This case summary aims to provide information on the Turkish Competition Board's decision regarding Oriflame Kozmetik Ürünleri Tic. Ltd. Şti., shedding light on the Board's approach to the principle of attorney-client privilege ...
This case summary aims to provide information on the Turkish
Competition Board's
("Board") decision1
regarding Oriflame Kozmetik Ürünleri Tic. Ltd. Şti.
("Oriflame"), shedding light on
the Board's approach to the principle of attorney-client
privilege concerning documents obtained by the Turkish Competition
Authority ("Authority") during
on-site inspections. In its decision, the Board evaluates
Oriflame's request that a portion of the documents seized
during the Authority's on-site inspection within the scope of a
preliminary investigation be considered under the attorney-client
privilege, given that the relevant correspondence pertains to the
interaction between the undertaking (i.e., Oriflame) and its
independent attorney.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.
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.