Previous Page  176 / 469 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 176 / 469 Next Page
Page Background

NEWSLETTER 2011

162

anti-competitive agreement contrary to Article 4 of the Competition Act,

which dismantles the free market professedly.

Exemption Evaluation

The Board determined that the “gentleman’s agreement” concluded

among banks cannot benefit from individual exemption since none of the

conditions laid down under Article 5 of the Competition Act is fulfilled.

As a matter of fact, the “gentleman’s agreement” only procures financial

benefits to banks, which mitigates several costs such as transaction costs

arising during the tender process.

Additionally, the Board also stated that this agreement does not

procure any advantages to the consumers and that the competition

restriction resulting from this agreement is not proportional. Indeed, the

banks compensate or minimize their damages through high penal clauses

set forth in their protocols.

Prescription Period Evaluation

The Board determined that both Pamukbank and Halkbank took part

to the act subject to investigation between 2001 – 2002 but could not

find any document presenting that they continued to be part of this act

between 2002 – 2005. For that reason, the Board analyzed the prescription

period and decided, in line with the

“lex mitior”

rule which foresees

that in penal law, provisions in favor of the suspected shall be applied,

that the prescription period of 5 years set forth in the Competition Act

shall be taken into account in lieu of the prescription period of 8 years

stated in the Misdemeanor Law No. 5237. Thus, the Competition Board,

by considering that the prescription period has ended, concluded that

Pamukbank and Halkbank may not be subject to an administrative fine.

Administrative Fine

Pursuant to Article 16 of the Competition Act, parties which infringe

competition rules shall be imposed a fine of one per thousand of their

annual gross revenues acquired by the end of the financial year preceding

Board’s decision. As for Article 5/1 (b) of the Regulation on Fines to

Apply in Cases of Agreements, Concerted Practice and Decisions Limited