ABSTRACT

In the context of competition law, “de minimis” rule states that if the market effects of some competition-restricting agreements which can be examined under normal circumstances are too small (that is, de minimis) and too insignificant to be dealt with therein, then, they are better not taken into account in the application of the Competition Law rules. 

Thanks to the “de minimis” rule, if the undertakings which are or will be a party to the subject agreements, decisions, or actions do not exceed the pre-determined thresholds, they will not be subject to control of the competition authority authorized to conduct an investigation. In this context, according to the “de minimis” rule, the competition authority will not be kept busy for agreements whereby the competition is accepted not to have been significantly limited or restricted, thereby allowing the competition authority to direct its attention to the control of more serious violations 1. 

Evaluation of an agreement within the scope of “de minimis” does not automatically mean that it is in compliance with the law. In other words, “de minimis” does not per se eliminate illegality, and it merely indicates that the relevant agreement will not be subject to an investigation by the competition authorities. It is also one of the aims of the “de minimis” rules that the competition authority’s attention is directed to more serious violations in control of market competition. 

In this study, first of all, the historical process and application of the “de minimis” rule in Anglo-American and Continental European law, and its place and application in the Turkish legal system will be discussed. Later, the same rule will be discussed in terms of Competition Law and will be evaluated within the scope of the Communique on Agreements, Concerted Practices, and Decisions of Associations of Undertakings that Do Not Appreciably Restrict Competition (“Communiqué”), which was issued by the Competition Authority and published in the Official Gazette edition 31425 on 16 March 2021 with immediate effect.

I. INTRODUCTION

“De minimis” is an institution that is frequently used, especially in American law. This rule ensures that minor damages are not compensated or cannot be sued.

Nowadays, in the article titled “De Minimis Rule” in the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) prepared by the European Union Regulations and European Civil Code Working Group, it is clearly stated that “insignificant damages can be ignored”. 

The “de minimis” rule, also referred to as the tolerability doctrine, means that agreements entered into between very small businesses and undertakings that have little or no effect on competition are excluded from the prohibition2. 

The directives prepared in some areas in the European Union paved the way for the member states to include this institution in their domestic laws. The most well-known of them are regulations on competition law, regulations pertaining to damages caused by defective products, and regulations in the field of intellectual property rights. 

This rule has been incorporated into our national law system by addition of second paragraph to Article 41 titled “Finalization of Preliminary Investigation” of the Law on Protection of Competition no. 4054 (“Law no. 4054”) by Article 8 of the Law Amending the Law on Protection of Competition no. 7246 dated 16.06.2020 (“Law no. 7246”). And application of these rules is further clarified and described by two communiqués, namely the communiqué no. 2021/3, known as “De Minimis Communiqué”, and the communiqué no. 2021/2, known as “Communiqué on Commitments”, issued in reliance upon the aforesaid revision and promulgated in the Official Gazette on 16.03.2021 with immediate effect. 

Although the “De Minimis” Rule was already included in various decisions of the Competition Board before the aforementioned changes were made, since it can be said to be new in terms of competition law in our country, its implementation in practice will become more understandable with the decisions of the Board. 

The Communiqué regulating the procedures and principles regarding application of “De Minimis” rule contains very significant similarities in terms of general framework with the “De Minimis Statement” regarding agreements of minor importance among all and any undertakings that do not significantly restrict competition, pursuant to  Article 101/1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“ABIDA”) valid in the European Union3. In this respect, the Communiqué has added a new step to the efforts to harmonize the Turkish competition law with the European Union legal acquis. With the Communiqué, it is foreseen that public resources can be used more efficiently by the Competition Authority in terms of enforcement of competition law. 

Although it is not the subject of this study, it is worth noting that the “Reconciliation Regulation”, which is indirectly related to the “de minimis” rule and brings the institution of reconciliation to our law, has been published in the Official Gazette and put into force. Accordingly, the “Regulation on Conciliation Procedure Applicable in Investigations Regarding Restrictive Competition Agreements, Concerted Actions and Decisions, and Abuse of Dominant Position”, which was prepared under 9th paragraph of Article 43 of the Law No. 4054 and accepted by the Competition Board on 24.06.2021, has also been made effective upon promulgation in the Official Gazette edition 31542 on 15.07.2021. 

