Expected Second Half of Competition Authority’s 12 Banks Decision
“Awaited always comes late; when it comes, people are somewhere else.”
Oğuz Atay (The Disconnected)
Introduction
The Competition Authority’s decision which the highest administrative fine imposed in its history is known as the “12 Banks Decision”[1]. In this decision, the Competition Authority (“Authority”) has reviewed the investigation of the competition violation claims in the deposit, credit and credit card markets, and imposed heavy administrative fines upon 12 banks, in which Turkey’s largest banks are included. The 12 Banks Decision has imposed a TL 1 billion administrative fine, in total, which comprises thousands of compensation cases. In this Decision, the Authority has assessed that the mentioned banks were in breach of competition in the deposit, credit and credit card services markets between the years 2007 and 2011. Detecting such a wide-ranging competition violation naturally induced the filing of thousands of customer cases.
In the history of Turkish competition law, the 12 Banks Decision is a first in many respects, especially the imposed fine is the record as being the greatest administrative fine imposed by the Authority in one file. In addition, a very interesting development has taken place after this Decision. Thousands of customers have filed compensation cases based on this decision against the banks that are mentioned in the Decision. With this Decision, the results of competition law in private law have started to arise in Turkey. However, the 12 Banks Decision has brought various problems with it in terms of these compensation cases.
Firstly, the issue of which bank, in which market, and from which date it is in violation, is not clearly stated in the said Decision. In other words, although a broad infringement covering more than one market has been detected, it is not clearly included in the Decision as to which bank, in which market has experienced what kind of infringement. This has brought serious questions within, especially in terms of the consumer cases. Moreover, the concept of “one single continuing reconciliation” is one of the most discussed issues. Despite the evidence in the mentioned Decision that refers to different dates and different markets, holding all banks responsible for violations in all three markets is one of the most important criticisms of the Decision.
The 13th Chamber of the Council of State had put its signature under a radical development regarding the 12 Banks Decision with its recently rendered decision[2] (“Council of State Decision”). The Council of State accepted the revision of Decision requests in the cases filed against the mentioned Decision. Thus, all known rules have been re-established in terms of compensation cases arising from the 12 Banks Decision and competition law.
12 Banks Decision of Council of State
Firstly, an annulment suit was filed before the Ankara 2nd Administrative Court against the 12 Banks Decision of the Authority, but the annulment request was rejected with the decision of the said court dated 30.10.2019 and numbered 2014/313 E. and 2015/128 K. Yet, the request of appeal made before the 13th Chamber of the Council of State was also rejected with the Decision of the said court dated 16.12.2015 and numbered 2015/3590 E., 2015/4614 K. Thereupon, the revision of Decision has been requested regarding the 12 Banks Decision.
Surprisingly, at the end of the trial and upon the revision of Decision request, the Council of State has accepted the revision request and annulled the Decision of the Ankara 2nd Administrative Court regarding the rejection of the annulment request of the 12 Banks Decision. Therefore, in a sense, the possibility of annulment of the most prominent and most important decision of the Authority has very strongly emerged. In a sense, the second half of a contentious football match has begun.
Essentially, the Council of State’s Decision determined that the Authority has erroneously applied the concept of ‘one single continuing breach’. The Council of State indicates that with respect to the concept of ‘one single continuing breach’, the enterprises that have formed several elements of a framework agreement could be held responsible for all of the breach. In order for this concept to be used, the Council of State determines a proof standard. Therefore, in order for an enterprise to be held liable for the actions of other enterprises that constitute breaches regarding different market and products, it must be proven that this enterprise is aware of, or is at least capable of being made aware of these breaches. Pursuant to this concept, in order for an enterprise to be held responsible for the breaches of other enterprises in other markets, some aspects should be proven. Therefore, the mentioned enterprise should know, or be capable of knowing, these behaviors that are claimed to have occurred within the framework of the mutual plan.
Therefore, the Council of State states that in terms of the 12 Banks Decision, it should be proven that the enterprises that have formed certain aspects of the framework agreement as per the mutual plan knows (or is capable of knowing) other aspects. The Council of State stated clearly that unless otherwise mentioned, an enterprise is liable only through its involvement in the breach of competition.
One of the most important determinations of the Council of State’s Decision concerns responsibility under private law. The Council of State underlines the importance of properly determining the borders of the mutual plan and the framework agreement, and states that it is critical for the determination of the enterprises’ liability. The Council of State indicates that a mistake could extend an enterprise’s liability and, consequently, the administrative fine, limitations, and compensation cases. In other words, the Council of State has pointed to the danger of unjust consequences arising from an error made on this issue.
