144 / 516
mum limit.
Nevertheless, as explained in detail above, the regulations may
not introduce different provisions than laws. Therefore, the
Regulation on Fines violates the Competition Act.
• Mitigating and aggravating circumstances enable the Board to
adequately and appropriately determine the administrative
monetary fine to be imposed. However, other than active coop-
eration, the Regulation on Fines does not introduce any other
mitigating and aggravating circumstances. These issues should
have been specifically regulated.
Conclusion
Preparation of the Regulation on Fines is an important step in
Turkey’s adoption to the EU accession process. Nevertheless, as
explained hereinabove, the Regulation on Fines includes number of
non-compliances with the EU acquis from both formal and material
aspects:
• The Regulation of Fines includes the term
“cartel”
, although it is
not included under the 2006 Guideline or in the Competition Act;
• While the EU acquis foresees that the base fine shall be calcu-
lated based on the undertaking’s turnover in the relevant busi-
ness where the infringement of competition occurs. However,
the Regulation on Fines foresees that the base fine shall be cal-
culated based on the whole turnover of the undertaking;
• For the calculation of the base fine, the EU acquis takes the
turnover of the enterprise for the last year in which it engaged
in the competition infringement into consideration, whereas the
Regulation on Fines foresees that the turnover of the undertak-
ing of the fiscal year preceding the year when the decision is
given shall be taken into consideration;
• While the EU acquis does not impose any other limitation other
than a maximum limit of 10%, the Regulation on Fines intro-
duces a minimum and maximum limit of 2% and 4% in addi-
tion to the 10% maximum limit foreseen under the Competition
Act;
130
NEWSLETTER 2012