With the implementation of the conciliation institution, it is aimed to quickly and definitively put an end to competition violations and finalize the investigation process of competition violations, thereby reducing the public costs caused by them.

II. THE RULE OF "DE MINIMIS" IN ANGLO-AMERICAN AND CONTINENTAL EUROPEAN LAW

The expression “de minimis” was unknown in continental European law until the 15th century, and the first traces of this institution are found in the texts of Callistratus, Ulpinianus, and Paulus in Iustinianus's Digesta. This expression is first used in continental Europe in the book of sayings of Augustini Barbosae in 1644. In the book, the saying has been expressed as “de minimis non-curat Praetor” or “quod Praetor non-curat de minimis”. Its emergence in Anglo-American law has also occurred similarly. Although there are historical examples of application of the rule, it was first used in the 16th and 17th centuries. In the 18th century, this expression was considered a rule of law4. 

Currently, it seems that the relevant rule is included in the civil code of the American state of California in the form of “the law does not deal with trifles”. It is understood that the rule relates to the obligation of a person to bear the damages suffered by him, but from another point of view, it seems that some damages under this rule are defined as damages that a person must bear himself in the usual course of life5. However, this statement may vary from person to person or in each case or event. 

When we look at the continental European law, we see that the “de minimis” rule is not accepted institutionally, but there are some institutions that are functionally equivalent to it. In fact, it is also understood that this institution is clearly included within the scope of the unification of the law in European Union6. 

The history of application of the “de minimis” rule in the Competition Law of the European Union dates back to the 1970s. With the first “de minimis” announcement7 published in 1970, the “de minimis” principle was introduced, which ensures that agreements not affecting the competition to a serious extent are excluded from the audit filter. The “de minimis” announcement published in 1970 was revised many times in 1977, 1986, 1994, 1997 and 2001, and its current version is the European Union Announcement dated 25.06.20148. 

The “De Minimis” rule that is first applied in the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Völk v. Vervaecke9 with the basic principles laid down therein accepts that for any inter-undertakings agreement which is alleged to restrict competition to be classified as unlawful, it must noticeably affect trade and thus, competition between member states. It is stated in the judgment that according to Article 101 of the European Union Treaty and the ABIDA chapter titled “Common Rules on Competition, Taxation and Approximation of Laws” and regulating the competition rules applied to undertakings, the competition may be accepted to be restricted only if and to the extent the competition restriction is “noticeable”. After this decision, the European Commission has published a “De Minimis Statement” on agreements that do not affect competition to a noticeable extent. 

In order to determine objective criteria to be taken into consideration in the application of the “de minimis” rule established by judicial case law and to ensure legal certainty in terms of undertakings, there are Commission announcements first published in 1970 and updated in certain periods. 

The “De Minimis Announcement”, which was last updated in 2014 and is currently in force, determines which agreements may be excluded from the scope of Article 101 of ABIDA, taking into account the position of the parties to each other and their market shares in the relevant market. The Commission aims to provide a legal perspective to undertakings with these market share thresholds. Therefore, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the courts of first instance can take decisions by considering a number of different criteria, including, but not limited to, the “De Minimis Announcement”. 

In addition, it is not possible to evaluate any agreements between competitors containing explicit restrictions aimed at direct or indirect price determination, sales quantity or supply restriction, or sharing of markets or customers, within the scope of the “de minimis” rule. In particular, the “de minimis” rule, apart from making a significant contribution to increasing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized undertakings, also paves the way for competition authorities to work more effectively on more serious violations10.

III. THE RULE OF"DE MINIMIS" IN TURKISH LAW

The “de minimis” rule has been incorporated into the Turkish competition law by insertion of it into Law No. 4054 with the last amendment. A large majority of the doctrine have already argued before this regulation that the “de minimis” rule should be applied also in Turkish competition law exactly as applied in European competition law. Before, it was emphasized and underlined that albeit some discussions in the Board decisions regarding the “de minimis” rule, this rule cannot be taken into account because it is not included in the Law No. 4054, but nevertheless it is also observed that although it is not clearly stated so, some Board decisions contained assessments and arguments within the scope of the thought provided for by this rule11. 