With this perception, the Council of State has analyzed the evidence in the 12 Banks Decision, and has grouped certain of the documents and the markets (deposit, credit and credit card services) that the evidence belongs to. After revealing the markets of 28 documents that are referred to in the Decision, the Council of State determined that there is no proof of an existing link between the actions of the different enterprises. In other words, the Council of State found that it has not been proven that some enterprises with evidence regarding one or two markets were aware of a general framework and mutual plan covering the deposit, credit, credit card and public deposit services. This matter was seen as a proof standard problem, and it was so stated that the 12 Bank Decision was made based on an incomplete examination.
Conclusion
In the song titled “Rosenrot” of the German music band, Rammstein, the words say that “in order to find clear and clean water, one must dig deep wells”[3]. Indeed, the benefits to be realized in terms of Decisions, such as the 12 Banks Decision, which concern millions of consumers, depend on this clarity. It is important that all uncertainties to be eliminated by the Competition Authorities, in such a way so that they can be easily understood by the courts. In this case, even though this may present various challenges for the Competition Authorities in terms of the proof standard, the Decision, it is essential that it be clear and easy to understand, especially for private law enforcement.
Even though the Authority’s12 Banks Decision is an important and remarkable decision due to the amount of the administrative fine and its determinations, it has come under heavy criticism, especially due to the manner of using the concept “one single continuing breach,” and the uncertainties caused by this usage. It is possible that the uncertainties that this decision creates has delayed the results of the compensation cases that have been filed, and which are based on this Decision.
The Council of State has accepted the revision of the Decision appeal, even though is late. Now, everything is going to start from the beginning, legally, and in the event the Decision is annulled, it will be necessary for another decision to be rendered. Thus, the chance of answering many questions that have not been answered thus far has arisen once again. In this sense, it is possible to reconsider everything and to produce completely different results, much like the second half of a football competition.
The 12 Banks Decision is a milestone, especially in respect of compensation cases arising from competition law. For this reason, it is clear that developments in this area are closely related to thousands of compensation cases. The most important contribution that the Competition Authority can make to these cases in the re-decision process is to clearly answer the questions of “which bank, in which market, and what time interval is involved.” This necessitates the precise connection between the evidence and the actions of the banks. If this is not done, perhaps the most important Decision in the history of Turkish Competition Law will remain incomplete. Therefore, for ‘a fairer second half’, all uncertainties of the ‘game’ must be eliminated, because clean and clear water is found in deep wells.
[1] https://www.rekabet.gov.tr/Karar?kararId=30851aa5-2cf3-4c54-b284-e192ed6ed71b (Access date: 30.06.2019).
[2]The Decision 13th Chamber of the Council of State No. 2016/3587 E., 2019/1778 K., 21.05.2019.
[3]“Tiefe Brunnen muss man graben, wenn man klares wasser will.”
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
At the meeting of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) held on 16 December 2022, the FIFA Council approved the FIFA Football Agents Regulations (“FFAR”). In the FFAR, various amendments have been made, such as the introduction of a maximum service fee limit that football agents are...
Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) is still considered a hardcore restriction under the recently revised Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER), which means that it cannot benefit from a statutory exemption under Article 101(1) TFEU, unlike certain other types of vertical agreements. However, it has been debated...
In competition law, it is important to accurately determine the concept of undertaking, especially in terms of mergers and acquisitions. Therefore, the concept of economic entity aims to reveal the economic units covered by the undertakings. The relationship between the concept of economic entity and family ties comes...
In these days when the Competition Board (“Board”) frequently imposes administrative fines for preventing on-site inspections and both the Competition Authority (“Authority”) and undertakings take legal and technical measures regarding on-site inspections, a striking development has occurred. In its decision...
Online advertising has become an important source for businesses for promoting products and services and meeting consumers, as a result of the rapid development of information technologies and increase in the use of internet. Delivering targeted messages to consumers at the right time through the digital...
Selective distribution systems refer to a type of distribution system in which suppliers commit to selling the contracted goods or services directly or indirectly to distributors selected based on specified criteria, while the distributors commit not to sell the said goods or services to unauthorized...
