177 / 469
COMPETITION LAW
163
Competition, and Abuse of Dominant Position (the “Regulation”), an
administrative fine between five thousand and three percent of the annual
gross revenues will be imposed on the parties which infringe competition
rules and commit “other violations”.
The Board, in the light of the above-stated legislations and by
considering that services related to wage payments constitute a minor part
of banks’ activities, thus a minor part within banks’ revenues, decided
to take as basis, the gross revenues of the banks gained from personal
banking and calculated the fines on those revenues in lieu of considering
banks’ 2011 gross revenues. Furthermore, the Board determined the
method for calculating basic amount of the fines on the basis of the rates
set forth in the Regulation and also took into account the upwards and
downwards adjustment to reflect the aggravating and mitigating factors
stated in the Regulation. Thus, the Board imposed the administrative fines
by calculating in different rates and amounts for each banks.
Dissenting opinions
The arguments alleged in the dissenting opinions may be regrouped
as follows:
Existence of Competition Infringement.
It is stated that there are not
any infringement of competition since banks’ costs are in reality higher
than the stated in the decision (for instance ATM installation or card
printing costs), also the consumers benefit from banks’ financial services
practice, competition still exists in the relevant product market, banks’
practice results from the need of the banking sector and other similar
situations.
Non-Exemption.
It is stated that the banks’ acts are within the scope
of individual exemptions, thus, there is no need to impose a fine for them.
Calculation of Administrative Fine.
It is stated that the Board should
have taken into consideration banks’ 2010 gross revenues and not the
gross revenues of the banks only gained from personal banking.
Application of the Regulation.
It is stated that the Board should not
have applied the Regulation because the Regulation is contrary to law
since it states the minimum and maximum limit of administrative fines.