There are various different opinions about whether the “de minimis” rule, which can also be termed and referred to as the “tolerability rule” in the doctrine, can also be applied in Turkish competition law or not. Although almost all of these opinions share the idea that the relevant rule should also be applied in Turkish competition law, they diverge at the point of whether the current provisions of the Law pertaining to competition-restricting agreements are conducive to this or not. Due to the structure of the European Union, the criterion of “influencing trade between member states” mentioned in Article 101 of ABIDA is not included in Article 4 of Law No. 4054. In reliance upon this fact, a group of authors state that there is no legal provision in Law No. 4054 allowing the implementation of the relevant rule and therefore, argue that the “de minimis” rule cannot be adopted in our law until such an amendment is clearly made. 

Emphasizing that the “de minimis” rule is a rule developed by case law, another group of authors who oppose this view argue that there are no obstacles to the application of the same rule in our law as well. According to this view, it is possible to understand the concept of “influencing trade” contained in ABIDA as “influencing competition” in terms of Law No. 4054 and to exclude agreements that do not significantly affect competition in practice from the scope of prohibition based on case law developed in the source European Union law. 

In practice, it is seen that the Competition Board also makes decisions that draw attention to the “de minimis” rule by approaching this opinion from time to time. However, the Board, which could not get rid of the hesitation caused by the lack of a legal basis for the rule, could not sustain this approach with stability. 

On the other hand, there is no legal provision within the scope of Law No. 4054 that would not be incompatible with this rule and would constitute an obstacle for the Board to apply this rule in terms of our law based on the case-law nature of competition law. 

With the paragraph added to Article 41 of Law No. 7246, the concept of “de minimis” regulated in the European Union Community Law has been introduced into Turkish Competition Law12. In the light of the said “de minimis” concept, the Competition Board may not operate the audit mechanism for decisions, actions and concerted actions and agreements of undertakings that do not significantly restrict or limit competition13. The legislator has assigned the Competition Board with the task of issuing the aforesaid communiqué in order to regulate the procedures and principles in connection therewith. Thereupon, the Competition Authority has submitted first the Draft De Minimis Communiqué and then the Draft Commitment Communiqué to the public for consultation purposes on October 27, 2020. 

Upon review of the Communiqué, it can be stated that the European Union Announcement issued by the European Union Commission on 25.06.2014, which is the source legislation of many provisions, has been directly referred, and thus, the purpose of compliance with European Union legislation has been achieved14. As per Article 4 of the European Union Announcement, “it will be accepted that the contracting companies do not restrict competition as a rule if their total market share is not more than 5% and their turnover does not exceed 40 million Euros.” Here, the market share and turnover criteria are cumulatively sought by the Commission in order to have “de minimis” effect. 

The “de minimis rule” has been introduced into our legal literature with the change in the law as mentioned above. And this amendment has been made enforceable by the communiqués published by the Competition Authority. Clear and grave violations such as price determination, territory or customer sharing, and restriction of the amount of supply have been stated to be outside the scope of the rule as an exception. However, the relevant matters are also within the scope of Article 4 of the Law no. 4054; hence, we can say that the “de mini mis” rule will not be applicable or enforceable in the case of violations regarding merger & acquisition transactions and actions of dominant undertaking, as mentioned in Article 6 of the Law15. 

In reliance upon the amendment made with the aforementioned Law No. 7246, the Communiqué was published by the Competition Authority in the Official Gazette edition 31425 on March 16, 2021 and put into force in the same day. The communiqué regulating the procedures and principles regarding application of “De Minimis” rule contains very significant similarities in terms of general framework with the “De Minimis Statement” regarding agreements of minor importance among all and any undertakings that do not significantly restrict competition, pursuant to Article 101/1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“ABIDA”) valid in the European Union. In this respect, the Communiqué has added a new step to the efforts to harmonize the Turkish competition law with the European Union legal acquis. With the Communiqué, it is foreseen that public resources can be used more efficiently by the Competition Authority in terms of enforcement of competition law16.

