector on allegations of collusion in tender processes and information exchange in the labour market, and the investigation into Yıldız Entegre in the MDF and particleboard sector, reached the oral hearing stage.

Following the preliminary report of the pharmaceutical sector inquiry, the Authority held a workshop with sector stakeholders on 21 September 2026. The merger and acquisition decisions taken at the meeting of 20 August 2026 were published on the Authority's website, and the Deputy Chairman and two members of the Board were reappointed and took up their duties on 9 September 2026.

01
Labour Market Investigation: Automotive Supply Industryİş Gücü Piyasası Soruşturması: Otomotiv Yan Sanayii

By decision No. 26-29/831-M of 13 August 2026, the Board concluded its preliminary inquiry into the allegation that TOSB, the Automotive Supply Industry Specialised Organised Industrial Zone, and its members had infringed Article 4 of the Competition Law through no-poaching agreements directed at the labour market and the exchange of competitively sensitive information, and decided to open an investigation. The decision was announced on the Authority's website on 7 September 2026. The investigation concerns alleged restrictions of competition in labour markets alone, without any accompanying product market allegation such as price fixing or territorial allocation, and covers thirty-seven undertakings and two associations of undertakings.

The Guidelines' explanationKılavuzdaki açıklama

Under the Guidelines on Competition Infringements in Labour Markets, adopted by the Board's decision No. 24-49/1087-RM(4) dated 21 November 2024, agreements between employers aimed at fixing wages and other working conditions are treated as the fixing of a purchase price within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of the Competition Law, and “wage-fixing agreements that constitute an infringement by object are regarded as cartels”. No-poaching agreements, since they pursue “the aim of artificially sharing the labour supplied among undertakings”, are dealt with under subparagraph (b) of the same paragraph in the same way as supplier and customer allocation agreements, and are likewise characterised as cartels. In this assessment, “employers are not required to be competitors in the output markets”; undertakings that compete in the labour market are treated as competitors irrespective of their activities in the output markets.

PracticeBasis in the competition lawCharacterisation in the guidelines
Wage-fixing agreementArticle 4(1)(a) – fixing of purchase priceCartel; no exemption as a rule
No-poaching agreementArticle 4(1)(b) – supplier and customer allocationCartel; no exemption as a rule
Information exchange with the object of restricting competitionArticle 4Infringement irrespective of effect
Information exchange meeting all five conditions (paras 28–31)Article 4No restrictive effect as a rule
Ancillary restraint to a principal agreementMay fall outside Article 4Must be directly related, necessary and proportionate to the principal agreement; burden on the party
Characterisation of labour market practices under the guidelines
Alleged Gentlemen's Agreements within Associations of UndertakingsTeşebbüs Birlikleri Bünyesinde Centilmenlik Anlaşması İddiaları

According to the Authority's announcement of 7 September 2026, the preliminary inquiry found that, as regards the automotive supply industry undertakings, “sufficient suspicion had arisen that they were party to gentlemen's agreements not to employ one another's employees, and that they exchanged competitively sensitive information on employee wages and other working conditions, through meetings held within TOSB, the Automotive Supply Industry Specialised Organised Industrial Zone, and the Association of Automotive Parts and Components Manufacturers and through various means of communication”. Having concluded that “the suspicions that the practices in question restrict competition are serious and sufficient”, the Board opened an investigation under Article 41(1) of the Competition Law into thirty-seven undertakings, including Aisin, Autoliv Cankor, Benteler Gebze, Beyçelik Gestamp, Coşkunöz Metal Form, Denso, Farplas, Parsan, Tırsan Treyler, Toyota Boshoku and ZF Sachs, together with TAYSAD and TOSB. At this stage there is no finding of infringement in relation to the allegations.

The Guidelines provide that wage-fixing and no-poaching agreements “may also be concluded through a third party” and that a third party which brokers or facilitates the agreement “may be regarded as a party to the infringement depending on the circumstances of the particular case”. Alongside the thirty-seven undertakings, the sector association TAYSAD and the organised industrial zone TOSB have been included in the investigation in their capacity as associations of undertakings.

Limits of Wage Information ExchangeÜcret Bilgisi Değişiminin Sınırları

The Guidelines define competitively sensitive information in the labour market as “information relating to wages, or information relating to other working conditions which has a clear effect on employees' job choices or on general labour mobility”, and list pay-rise rates, working hours, fringe benefits, compensation payments and leave entitlements within this scope. An exchange of information with the object of restricting competition is deemed to restrict competition “irrespective of its effect”.

