133 / 391
COMP ET I T I ON LAW
119
between the years 2005 to 20008 and since the total duration of each
undertaking’s involvement in the cartel had not exceeded one year. The
basic fine was decreased by a ratio of 3/5 because of the external economic
shocks to the chicken market during the last five years.
VI. Dissenting opinion
One of the Board members, namely Reşit Gürpınar, declared his
dissenting opinion. He stated that (i) due to the hard times in the chicken
sector, the undertakings held meetings and communicated with each other
to conclude agreements; (ii) however, their efforts never evolved beyond
the planning stage and were not fulfilled; (iii) there is no decisive and
sufficient evidence to prove the establishment of cartels; (iv) moreover,
the essential element of a cartel, which is the sanction envisaged if the
members do not obey cartel agreements, do not exist in this case. Therefore,
the dissenting Board member is of the opinion that there was not a cartel
between the chicken producers, but that, nevertheless, the undertakings’
attempts to engage in anti-competitive practices are in violation of Article
4 of the Competition Act.