With the said Communiqué, it is aimed to determine which criteria will be taken into consideration in determination of agreements, concerted actions, and decisions and actions of the association of undertakings, which do not significantly restrict competition in the market, except for clear and grave violations, and also to determine the procedures and principles which can be used to determine in which situations they will be investigated and in which situations they will not be investigated17. 

Despite the complaints filed about agreements entered into by some undertakings and considered to be restrictive or competition or the applications for negative clearance/ exemption, included in the previous applications of the Competition Board are some decisions made by the Board that there is no need to open an investigation on the grounds that competition is not significantly restricted due to the small size of the market.

A. Competition Authority “De Minimis Communiqué” (Communiqué No: 2021/3)

The Communiqué contains provisions regarding the amendment made in order to direct the Competition Authority's resources primarily to significant and grave violations. In this sense, the Communiqué provides that agreements, concerted actions and decisions, and actions of the association of undertakings that are considered not to significantly restrict competition in the market may not be the subject of an investigation by the Competition Authority, and it is intended to direct the attention of the Competition Authority to heavier violations18. The procedures and principles set out in the Communiqué are presented below

1. Severe and Obvious Violations are Beyond the Scope:

Cases that are considered to be serious and obvious violations and therefore excluded from the scope of application of the Communiqué are expressed in Article 4 of the Communiqué. “Horizontal or vertical agreements, concerted actions and decisions of associations of undertakings that are intended to directly or indirectly block, disrupt or restrict competition in a market of goods or services or make this effect or have the potential to make this effect are considered and treated as serious and obvious violations.” 

Obvious and serious violations added to 2nd paragraph of Article 41 of the Law No.4054 with the amendment of the law cannot benefit from the “de minimis” exception, as they fall outside the scope of the Communiqué. At the same time, the Communiqué also classifies clear and serious violations as horizontal and vertical, according to the nature of relations between undertakings. Such events mentioned in 3rd paragraph of Article 43 of the Law No.4054 as the sharing of customers/ providers/territories/trade channels, restrictions or quotas put on supply quantity, price determination, price planned to be applied in the future, bid rigging, sharing of competition-sensitive information such as the amount of production or sales have been regarded as examples of horizontal clear and serious violations; while determination of fixed or minimum sales price of the buyer in the relations among undertakings operating at different levels of the production or distribution chain is regarded as examples of vertical clear and serious violations19.

2. Agreements and Decisions that Do Not Significantly Restrict Competition:

According to Article 5 of the Communiqué, “The market share thresholds will be taken into account by the Board when making a “de minimis” assessment. Accordingly; except for clear and serious cases, in agreements between rival undertakings, if total market share held by the contractual parties do not exceed 10% in any one of the relevant markets affected from the agreement, or in agreements between non-rival undertakings, the market share held by each of the contractual parties does not exceed 15% in any one of the relevant markets affected from the agreement, then and in this case, the relevant agreements do not significantly restrict competition in the market.” 

Besides, “where it is not possible to classify an agreement as an agreement entered into between rival undertakings or non-rival undertakings, if total market share hold by the contractual parties does not exceed 10% in any one of the relevant markets affected from the agreement, the “de minimis” rule will be enforceable.”

“Except for clear and serious violations, if the total market share owned by the members of an association of undertakings does not exceed 10% in any of the relevant markets affected from the decision, the relevant decisions will not significantly restrict competition in the market.” 

“If parallel networks formed by vertical restrictions of a similar nature cover more than 50% of the relevant market, the thresholds established in this article apply as five percent in terms of agreements and decisions between both rival and non-rival undertakings.” 

“If market shares of contractual parties or members of the association of undertakings in the relevant markets affected from the agreement or decision are above the thresholds stated in this article, but do not exceed these thresholds by more than two percentiles during two consecutive calendar years covered by the term of agreement or decision, then, said agreement or decision does not significantly restrict the competition in the market.” 