Paragraphs 28 to 31 of the Guidelines explain that an information exchange satisfying five conditions cumulatively does not, as a rule, produce a restrictive effect on competition: the exchange must be conducted by an independent third party; the source of the data or the content of individual data must not be identifiable; the information must be at least three months old; it must comprise the data of at least ten participants; and no single participant's data may exceed twenty-five per cent of the total. This assessment concerns information exchanges of a particular kind; it is not a general compliance test for all contact between employers or for no-poaching agreements.

The Guidelines state that the possibility of an anti-competitive effect must be taken into account “not only by undertakings that are competitors in the labour market, but also by undertakings such as independent market research organisations and private employment agencies that carry out the information exchange in the capacity of a third party”, and expect independent organisations that report wage data to aggregate the data so that the source cannot be inferred. In our assessment, wage surveys and benchmarking exercises conducted within sector associations and organised industrial zones would benefit from review against the information exchange criteria in the Guidelines.

ConditionCriterion
OperatorIndependent third party
AnonymitySource and individual data content not identifiable
Age of dataAt least three months old
Number of participantsAt least ten participants
WeightingNo participant's data above twenty-five per cent
The five conditions for an information exchange without restrictive effect as a rule (Guidelines, paras 28–31)
Ancillary Restraints and ExemptionYan Sınırlama ve Muafiyet

Labour market restrictions imposed to enable the implementation of a legitimate principal agreement may, according to the Guidelines, fall outside Article 4 of the Competition Law as ancillary restraints. The restriction must be directly related to, necessary for and proportionate to the principal agreement, and the “burden of proof” rests on the party relying on it. Restrictions of indefinite duration, restrictions extending beyond key employees, or restrictions exceeding the geographic scope of the principal agreement do not satisfy the proportionality requirement. Attaching an existing restriction to a written principal agreement does not, by itself, make it an ancillary restraint; the requirements of relatedness, necessity and proportionality are examined separately.

The Guidelines further state that wage-fixing and no-poaching agreements, and information exchanges with the object of restricting competition, “as a rule” cannot benefit from the exemption under Article 5 of the Competition Law. In our assessment, since gentlemen's understandings reached orally at sector meetings cannot be tied to a principal agreement, an ancillary restraint defence would also be difficult to sustain for such understandings.

The Labour Market in Dominance and Merger ControlHâkim Durum ve Birleşme Denetiminde İş Gücü Pazarı

The principles set out in the Guidelines are also applied, to the extent appropriate, in examinations under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Competition Law. For the purposes of Article 6, it is examined whether the undertaking under review “holds a dominant position both in the relevant product or service market and in the relevant labour market”. In mergers and acquisitions, whether the transaction significantly lessens competition in the labour market is assessed by reference to variables such as the parties' shares and the level of concentration in that market, the similarity of the qualifications of the employees engaged, the degree of organisation among those supplying labour, the costs of changing workplace, and whether the transaction “carries the potential of being a killer acquisition”.

The reasoning behind the Guidelines emphasises that in labour markets “the number of employees on the supply side is large, whereas the number of employers on the demand side is limited”, that the organisation of employees remains relatively weak, and that this increases employers' incentive to enter into agreements to the detriment of employees; it adds that the imbalance is “more pronounced in sectors where concentration is high”.

02
Investigations Reaching the Oral Hearing StageSözlü Savunma Aşamasına Gelen Soruşturmalar

In September 2026, the Authority announced oral hearings in two investigations. Under Articles 46 and 47 of the Competition Law, the oral hearing is the final stage before the final decision, following completion of the investigation report and the written defences; the announcement of the hearing indicates that a final decision in that file is approaching.

The statutory frameworkMevzuattaki düzenleme

Under the Communiqué on Oral Hearings Held before the Competition Board, complainants and third parties wishing to speak at the hearing must apply to the Authority by the date specified in the announcement, with a petition containing information and documents demonstrating their interest in the subject matter of the hearing. Hearings may be followed online by observers. Under Article 48 of the Competition Law, the Board renders its final decision on the day of the oral hearing or, where this is not possible, within fifteen days together with its reasoning. The short-form decision is announced on the Authority's website by way of a pronouncement notice, and the reasoned decision is subsequently served on the parties.

Maritime Pilotage and Towage ServicesDeniz Kılavuzluk ve Römorkörcülük Hizmetleri

According to the Authority's announcement of 11 September 2026, the oral hearing in the investigation into Anadolu Kılavuzluk, Deniz Kılavuzluk, Marin Römorkör ve Kılavuzluk and Sanmar Denizcilik, which seeks to determine whether the Competition Law was infringed “by colluding in the application and tender processes relating to pilotage and towage services and by exchanging competitively sensitive information in labour markets”, was held on 22 September 2026 at 10:30. The deadline for applications by complainants and third parties wishing to speak was set as close of business on 15 September 2026.

