ERDEM-NEWSLETTER-2018-metin

101 COMPETITION LAW Decision on Revocation of the CPS Exemption The Competition Board Decision dated 09.11.2017 and numbered 17-36/583-256 (“Decision on Revocation of the CPS Exemption)was given upon a request made during the exemption application regard- ing the exclusive agreements that Efes intends to conclude with the CPS; whereas, the exemption request of Efes was rejected, Efes also requested revocation of the individual Exemption of Tuborg that was granted through the Tuborg Exemption Decision. As a result of this examination, the individual exemption that Tuborg benefited from was revoked through the Decision on Revocation of the CPS Exemption. The Competition Board’s said Decision is a first in terms of revoking the previously granted individual exemption to Tuborg. Indeed, contrary to Efes, Tuborg is allowed to conclude exclusivity agreements in the beer sector. Hence, the Decision on Revocation of the CPS exemption is, in a sense, a return from the Tuborg Exemp- tion Decision made in 2010. In this regard, the Competition Board takes into account the changing conditions in the beer market, and the changed position of Tuborg. This attitude of the Competition Board draws attention as a congruent approach to the dynamic structure of competition law. When the competition law contest between Efes and Tuborg, which is described in detail, above, is observed, one may see that there are two half-times, much like a football match. The first half-time is the period that lasts until 2010, and in which, from the beginning (with the 2005 Decision on Revocation of Exemption), no competition law protection is provided for both players, but then competition law inter- ventions took place for the protection of Tuborg. Various exemption requests by Efes were rejected in the Tuborg Exemption Decision in 2010, but competition law protection is provided through individual exemptions due to the decline in the market shares of Tuborg. The second half-time is the period that begins with the Decision on the Revocation of the CPS Exemption, and in which the under- standing that Tuborg no longer benefits from competition law pro- tection begins to be dominant. The most characteristic feature of the second-half terms is that the competition between the two players in