3. Agreements and Decisions That Do Not Significantly Restrict Competition Should Not be the Subject of An Investigation:

In accordance with Article 6 of the Communiqué, “Agreements and decisions that do not significantly restrict competition in the market may not be the subject of an investigation by the Board. If an investigation is opened due to such reasons as failure in determination of exact market shares of the parties to agreement or the members of an association of undertakings in the relevant markets affected from the agreement or the decision, the Board may terminate the investigation if it becomes clear during the investigation process that the market shares of the undertakings and the associations of undertakings being investigated have not exceeded the thresholds contained in Article 5.”

4. Calculation and Implementation of Market Share:

The “de minimis” application is integrated to the market share of undertakings and according to Article 7 of the Communiqué, “The market share is calculated on the basis of the sales value in the market or, where appropriate, the purchase value. If sales or purchase value data are not available, estimates based on other reliable market data, also including quantity, can be used to calculate the market shares of the parties to the agreement and members of the association of undertakings in the relevant markets affected from the agreement or decision. In applying the thresholds established in Article 5 of the Communiqué, market shares calculated using the data of the previous year are taken into account for each calendar year during the agreement or decision period.” 

“For the purposes of application of Article 5, in determination of market shares of the parties to the agreement and members of the association of undertakings, total of market shares of economic units mentioned in first paragraph of Article 8 of the Communiqué on Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring a Prior Permission of Competition Board, promulgated in the Official Gazette edition 27722 on 7/10/2010 (Communiqué no. 2010/4) is taken as a base.” 

All in all, in accordance with the explanations given above, agreements that do not exceed the market share thresholds listed in the article can benefit from the application of the “de minimis” rule. On the other hand, agreements with clear and gross violations will not benefit from the application of the “de minimis” rule even if they do not exceed the market share thresholds.

IV. CONCLUSION

As a result, the “de minimis” rule is a more comprehensive rule of law, although it is highly connected with competition law. As per this legislative instrument which aims to use the resources of the Competition Authority more efficiently, no investigation will be conducted on small-scale agreements that fall below the limit set down by the criteria determined by the Competition Board, and are not covered by exceptions to the provision, and are not significant in other words. The Communiqué issued by the Competition Board has clarified both the criteria as to application of said rules, and the right and power of discretion as to whether an investigation will be made or not20. 

Considering the decisions taken by the Competition Board so far, the defences that clearly have “de minimis” arguments have been mostly rejected by the Competition Board on the grounds that they are not yet regulated by the Law 4054. However, there are also decisions of the Competition Board that do not explicitly refer to the “de minimis” rule, but deal with assessments and evaluations in that form and consider the violation insignificant by considering the size of markets and undertakings involved in the related events and decide not to open an investigation for said reasons21. Now, the discussions focused thereon have also ended by said legislative instrument. 

The Communiqué establishing the procedures and principles of the “de minimis” institution, which is introduced into our competition law practice with the amendment of Law No. 4054, aims to ensure that the Competition Board spends its time on more serious violations. 

It is considered that only horizontal agreements that are characterized as cartels, exchange of information sensitive to competition, and determination of resale price of the seller cannot benefit from the De Minimis Communiqué. 

Finally, even if a certain case is within the scope of the “de minimis” rule, it can by no means deduced that an investigation may in no event be conducted thereunder. This is also important in terms of protection of competition22. In some cases, small volume of the relevant market does not absolutely mean that the effects of violation on the enterprises and individuals involved in the relevant market will also be automatically small in proportion to the volume of market. On the contrary, inversely proportional to small volume of the relevant market, the impacts of violation on the enterprises and individuals involved in the relevant market can be quite large.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CANSIN AKCAN, “Rekabeti Kısıtlayıcı Anlaşmalardan Doğan Tazminat Sorumluluğu”, Ankara Üniv.Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara, 2020. 

İSMAIL YILMAZ ASLAN, “Rekabet Hukuku Teori ve Uygulama”, 8.Baskı, Bursa, 2021. European Commission, “Commission adopts revised safe harbor rules for minör agreements (“De Minimis Notice”)” Brussels 2014. 

KEMAL EROL, “Rekabet Kurallarının Ülke Dışı Uygulanması”, Rekabet Kurumu Yayını, Ankara, 2000. 

