A Critical Decision from the Turkish Constitutional Court on the Turkish Competition Authority's Power of Dawn Raid

The decision of the Turkish Constitutional Court (“TCC”) published in the Official Gazette dated 17 February 2026 and numbered 33171 has brought the debate on the authority of the Turkish Competition Board (“the Board”) to conduct dawn raids, one of the most significant topics of discussion in Turkish competition law practice in recent years, back to the forefront.

          The TCC, in its decision dated November 6, 2025 and numbered 2023/174 E., 2025/224 K., rejected the objections brought forward through the concrete norm control mechanism by the 13th Chamber of the Council of State and the Ankara 11th Administrative Court. The Court ruled that the provision regarding dawn raids under Article 15 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”), which grants the Competition Board (“Board”) a broad scope of action, is not unconstitutional. As it will be recalled, in its Ford Otosan decision, the TCC had evaluated the premises and offices of undertakings within the scope of the "domicile" concept and ruled that dawn raids carried out in these locations without a judicial warrant violated the immunity of the domicile. Following this decision, the Turkish Competition Authotrity personnel continued to carry out dawn raids without judicial warrants, leading to significant debate over the legal fate of these dawn raids and the investigations conducted based on evidence obtained during them, in light of the TCC's ongoing review via concrete norm control.

            Firstly in  the TCC's latest decision,  the application for the annulment of the third paragraph of Article 15, which states, ‘Where an dawn raid is prevented or there is a possibility of prevention, an on-site inspection shall be conducted by order of the Criminal judgeships of peace’ was rejected on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, as it could not be applied in the cases pending before the courts that had lodged the appeal. In this context, the TCC ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, stating that the cases under consideration concerned the annulment of administrative fines imposed for attempts to obstruct on-site inspections pursuant to Article 16(1)(d) of the Law No. 4054 and that there was no Criminal judgeships of peace decision taken due to the possibility of obstruction of the dawn raid. In our opinion, this approach is open to debate. As stated in the dissenting opinions, excluding the sentence requiring a decision from the Criminal judgeships of peace could imply a narrow interpretation of the ‘rule to be applied in the case.’

            Secondly, the TCC ruled that the phrase ‘when deemed necessary’ in the first paragraph of Article 15 of Law No. 4054, which states ‘The Board may conduct investigations in enterprises and enterprise associations when deemed necessary in the performance of the duties assigned to it by this Law.’is not contrary to Articles 2 and 167 of the Turkish Constitution. Upon examination of the TCC's assessments on this matter, it is observed that no assessment was made in terms of Article 13 of the Turkish Constitution, titled ‘Limitations on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms,’ and Article 21, titled ‘Immunity of Domicile,’ no reference was made to the Ford Otosan decision, and no justification was provided for deviating from the approach established in the Ford Otosan decision. In this context, the dissenting opinions state that both the first and third paragraphs of the Law No. 4054 are contrary to Articles 13 and 21 of the Constitution. In this regard, the new decision is open to debate in terms of the TCC taking an approach contrary to its previous Ford Otosan decision, the failure to make an assessment regarding the violation of Articles 13 and 21 of the Turkish Constitution, and the fact that the TCC members who voted in the Ford Otosan decision that the relevant regulation was unconstitutional have reversed their views in the new decision.

            Consequently, the TCC ruled that Article 15 of the Law No. 4054, which regulates the Board's power to conduct dawn raids, is constitutional. The decision we examined stands out in that it deviates from the approach set out by the TCC in the Ford Otosan decision and that this deviation is not justified. It is anticipated that the Board will continue to conduct dawn raids without a court order in accordance with the current regulation in the coming period.

[1] Ford Otomotiv Sanayi A.Ş. [GK], B. No: 2019/40991, 23/3/2023), https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2019/40991 

AUTHORS

Nuri Melih İnce

Osman Tuna Kısaoğlu