OREANDA-NEWS. October 01, 2008. The Moscow Arbitration Court confirmed validity of the decision made by the Moscow Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (OFAS Russia) on the case against "Banque Societe Generale Vostok" (BSGV) Commercial Joint-Stock Bank (CJSB) and a group of insurers who violated Clauses 4, 5 and 8 Part 1 Article 11 of the Federal Law "On Protection of Competition", reported the press-centre of FAS Russia.

On 13th February 2008 года, the Moscow OFAS Russia recognized that BSGS (CJSB), "ROSNO" OJSC, "Grouppa Renaissance Strakhovanie" Ltd. and "Souyznik" Closed Joint-Stock Insurance Company violated Clauses 4, 5 and 8 Part 1 Article 11 of the Federal Law "On Protection of Competition". The bank violated the law by entering into agreements with the above insurance companies that lead (can lead) to:

- unjustified (economically or technologically) refusals by the bank to sign contracts with some sellers or buyers (clients);

- imposing contract terms upon counteragents that are not relevant to the contract subject;

- preventing entry of the companies, involved in personal insurance, to the insurance market.

The Moscow OFAS Russia initiated the case upon a petition of a physical person (the Petitioner) that the bank and the insurance companies had violated the antimonopoly legislation. The petition stated that the Petitioner and the bank signed a consumer credit agreement. One of the agreement conditions required that the Petitioner must buy life and health insurance policy only from the insurance organization approved by they bank.

In course of the case investigation, the antimonopoly office received a complaint from "AlphaStrakhovanie" OJSC. According to it, the insurance company had sent a proposal to the bank on various joint insurance programs, including life insurance for consumer credits.
However, the bank refused to develop cooperation.

Before the antimonopoly office made a decision on the case, the bank presented the documents confirming that it had introduced a new product - "Consumer credit without mandatory insurance of the borrower's life and health". The bank had also devised the Procedures for the work of bank branches with insurance organizations. The Procedures are accessible on the bank website and include, in particular, the criteria for evaluating insurance companies, used by the bank. The requirement for "multi-branch insurance organizations, present in no more than 75% of the regions of the bank operations bank" is now excluded from the criteria.

Having considered the case, the antimonopoly office recognized that the bank and the insurance companies violated the antimonopoly legislation but terminated the case because the violations were voluntarily eliminated. The case materials have been transferred to a Moscow OFAS officer responsible for drawing up protocols on administrative violations.

The bank appealed the decision of the Moscow OFAS Russia the Moscow Arbitration Court but its claim was dismissed.