NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

161 COMPETITION LAW Procedures Law numbered 6100. Therefore, it is possible to claim that the widespread practice adopted by the courts is to seek the Board’s determination in that the Law has been violated in order to rule upon compensation for the damages arising from the restriction of compe- tition. However, there are also exceptional court decisions in which the Board’s decision has been considered as a cause of action, 3 or a preliminary question, or the indication has been made that there is no need to wait 4 . Accordingly, it is not possible to reach a definitive con- clusion about the effect of the Board’s decision regarding the subject matter violation in compensation lawsuits. That being said, the judgment of the 13th Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 25.09.2019 and numbered 2019/1422 E. and 2019/8836 K., which is a decision of reversal for the sake of law, constitutes an important development in this field. This article will firstly deal with the Board’s decision that is the subject of the relevant judgment of reversal for the sake of law, and then with the Court of Cassation’s judgment and its consequences. 12 Banks Decision The Board, with its decision 5 in 2013, commonly known as the “12 banks decision,” investigated allegations regarding competition violations in the credit and credit card markets, and imposed high ad- ministrative monetary fines on Turkey’s leading banks, by concluding that Article 4 of the Law had been violated. Moreover, in addition to the fines imposed by the Board, the investigated banks faced many compensation lawsuits based on the Board’s decision. upon the conclusion of the judgment or upon the decision of the administrative authority.” 3 Decision of the Adana 5th Consumer Court dated 13.06.2017 and numbered 3623/2750 and Decision of the Ankara 7th Commercial Court of First Instance dated 25.10.2017 and numbered 2016/955 E. and 729 K. 4 Decision of the İstanbul 12th Consumer Court dated 9.5.2017 and numbered 152/172; Decision of the Adana 4th Consumer Court dated 27.9.2012 and num- bered 27/2112; Decision of the Marmara 1st Civil Court of First Instance dated 14.11.2017 and numbered 2017/17 E. and 494 K. 5 Decision of the Competition Board dated 08.03.2013 and numbered 13-13/198- 100.