e-book2013

151 / 473

NEWSLETTER 2013 138
the market. For instance, the Board, in its decision dated 16.06.2009 and
numbered 09-28/600-141, considered the information exchange between
parties anticompetitive since there were a limited number of actors in the
market, the concentration level was high in the market and there were
entry barriers to the market17 .
However, it should be stated that there is no uniformity in Board
decisions regarding market structure:
• The decisions of the Board concerning market structure are
inconsistent. The Board, in its decision dated 28.12.2006 and
numbered 06-95/1202-365, decided that information exchange
between parties did not constitute a violation of competition by
reason of the nature of the aviation fuel market18. On the other
hand, the Board, in its decision dated 04.07.2007 and numbered
07-56/672-209, stated that “it may be concluded to be a violation
of competition if the coordination and communication between the
parties is proved without analyzing the structure of the market” 19 .
• The Board has also given contradictory decisions concerning
the same market (the same sector). For instance, the Board, in
its decision dated 09.09.2009 and numbered 09-41/998-255,
decided that the exchange of updated information between the
parties did not result in coordination, considering the easy entry
to the automotive market20 . On the other hand, the Board, in
another of its decisions related to the same sector, emphasized
that the exchange of prospective information between the parties
restricted competition, without taking into account the nature of
the market21.
17 For information about the decision, see footnote 7.
18 To reach the decision, see the following link:
H7deC+LxBI8=&nm=90 (accessed on: 21.03.2013).
19 For information about the decision, see footnote 15.
20 To reach the decision, see the following link:
H7deC+LxBI8=&nm=90 (accessed on: 21.03.2013).
21 To reach the decision, see PISMAF, p. 83, fn. 246.