Significant Decision From The Constitutional Court In Terms Of Competition Law

In its decision dated 6 November 2025 and numbered E.2023/174, K.2025/224, published in the Official Gazette on 17 February 2026, the Constitutional Court ("CC") ruled by majority vote that the on-site inspection authority set out under Article 15 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition ("Law No. 4054") is not unconstitutional. The decision is particularly significant in terms of the legal boundaries of the on-site inspections conducted at company premises by the Competition Board and the experts of the Competition Authority, which acts as its executive body.

I. What Does the Authority to Conduct On-Site Inspections Mean?

Article 15 of Law No. 4054 grants Competition Authority experts a broad power of inspection during investigation and preliminary inquiry processes. Since competition law infringements can often be uncovered through written and digital evidence, this authority constitutes one of the most critical enforcement tools in practice. The relevant provision reads as follows:

The Board may, where it deems necessary in fulfilling the duties assigned to it by this Law, conduct inspections at undertakings and associations of undertakings. For this purpose, it may:

1. examine all kinds of data and documents kept in physical and electronic environments and information systems of undertakings or associations of undertakings, and take copies and physical samples thereof;
2. request written or oral explanations on specific matters,
3. conduct on-site examinations regarding all types of assets of undertakings.

The inspection shall be carried out by experts working under the authority of the Board. When conducting the inspection, the experts must carry an authorization document indicating the subject and purpose of the inspection and stating that an administrative fine may be imposed in case false information is provided.

The relevant parties are obliged to provide copies of the requested information, documents, books, and other instruments. If the on-site inspection is obstructed or there is a likelihood of obstruction, the inspection shall be conducted upon the decision of a criminal peace judge.

• Examination of Physical and Written Documents

Experts may examine companies':

• Books and records,
• Accounting records,
• Contracts,
• Bid/tender files,
• Internal correspondence

They may also take copies or physical samples of these documents. The purpose is to obtain evidence regarding violations such as cartels, price fixing, market allocation, or abuse of dominant position.

• Access to Digital Data

Today, the most critical area is digital inspections. The authority is not limited to printed documents; company computers, servers, external drives, and even corporate email accounts may fall within the scope of the inspection.

Experts may:

• Scan computer contents,
• Conduct searches using specific keywords,
• Review email correspondence,
• Take images (copies) of data they deem necessary.

This point constitutes the area where the most intense debates arise in terms of the right to privacy and freedom of communication. In particular, personal content found in employees' corporate email accounts creates sensitivity in practice.

II. Assessment of the Constitutional Court

The applications for concrete norm review were brought by the 13th Chamber of the Council of State and the 11th Administrative Court of Ankara. The review was limited to the first and third paragraphs of Article 15 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition.

The Court evaluated the two provisions separately. Regarding the third paragraph, it ruled on procedural grounds, while it conducted a merits review for the first paragraph. The Court concluded that the third paragraph did not have direct applicability to the disputes at hand; therefore, the objection was dismissed on procedural grounds due to the lack of jurisdiction of the referring courts.

• Merits Review Regarding the First Paragraph

The merits review was limited to the constitutionality of the phrase "in cases deemed necessary" included in Article 15/1 of Law No. 4054.

The Court primarily conducted its assessment within the framework of:

• Article 2 of the Constitution, which regulates the principle of the rule of law,
• Article 167 of the Constitution, which imposes a positive obligation on the State to protect competition and ensure the healthy and orderly functioning of markets
• Constitutional Purpose and Public Interest

The Constitutional Court emphasized that the protection of competition is a constitutional obligation. It stated that ensuring a free and effectively functioning market order serves the public interest. The authority to conduct on-site inspections was evaluated as a supervisory tool that serves the realization of this constitutional objective.

• Principle of Legal Certainty and Predictability

As a requirement of the rule of law principle, legal regulations must be clear and predictable. The Constitutional Court stated that the contested rule does not grant the Competition Authority an unlimited margin of discretion; rather, the authority to conduct on-site inspections is connected to the duties assigned to the Authority under the Law and is tied to the purpose of detecting competition law violations.

In this context, the Court concluded that the phrase "in cases deemed necessary" does not create an abstract or arbitrary intervention power.

• Procedural Safeguards and Limits of Authority

The Constitutional Court also emphasized that on-site inspections are conducted:

• By experts authorized on behalf of the Authority,
• Upon presentation of an authorization document,

Within the legal framework.

It further stated that the use of physical force is only possible with a decision issued by a criminal peace judge. In this respect, it was noted that the Authority does not have the power to use coercive force on its own initiative.

• Discretionary Power and the Nature of Competition Violations

The Constitutional Court noted that competition law violations often emerge through hidden and unpredictable behaviors; therefore, it is not possible for the legislator to regulate every possible scenario in detail. It was accepted that determining whether an on-site inspection is necessary should be evaluated according to the specific circumstances of each case, as a natural consequence of the discretionary power granted to the legislator.

For these reasons, the Constitutional Court decided that the phrase "in cases deemed necessary" in Article 15/1 of Law No. 4054:

• Does not contain uncertainty contrary to the rule of law principle;
• Is not contrary to Articles 2 and 167 of the Constitution

Accordingly, the objection was rejected.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.