178 / 469
NEWSLETTER 2011
164
Conclusion
The decision of the Board is an important decision concerning the
banking sector. As a matter of fact, even though the banking sector is
a particular sector, it is a sector submitted to competition rules. Within
this framework, the Board examined the “gentleman’s agreement”
concluded between banks and determined that it constitutes a violation
of competition. Despite the dissenting opinions, we strongly think that
the “gentleman’s agreement” violates competition rules and lessens the
competition substantially. Indeed, the Competition Act states that there
should be limitation of competition in the relevant product market. As
the “gentleman’s agreement” may prevent a bank from proposing higher
promotion and win more tenders with its hard work than the others, the
competition between banks is limited.
Moreover, we do not think that the “gentleman’s agreement” may
benefit from individual exemption, neither. As a matter of fact, no
advantage was indicated by banks within the investigation in favor of
consumers and, in addition, the competition is restrained in the relevant
product market more than what it is compulsory since banks compensate
or minimize their damages through high penal clauses set forth in their
protocols.
Nevertheless, we disagree with Board’s decision concerning the
method in calculation of the administrative fines imposed on the banks.
Indeed, the Board rather than taking into consideration banks’ 2010 gross
revenues, only considers the gross revenues of the banks gained from
personal banking. The Board’s decision may be criticized since, on the
one hand, it is contrary to the objective of competition law and policies,
and on the other hand, it causes inequality and obvious disparity with
undertakings imposed by a fine on their gross revenues. There is also no
doubt that this situation represents an apparent unfairness on consumers.
Nevertheless, in lieu of violation of the law, it would be better to review
or possibly overhaul the Regulation.