SELIN ÖZDEN MERHACI, VEHBI UMUT ERKAN, “Anglo-Amerikan Hukukundan Kıta Avrupası Hukukuna– Özel Hukukta De Minimis Kuralı”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi –İnÜHFD- C.9/2, Malatya, 2018. 

ÜNAL TEKINALP, GÜLÖREN TEKINALP, “Avrupa Birliği Hukuku”, Beta Yayınevi, Güncelleştirilmiş 2. Baskı, İstanbul, 2000. 

HAKAN ÖZGÖKÇEN, “De Minimis Tebliği Yürürlüğe Girdi”, (Date of Access: 12.12.2021) https://www.esin.av.tr/ tr/2021/03/18/de-minimis-tebligi-yururluge-girdi/. 

AV. DR. OĞUZKAN GÜZEL, AV. BURAK BAYRAM, “Türk Rekabet Hukukunda De Minimis Uygulaması Başlıyor”, (Date of Access:10.12.2021) https://guzel.av.tr/tr/in-turkishcompetition-law-de-minimis-application-begins/. 

OĞUZHAN TAÇKIN, “Kanunda Yeni Literatürde Eski Bir Rekabet Kuralı: De Minimis”, (Date of Access: 09.12.2021) https://www.hukukihaber.net/kanunda-yeni-literaturde-eskibir-rekabet-kurali-de-minimis-makale,8182.html. 

KEREM TOMUR, “Kobiler ve Rekabet Politikası De Minimis Kuralının Rekabet Hukukundaki Yeri, İşlevi Ve Uygulama Prensipleri”, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezi, Ankara, 2004. European Commission, “Commission adopts revised safe harbor rules for minör agreements (“De Minimis Notice”)”. (Date of Access: 15.12.2021) https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ IP_14_728. 

İREM TOPRAKKAYA BABALIK, “Türk Rekabet Hukuku’nda Yeni Dönem: De Minimis Tebliği ile Taahhüt Tebliği Yürülüğe Girdi” (Date of Access: 20.12.2021). https://blog.lexpera.com. tr/turk-rekabet-hukukunda-yeni-donem-de-minimis-tebligi-iletaahhut-tebligi-yururluge-girdi/. 

FOOTNOTE

1 Av. Dr. Oğuzkan Güzel, Av. Burak Bayram, “Türk Rekabet Hukukunda De Minimis Uygulaması Başlıyor”, (Date of Access:10.12.2021) https:// guzel.av.tr/tr/in-turkish-competition-law-de-minimis-application-begins/. 

2 Yılmaz Aslan, “Rekabet Hukuku Dersleri”, 8. Edition, Bursa 2021, pg. 141.

3 Hakan Özgökçen, “De Minimis Tebliği Yürürlüğe Girdi”, (Date of Access: 12.12.2021) https://www.esin. av.tr/tr/2021/03/18/de-minimis-tebligi-yururluge-girdi/. 

4 Selin Özden Merhacı, Vehbi Umut Erkan, “Anglo-Amerikan Hukukundan Kıta Avrupası Hukukuna–Özel Hukukta De Minimis Kuralı”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi –İnÜHFD- C.9/2, Malatya 2018, pg. 51. 

5 Selin Özden Merhacı, Vehbi Umut Erkan, “Anglo-Amerikan Hukukundan Kıta Avrupası Hukukuna–Özel Hukukta De Minimis Kuralı”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi –İnÜHFD- C.9/2, Malatya 2018, pg. 52. 

6 Selin Özden Merhacı, Vehbi Umut Erkan, “Anglo-Amerikan Hukukundan Kıta Avrupası Hukukuna–Özel Hukukta De Minimis Kuralı”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi –İnÜHFD- C.9/2, Malatya 2018, pg. 57. 