Fast-moving consumer goods is undoubtedly one of the sectors that the Competition Authority has been working most intensively since the COVID 19 pandemic. Among the most important developments of this period was the Sector Inquiry initiated on Fast Moving Consumer Goods (“FMCG”) Retailing...
In the decision of the Constitutional Court ("Constitutional Court" or "Court") dated 09.11.2022, numbered 2020/67 E. 2022/139 K. (the "Decision"), the annulment of certain articles of the Law Amending the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054 ("Law No. 7246") was requested...
In Turkish competition law, certain types of mergers and acquisitions are subject to Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) approval in order to gain legal validity. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”), the Board is competent to define mergers and acquisitions...
Recently, the Competition Board (the Board) had imposed administrative fines on banks and financial institutions for failing to respond to the request for information within the scope of a preliminary investigation.[i] The request for information that lays the groundwork for the administrative fine imposed by...
Amazon, a world-famous company, is an e-commerce company that operates the world’s largest online shopping platform. In the backstage, Amazon is a data-driven company whose retail decisions are mostly driven by automated systems, fueled by the relevant market data. That being said, Amazon has a dual...
The right to make on-site inspections is one of the Competition Board’s (“Board”) most important tools for revealing whether Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”) has been violated. The effective use of this authority is quite important in terms of obtaining fruitful results from...
“Harese” is an interesting Arabic word. There is a thorn that camels love very much in the desert. The camel eats the thorn with great greed. So much so that, its mouth bleeds as it eats, but it doesn't stop eating. The taste of the thorn is mixed with the salty taste of its own blood. This mixed taste drives the camel...
Turkey’s leading pay television service provider, Krea İçerik Hizmetleri ve Prodüksiyon A.Ş. (“Digiturk”), is frequently the subject of complaints made to the Competition Authority (“Authority”). In fact, the Competition Board (“Board”) issues a new decision about Digiturk almost every year. In these decisions...
The French Competition Authority (Autorité de la Concurrence), within the scope of the competition law proceeding initiated upon the complaint of Criteo SA (“Criteo”), accepted the commitments proposed by Meta Platforms Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd., and Facebook France...
While the scope of Competition Board’s (“Board”) power to conduct on-site inspections has increased with the introduction of Guidelines on Examination of Digital Data during On-site Inspections (“Guidelines”), nowadays the amount of monetary fines imposed on undertakings continue to...
The hub and spoke cartel, which is a relatively new type of violation in terms of Turkish competition law, is defined as the indirect exchange of information between two independent undertakings which are horizontal competitors on the supplier or retailer level, through another undertaking...
The settlement mechanism has only recently been introduced to Turkish competition law practice. It entered into force with the amendment made to the Law on the Protection of Competition (“Law”) numbered 4054 on 16.06.2020, and has been in effect for less than two years. In this relatively...
Due to their increasing share in the economy and rapid growth rate, e-marketplace platforms have come under the increasing scrutiny of the Turkish Competition Authority (“Authority”) as well as many competition authorities around the world...
Pursuant to the Amendment Communiqué Concerning the Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring the Competition Board’s Approval (“Amending Communiqué”) published in the Official Gazette dated March 4th, 2022 and numbered 31768, certain amendments have been introduced...
The Competition Board (“Board”) has recently published a reasoned decision in which it evaluated BSH Ev Aletleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.’s (“BSH”) request for negative clearance or exemption with regard to its practice of prohibiting authorized dealers from making sales through online marketplaces...
Shahmaran, a Mesopotamian myth, is believed to take place in Tarsus. According to the myth, the shah of snakes is the immortal and omniscient "Shahmaran." Shahmaran is described as a beautiful woman living in her cave with her snakes...
During the COVID-19 pandemic, competitive concerns about the pricing behavior of chain markets, manufacturers, and wholesalers engaged in the retail trade of food and cleaning supplies led to an investigation by...
When the past decisions and the recent decisions of the Competition Board (“Board”) are examined, a significant increase can be observed in the number of decisions where the Board found hindrance or obstruction of on-site inspections. This situation shows that...
The European Commission began investigating the collusive behavior of Credit Suisse, UBS, Barclays, RBS, and HSBC in the Foreign Exchange (forex) spot trading market in 2019. With the recent press release dated 02.12.2021, the Commission announced that the case is now closed...
Digitalization, in particular, necessitates the rewriting of competition law rules. Competition law is at the center all questions regarding e-commerce and digital platforms. The aforementioned platforms, which have become prominent due to innovations in...