The term 'exclusionary conduct' refers to anti-competitive behavior that harms existing or potential competition; for example, by driving competitors out of the market or raising barriers to entry or expansion.
Bilateral or multilateral exclusionary conduct is regulated under Article 4(d) of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (the "Competition Law"). Article 4 prohibits agreements, concerted practices and decisions that hinder or restrict the activities of competitors, or exclude competitors through bilateral or joint actions such as boycotts or other collective conduct.
Unilateral exclusionary conduct is regulated under Article 6 of the Competition Law, which prohibits abuses of dominant position. Unilateral exclusionary conduct can amount to an abuse if the incumbent is dominant. Please see section "Abuse of Dominance" for exclusionary conducts of companies under Article 6 of the Competition Law.
Restrictive exclusionary horizontal agreements are per se illegal. The Competition Authority would not engage in a further analysis of existing or potential effects of an exclusionary horizontal agreement, to the extent that the agreement has the purpose of excluding a competitor or potential entrant.
For example, exclusionary effects may arise from collective boycotts. A boycott is the refusal by a group of competitors to enter into business with certain suppliers or customers, with the ultimate aim to prevent the latter from conducting business in a specific market or from entering a new market or, in case they are already competitors, to put them in a disadvantageous position. In terms of suppliers, the boycott is materialized by agreeing not to purchase from certain suppliers or make the purchase subject to burdensome conditions. In terms of customers, the boycott is materialized by agreeing not to supply certain customers or make the supply subject to burdensome conditions.
For example, in Fako and others (19.01.2007; 07-07/43-12) and in Cardiological Medical Consumables (16.03.2007; 07-24/236-76), the Board found the defendants guilty of having engaged in boycott practices and imposed monetary fines. In Fako, a number of pharmaceutical distributors acted in concert to boycott tenders relating to teaching hospitals, while in Cardiological Medical Consumable, sellers of medical consumables related to cardiology engaged in cartel activities which involved boycotts and sharing of public tenders. In addition, in Ankara Chamber of Jewellers and Watch Sellers decision (04.06.2013; 13-33/443-194), the Board indicated that even though it is assessed that the competitive effects of the boycott of the members of Ankara Chamber of Jewellers and Watch Sellers against PTT (i.e. their competitor) would be limited, the call for a boycott is a violation of the Article 4 of Law No. 4054 by object. Therefore, the Board decided to send an opinion to Ankara Chamber of Jewellers to avoid engaging in any anti-competitive conducts pursuant to the Article 9(3) of Law No. 4054.
When it comes to vertical agreements, the Authority would in most cases go into an effects analysis. In certain cases, vertical agreements may distort competition by foreclosing the market, especially in the case of a web of vertical exclusive dealing agreements.