In our assessment, the examination in this file of the bid-rigging allegation in public tenders together with the allegation of information exchange in the labour market is consistent with the approach taken in the automotive tyre decision of June 2026, in which labour market information exchange and no-poaching were dealt with alongside infringements in the product market.

The MDF and Particleboard Sector: Yıldız EntegreMDF ve Yonga Levha Sektörü: Yıldız Entegre

According to the Authority's announcement of 25 September 2026, the oral hearing in the investigation into the allegations that the MDF and particleboard manufacturer Yıldız Entegre Ağaç Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ infringed Article 4 of the Competition Law “by acting collusively” will be held on 6 October 2026 at 10:30. Complainants and third parties wishing to speak must apply to the Authority by close of business on 29 September 2026. Since Article 4 also covers agreements and concerted practices with undertakings that are not parties to the investigation, a collusion allegation may be pursued in an investigation conducted against a single undertaking.

FilePartiesAllegationOral hearingApplication deadline
Pilotage and towageAnadolu Kılavuzluk, Deniz Kılavuzluk, Marin Römorkör ve Kılavuzluk, Sanmar DenizcilikBid rigging; labour market information exchange22 September 2026, 10:3015 September 2026
MDF and particleboardYıldız Entegre Ağaç Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞCollusion (Article 4)6 October 2026, 10:3029 September 2026
Files reaching the oral hearing stage in September 2026
03
Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry and Workshopİlaç Sektör İncelemesi ve Çalıştay

Following the Preliminary Report of the Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry published on 10 August 2026, the Authority held in Ankara on 21 September 2026 the workshop it had announced on 31 August 2026. According to the Authority's statement of 24 September 2026, the workshop opened with a speech by the President of the Authority, Birol Küle, and consisted of three sessions. In the first session the principal findings and assessments of the preliminary report were shared; in the second, the future of competition and regulation in the pharmaceutical sector was discussed with public sector representatives; and in the third, the views of the private sector and other stakeholders were heard and “the balance between competition, investment, innovation and access to medicines” was addressed.

According to the Authority's statement, the workshop considered “the relationship between patents and competition, conditions of market entry, exclusivity practices in pharmaceutical distribution, competition in public pharmaceutical procurement, the reimbursement system and the Public Institution Discount”. In a sector inquiry, the preliminary report is converted into a final report after public consultation and a stakeholder workshop. In our assessment, the findings of the final report can be expected to serve as a reference in subsequent investigations and exemption assessments.

Patents and CompetitionPatent ve Rekabet İlişkisi

The workshop also addressed the relationship between patents and competition. In August 2026 an investigation was opened into TEVA on the allegation of the strategic use of divisional patent applications, and the preliminary report had examined the relationship between patent protection and competition law under a separate heading. In our assessment, these three developments indicate that the exercise of industrial property rights is among the matters examined under competition law in the pharmaceutical sector. The discussion of public pharmaceutical procurement and the Public Institution Discount at the same workshop, in turn, indicates that the issues addressed in the July 2026 decision concerning Avixa and Avigem, in which the discount differential in the reimbursement programme was characterised as a barrier to market entry, are also being considered at sector level.

04
Merger and Acquisition Decisions of 20 August 202620 Ağustos 2026 Tarihli Birleşme ve Devralma Kararları

The merger and acquisition decisions taken at the Board's meeting of 20 August 2026 have been published in the Recent Board Decisions section of the Authority's website. Among them, the Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery transaction was cleared conditionally, subject to commitments. Unconditional clearance was granted for the establishment of a full-function joint venture by UPM-Kymmene Corporation and Sappi Limited, the acquisition of the food ingredients business of International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. by funds managed by CVC Capital Partners, the merger of Indovida India Private Limited with EPL Limited, and the acquisition of IMCA Elektronik and SACA Elektronik by Steliau Développement SAS. The details of the transactions and the decision numbers are set out in the table below.

Under Article 7 of the Competition Law and Communiqué No. 2010/4, transactions exceeding the turnover thresholds must be notified to the Board even where activity in Türkiye is limited, and transactions that do not result in a significant lessening of effective competition are cleared. In our assessment, the imposition of commitments on the media sector transaction at the same meeting, while the other four were cleared unconditionally, is consistent with the practice of confining the commitment mechanism to transactions in which horizontal and vertical overlaps give rise to a competitive concern.

