NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

179 COMPETITION LAW ing their prices and, therefore, they were affected by the same increase in costs in the same period. The Board decided that the Investigated Undertakings’ prices did not overlap; however, the increases in exchange rates were reflected in the Investigated Undertakings’ prices during the same periods. Within this scope, the Board evaluated that the radical increase in Investi- gated Undertakings’ prices during similar dates were in parallel to the increase in the exchange rates, and decided that the allegations of the undertakings’ price fixing amongst themselves were not supported. In the Board Decision, it was also decided that the unilateral intent to restrict competition was insufficient for a “meeting of the minds.” Upon request for information regarding a meeting to which all egg producers in Mardin attended, Fırat Yumurta declared that it attended such meeting with an aim to collectively fix prices; whereas, Naz Yumurta and Dicle Yumurta stated they had an aim to establish a regional association. After evaluating these statements, the Board decided that the undertakings other than Fırat Yumurta did not have any intention to restrict competition. The Board also decided that Fırat Yumurta’s unilateral intent could not be evaluated within the scope of a “meeting of the minds” sought under Article 4 of Law No. 4054. The Board also evaluated the allegation that the Investigated Undertakings were hindering the wholesalers’ activities by applying lower prices in retail sales. Within this scope, the Board examined whether the Investigated Undertakings had retail sales and, if so, whether they made sales at a cheaper price than their sales to whole- salers. After meeting with the Investigated Undertakings’ officials, the Board decided that the said undertakings did not have any retail sales. In addition, it scrutinized the timing of the complaint and the fact that the complainant did not report all egg producers active in Mardin, and only complained about Dicle Yumurta, Naz Yumurta, Fırat Yumurta ve Bayza Yumurta. In light of these evaluations, the Board concluded that allegations that the Investigated Undertakings made wholesalers’ activities more difficult by applying lower prices in retail sales were unfounded due to the following: (i) the Investigated Undertakings did not have any retail sales, (ii) the complainant only complained about