Turkish Constitutional Court Confirms Authority’s On-Site Inspection Competence

According to the decision of the Turkish Constitutional Court (“Court”) published on 17 February 2026, the legal provision governing on-site inspections under Turkish competition law has been found to be compatible with the Turkish Constitution. The Court confirmed that empowering the Authority to conduct on-site inspections at undertakings and associations of undertakings “when deemed necessary” falls within the Authority’s statutory mandate and does not, in itself, constitute a violation of constitutional rights.

This decision is particularly noteworthy in light of the Court’s earlier ruling in the Ford Otomotiv Sanayi A.Ş. case (2023), where the Court had found that the on-site inspection conducted by the Authority violated the right to the inviolability of domicile protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Following that judgment, concerns arose regarding the scope and legal basis of the Authority’s inspection powers. However, as the Ford decision stemmed from an individual application, it was not treated as having a general normative effect, and in practice the Authority and administrative courts largely continued to operate on the assumption that the Authority’s on-site inspection powers remained valid.

With the present decision, the Court appears to have clarified its approach and confirmed that the statutory framework governing the Authority’s on-site inspection powers is constitutional. While several dissenting judges raised concerns regarding the potential impact of such inspections on fundamental rights, including property rights and the inviolability of domicile, the majority ultimately upheld the constitutionality of the relevant provision emphasizing the importance of procedural safeguards.

The Reasoned Decision on Spotify Dawn Raid Obstruction is Published

The Authority has published its reasoned decision regarding the dawn raid conducted at Spotify, concluding that the company obstructed the on-site inspection. The Turkish Competition Board (“TCB”) found that Spotify failed to provide timely access to the digital data of certain employees identified by the case team as being responsible for managing activities relating to the Turkish market. In particular, the undertaking declined to grant access to the e-mail accounts and digital records of several foreign-based employees despite repeated requests from the inspection team, and instead proposed limited access to a different employee after a significant delay. The TCB considered this conduct to constitute an impediment to the Authority’s ability to collect evidence during the inspection.

The decision is also notable for clarifying that the Authority’s inspection powers are not limited to undertakings with a physical presence in Türkiye. The TCB emphasized that, where employees located abroad are involved in commercial activities affecting the Turkish market, their digital communications may fall within the scope of an on-site inspection request. Relying on the effects doctrine and the concept of a single economic unit, the TCB stated that the absence of local offices or infrastructure does not restrict its investigative powers, particularly in digital markets where operational activities are frequently managed through regional or global structures.

Probe into Private Schools: Pricing Practices Under Scrutiny

The TCB has launched an investigation into 19 private schools operating in Türkiye following a preliminary inquiry into pricing practices in the private education sector. The investigation was initiated after numerous complaints concerning significant increases in tuition fees and the pricing of ancillary services such as meals, books, stationery and school uniforms.

The Authority will assess whether the schools coordinated their pricing or engaged in practices that restricted competition, including tying certain ancillary services to educational services or directing parents to procure these services from specific suppliers. The TCB has recently concluded its investigations against private schools and fined them for being party to no-poach agreements limiting the mobility of teachers as well as fixing their wages. This new investigation focuses rather output markets and reflects the Authority’s growing attention to competition concerns in the education sector, particularly where pricing practices and bundled services may affect parents and students.

No-Poach Allegations in Finance and Tech: Investigation into 26 Companies

The TCB has launched an investigation into 26 companies operating in the banking, insurance, and information technology sectors following allegations of anti-competitive practices in labour markets. The TCB has conducted many investigations in different sectors in relation to labour markets recently, and this time it focuses on banking and insurance sector.

According to the Authority, the undertakings are suspected of entering into no-poach agreements and/or exchanging competitively sensitive information regarding employee wages. The investigation will assess whether these practices restricted competition in the labour market, particularly by limiting employee mobility or influencing hiring practices among competing employers. The case highlights the Authority’s increasing scrutiny of competition concerns in labour markets, a topic that has recently gained prominence in global antitrust enforcement.

Investigation Launched into Google’s Agreements with Device Manufacturers

The TCB has launched an investigation against Google concerning that certain contractual arrangements with device manufacturers and policies under the Android Developer Verification Program may restrict competition in the mobile operating system and browser markets.

While the 2018 Google Android decision had already imposed fines and obligations on Google for tying practices, in light of the information obtained within the scope of the Mobile Ecosystems Sector Inquiry (MESI), concerns have arisen that the current contractual structure established following the Google Android decision may give rise to a potential infringement of competition rules. The current investigation focuses on whether recent agreements, including placement of Google Search and pre-installation of Google Chrome, create undue advantages or financial incentives that influence manufacturer behaviour. The Authority is also examining policy updates under the Android Developer Verification Program that may affect market competition.