NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

180 NEWSLETTER 2020 four, but not all, of the producers, and (iii) the complaint was filed two years after the meeting in which the alleged breach had occurred. In light of the above, it was decided that there was no document, information or finding that showed Bayza Yumurta, Fırat Yumurta, Naz Yumurta and Dicle Yumurta were fixing prices together and were restricting competition through making retail sales for prices cheaper than they provide to wholesalers. The Board, therefore, decided to dismiss the complaint, and not to initiate a full-fledged investigation. Conclusion The Board Decision is significant since it shows that price in- creases on similar dates and at similar rates do not create an automatic presumption that the undertakings agreed to fix prices. As explained in detail, above, the Board did not decide that the undertakings were in breach, and evaluated the relevant undertakings’ price movements and costs by way of making economic analysis in relation to the relevant price increases. Another important point regarding the Board Decision is the ap- proach taken towards the “meeting of the minds” notion. Even though Fırat Yumurta admitted that it attended a meeting with competitors with an aim to fix prices, the Board did not find a single undertak- ing’s statements sufficient to determine an aim to restrict competition. Seeking additional evidence regarding Fırat Yumurta’s statement, as a result of its examination, the Board decided that other undertakings did not have a will to restrict competition in attending the meeting, and that there was no meeting of the minds between the relevant undertak- ings within this scope. It is, therefore, evident that the Board decision, which frames the competitive analysis and application of “meeting of the minds” notion in cartel cases, shall be a precedent for future case files.