DecisionTransactionOutcome
26-30/868-362UPM-Kymmene Corporation and Sappi Limited full-function joint ventureUnconditional clearance
26-30/871-364Acquisition of 90.1% of the shares in the IFF food ingredients business by CVC Capital Partners fundsUnconditional clearance
26-30/869-363Indovida India–EPL Limited merger; joint control over EPL by Indorama Netherlands and Epsilon BidcoUnconditional clearance
26-30/884-374Acquisition of sole control of IMCA Elektronik and SACA Elektronik by Steliau Développement SASUnconditional clearance
—Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery (media)Conditional clearance subject to commitments
Merger and acquisition decisions taken at the meeting of 20 august 2026
05
Reappointments to the Competition BoardRekabet Kuruluna Yeniden Atamalar

By Presidential Decision No. 2026/296, published in the Official Gazette No. 33361 of 5 September 2026, Ahmet Algan was reappointed as Deputy Chairman of the Competition Board, and Şükran Kodalak and Cengiz Çolak were reappointed as members of the Board. In accordance with Article 26 of the Competition Law, they took their oaths before the First Presidency Board of the Court of Cassation on 9 September 2026 and took up their duties.

06
Assessment and ConclusionGenel Değerlendirme ve Sonuç
“Although the automotive supply industry investigation has not yet resulted in any finding of infringement, wage surveys conducted within sector associations and organised industrial zones would benefit from review against the information exchange criteria in the Guidelines.”

The announcements of September 2026 indicate that scrutiny of labour markets is continuing. In the automotive supply industry, an investigation was opened into thirty-seven undertakings, an organised industrial zone and a sector association solely on allegations of no-poaching agreements and the exchange of wage information; in the pilotage and towage file, the tender allegations reached the oral hearing stage together with the allegation of information exchange in the labour market. In neither file has there yet been a finding of infringement.

In our assessment, given that the Guidelines characterise wage-fixing and no-poaching agreements as cartels, state that such agreements cannot as a rule benefit from exemption, and provide that a third party brokering the agreement may be regarded as a party to the infringement, the exchange of competitively sensitive information on wages and recruitment, and understandings not to poach employees, at sector association and organised industrial zone meetings carry competition law risk. The inclusion of labour market infringements in the calculation of the fine in the tyre decision of June 2026 supports this assessment.

In the pharmaceutical sector inquiry, the preliminary report has progressed to a stakeholder workshop, at which the relationship between patents and competition, exclusivity in distribution and the discount mechanisms in public procurement were addressed. In our assessment, the emergence of these issues in the same period as the TEVA investigation opened in August 2026 and the Avixa decision of July 2026 suggests that the final report may serve as a reference in subsequent examinations.

Three separate assessments follow. Information sharing with competitors, whether directly or through an association, on wages, pay-rise rates, fringe benefits and recruitment would benefit from review against the information exchange criteria in the Guidelines; the five conditions offer a yardstick only for information exchanges of a particular kind. As regards existing labour market restrictions, attaching a restriction to a written principal agreement is not sufficient by itself, and its relatedness to the principal agreement, its necessity and its proportionality require separate assessment. Participation in public tenders, in turn, should be structured so as to exclude any possibility of coordination with competitors.

Legislation and Decisions CitedAtıf Yapılan Mevzuat ve Kararlar

Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition, Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 26, 41, 46, 47, 48 · Guidelines on Competition Infringements in Labour Markets (the Board's decision No. 24-49/1087-RM(4) dated 21 November 2024), in particular paragraphs 28–31 · Communiqué on Oral Hearings Held before the Competition Board · Communiqué No. 2010/4 · the Board's decision No. 26-29/831-M dated 13 August 2026 · the Board's decisions No. 26-30/868-362, 26-30/871-364, 26-30/869-363 and 26-30/884-374 dated 20 August 2026 · Presidential Decision No. 2026/296 (Official Gazette No. 33361 of 5 September 2026)

This article has been prepared for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The board decisions, guides and announcements referred to are based on sources published on the relevant authorities' websites as at the date of publication; findings recorded in decision summaries are those of the Boards and do not reflect the views of Devin Law & IP. This article does not create an attorney-client relationship and contains no undertaking as to its updating. 28 September 2026.

Full briefing noteDownload the bilingual PDF version of this briefing note, with tables and decision summaries.
Download PDF
Uğurcan TekinPartnerİnci ÖzçilsalAttorney at LawBeyza ErdemirAttorney at Law
Related practice areaCorporate Law & Commercial Advisory→

Related reading

CompetitionTurkish Competition Board Decisions — June–August 2026: Conditional Clearances, the Commitment Procedure and New Investigations5 September 2026RegulatoryTürkiye’s First Climate Law Adopted by the Grand National Assembly14 June 2026CorporateExpulsion of a Shareholder in Two-Shareholder Limited Companies After the Constitutional Court's Judgment of 17 March 202626 March 2026