237 / 521
set forth for the increase of fines are too broad. In other words,
an undertaking having violated competition for a much longer
time and an undertaking that violated the competition for a
much shorter time will be faced with fines increased to the same
extent.
Contrary to the Regulation on Fines, the Regulation Project on
Fines foresees a fine imposed based on the number of years the
violation of competition continues. I think that the system
brought by the Regulation Project on Fines is appropriate.
• The Regulation Project on Fines refers to provisions of the
Communiqué Concerning Mergers and Acquisitions Calling for
the Authorization of the Competition Board No. 2010/4
(“Communiqué No. 2010/4”) on the calculation of turnover.
However, the Regulation Project on Fines uses several terms
such as “annual gross revenue” and “net sale” for turnover.
Contrary to Communiqué No. 2010/4, the Guidelines on
Undertakings Concerned, Turnover and Ancillary Restraints in
Mergers and Acquisitions only uses the term “turnover”. Within
this scope, it would be appropriate to use the unique term
“turnover” in the Regulation Project on Fines in order to create
term uniformity between legislation.
On the basis of the above-stated, Article 16 of the Competition
Act (and the Draft Act) should also be amended accordingly
and the unique term “turnover” should be used.
Novelties Related to Aggravating Circumstances
In General
The Regulation on Fines does not limit the number of aggravating
circumstances.
However, this system was amended in the Regulation Project on
Fines and a limiting system was adopted. Within this scope, three
aggravating circumstances are enumerated: (1) to have the role of
leader in, or instigator of, the infringement, (2) to refuse to comply
with the Board’s commitments and (3) to repeat the infringement.
COMPETITION LAW
221