The integrity of on-site inspections remains a cornerstone of effective competition law enforcement. The Turkish Competition Authority (TCA)’s decision to impose a record-breaking fine on BIM Birlesik Magazalar A.S. (BIM), one of Turkiye’s largest retail chains, has drawn considerable attention from international businesses and the legal community.
In February 2025, the TCA imposed an administrative fine of TRY 1.3 billion (approximately EUR 33.4 million) on BIM for actions considered to have obstructed an on-site inspection – a procedural violation that the TCA continues to take extremely seriously. The scale of the fine reflects the TCA’s consistently strict approach to ensuring cooperation during inspections, particularly in relation to the preservation and integrity of digital evidence. The case serves as a strong reminder to all undertakings operating in Turkiye: any behavior perceived as interference with an ongoing inspection may result in serious consequences.
Background of the Investigation: The fine followed an unannounced on-site inspection carried out at BIM’s headquarters on January 14, 2025. On-site inspections are a critical tool employed by the TCA under Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (Competition Law) to determine whether undertakings have engaged in anti-competitive conduct. The Competition Law grants TCA officials the authority to examine company records, data, and communication systems, and allows for the imposition of significant administrative fines if this process is obstructed or hindered in any way. During the course of the inspection, it was reported that a company executive deleted certain electronic messages from a device after the inspection had already commenced. This deletion was assessed by the TCA as an act of obstruction, ultimately forming the basis for the financial penalty, which amounted to 0.5% of BIM’s annual turnover.
The Company’s Position and Public Explanation: Following the decision, BIM publicly stated that the penalty was unjust and disproportionate. According to the company’s explanation, the messages in question were personal and unrelated to the investigation. BIM also noted that the individual associated with the deletion was officially on leave and not physically present at the workplace at the time of the inspection. Despite these assertions, the TCA concluded that the deletion of content from a professional device after the start of an inspection constitutes a procedural infringement.
Legal and Procedural Considerations: Under Turkish competition law, the TCA’s power to carry out on-site inspections is underpinned by strict procedural rules designed to ensure the effective functioning of investigations. One key aspect is the prohibition against altering or deleting any data – whether seemingly relevant or not – once an inspection has begun. This obligation applies to all company personnel, irrespective of rank or job title. The TCA has frequently reiterated that even minor deletions, such as removing WhatsApp messages or emails, may amount to obstruction. Inspections are increasingly supported by advanced digital forensic tools, allowing officials to detect attempted deletions or other forms of data manipulation in real-time. These capabilities played a central role in the BIM case, enabling the authority to uncover and document the incident that led to the administrative fine.
Broader Implications for the Business Community
The TCA’s decision reinforces its unwavering approach to inspection-related compliance. The magnitude of the fine – TRY 1.3 billion – demonstrates that even isolated incidents may lead to serious financial repercussions, particularly for companies with significant market presence. Beyond monetary sanctions, procedural non-compliance can carry reputational risks, potentially impacting a company’s credibility with regulatory authorities, business partners, and the broader public. The case highlights the growing importance of managing internal communications appropriately, including clarifying policies around the use of personal messaging applications for work-related matters.
Looking Ahead
This case is expected to influence corporate compliance behavior across sectors. As the TCA continues to enhance its investigative capabilities through digital forensics, companies should ensure that internal compliance systems are not only well-designed but also actively implemented. Recommended steps include providing regular training for employees on their obligations during inspections, limiting the use of personal devices for professional communications, and ensuring immediate legal counsel involvement at the outset of any inspection. While judicial review of the TCA’s decision remains a possibility, the case further affirms the TCA’s established and stringent stance on procedural enforcement. Companies are advised to view this not as an isolated incident but as part of a broader and consistent regulatory approach that places a premium on transparency and full cooperation during inspections.
By Bahadir Balki, Managing Partner, and Hanna Stakheyeva, Knowledge Counsel, Actecon
This article was originally published in Issue 12.5 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.
