NEWSLETTER-2019-metin

115 COMPETITION LAW Surprisingly, at the end of the trial and upon the revision of the Decision request, the Council of State has accepted the revision re - quest 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 Board 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 Board 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 Coun- cil 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 enter- prises 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