NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

163 COMPETITION LAW • The Board has decided that 12 financial institutions, inc- luding the defendant, acted together to form a cartel with respect to deposits, credit and credit card services; • The Consumer claimed that since she/he benefited from a consumer loan from a cartel (of which Türkiye Vakıflar Bankası T.A.O. was a part) the interest rate caused her/his damage, and has requested the determination of her/his loss, and compensation of her/his triple the damages from the Te- kirdağ / Süleymanpaşa Consumer Arbitration Committee; • The Consumer Arbitration Committee has rejected the con- sumers’ request; • Therefore, the Claimant has filed a lawsuit before the Te- kirdağ Civil Court of First Instance in order to revoke the decision of the Consumer Arbitration Committee; • The Tekirdağ Civil Court of First Instance has partially ac- cepted the decision of the Consumer Arbitration Committee, and decided that compensation is to be paid to the claimant; and • The final judgment (as to the amount in dispute is below the appeal threshold) was appealed by the Court of Cassation Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office with the request for rever- sal for the sake of the law. The 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation determined that in the case at hand, the existence of the wrongful act of the defen- dant bank, the damages suffered, and the causal link between these is based on the said decision of the Board by the Tekirdağ Civil Court of First Instance. However, the 13th Civil Chamber stated that as the annulment lawsuits filed against the subject matter Competition Board decision have not yet been finalized, therefore, there is no final judgment upon which the claimant could base its claims. Thus, the court ruled that deciding on the merits of the case without awaiting the finalization of the annulment lawsuit filed against the Competition Board’s decision, is contrary to the law since the court should have considered the situa-