7 Official Journal of the European Union, no. 291/1, dated 30.08.2014. 

8 Av. Dr. Oğuzkan Güzel, Av. Burak Bayram, “Türk Rekabet Hukukunda De Minimis Uygulaması Başlıyor”, (Date of Access:10.12.2021) https:// guzel.av.tr/tr/in-turkish-competition-law-de-minimis-application-begins/ 

9 Judgment of the Court of 9 July 1969. - Franz Völk v S.P.R.L. Ets J. Vervaecke. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Oberlandesgericht München - Germany. - Case 5-69.

10 Ünal Tekinalp, Gülören Tekinalp, “Avrupa Birliği Hukuku”, 2nd Updated Edition, Istanbul 2000, pg. 439-484. 

11 Oğuzhan Taçkın, “Kanunda Yeni Literatürde Eski Bir Rekabet Kuralı: De Minimis”, (Date of Access: 09.12.2021) https://www.hukukihaber.net/kanunda-yeni-literaturde-eski-bir-rekabet-kurali-de-minimis-makale,8182.html

12 Official Gazette edition 31165 dated 24.06.2020. 

13 European Commission, “Commission adopts revised safe harbor rules for minör agreements(“De Minimis Notice”)” Brussels 2014, pg.1. 

14 Av. Dr. Oğuzkan Güzel, Av. Burak Bayram, “Türk Rekabet Hukukunda De Minimis Uygulaması Başlıyor”, (Date of Access:10.12.2021) https://guzel.av.tr/tr/in-turkish-competition-law-de-minimis-application-begins/ 

15 Oğuzhan Taçkın, “Kanunda Yeni Literatürde Eski Bir Rekabet Kuralı: De Minimis”, (Date of Access: 09.12.2021) https://www. hukukihaber.net/kanunda-yeni-literaturde-eski-bir-rekabet-kurali-de-minimis-makale,8182.html 

16 Av. Dr. Oğuzkan Güzel, Av. Burak Bayram, “Türk Rekabet Hukukunda De Minimis Uygulaması Başlıyor”, (Date of Access:10.12.2021) https://guzel.av.tr/tr/in-turkish-competition-law-de-minimis-application-begins/. 

17 İrem Toprakkaya Babalık, “Türk Rekabet Hukuku’nda Yeni Dönem: De Minimis Tebliği ile Taahhüt Tebliği Yürülüğe Girdi” (Date of Access: 20.12.2021). https://blog.lexpera.com. tr/turk-rekabet-hukukunda-yeni-donem-de-minimis-tebligi-ile-taahhut-tebligi-yururluge-girdi/.

18 İrem Toprakkaya Babalık, “Türk Rekabet Hukuku’nda Yeni Dönem: De Minimis Tebliği ile Taahhüt Tebliği Yürülüğe Girdi” (Date of Access: 20.12.2021). https://blog.lexpera.com. tr/turk-rekabet-hukukunda-yeni-donem-de-minimis-tebligi-ile-taahhut-tebligi-yururluge-girdi/. 

19 İrem Toprakkaya Babalık, “Türk Rekabet Hukuku’nda Yeni Dönem: De Minimis Tebliği ile Taahhüt Tebliği Yürülüğe Girdi” (Date of Access: 20.12.2021). https://blog.lexpera.com. tr/turk-rekabet-hukukunda-yeni-donem-de-minimis-tebligi-ile-taahhut-tebligi-yururluge-girdi/.

20 Oğuzhan Taçkın, “Kanunda Yeni Literatürde Eski Bir Rekabet Kuralı: De Minimis”, (Date of access: 09.12.2021) https://www.hukukihaber.net/kanunda-yeni-literaturde-eski-bir-rekabet-kurali-de-minimis-makale,8182.html.

21 Oğuzhan Taçkın, “Kanunda Yeni Literatürde Eski Bir Rekabet Kuralı: De Minimis”, (Date of access: 09.12.2021) https://www.hukukihaber.net/kanunda-yeni-literaturde-eski-bir-rekabet-kurali-de-minimis-makale,8182.html. 

22 Oğuzhan Taçkın, “Kanunda Yeni Literatürde Eski Bir Rekabet Kuralı: De Minimis”, (Date of Access: 09.12.2021) https://www. hukukihaber.net/kanunda-yeni-literaturde-eski-bir-rekabet-kurali-de-minimis-makale,8182.htm