OREANDA-NEWS. October 21, 2010. The 5th Arbitration Appeal Court upheld the ruling of the Sakhalin Regional Arbitration Court that confirmed legitimacy of the decision, made by the Sakhalin Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (OFAS Russia) that “Toplivno-Obespechivayaschaya Compania” CJSC had violated the antimonopoly law, reported the press-centre of FAS Russia.

On 4th December 2009, Sakhalin OFAS Russia found that “Toplivno-Obespechivayaschaya Compania” CJSC violated Clause 1 Part 1 Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”.

The case was initiated upon data obtained by Sakhalin OFAS Russia in course of a desk audit of “Toplivno-Obespechivayaschaya Compania” CJSC, organized after OFAS Russia had received a petition of “Vladivostok Avia” OJSC.

Having investigated the case, Sakhalin OFAS Russia established that “Toplivno-Obespechivayaschaya Compania” CJSC abused its market dominance by fixing monopolistically high price for the services of supplying aviation fuel in “Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk” airport.

“Toplivno-Obespechivayaschaya Compania” CJSC believed that the decision of Sakhalin OFAS Russia was contrary to the existing law and challenged it at Sakhalin Regional Arbitration Court.

On 28th May 2010, Sakhalin Regional Arbitration Court ruled that the decision of the antimonopoly body was legitimate. The 5th Arbitration Appeal Court upheld the ruling of Sakhalin Regional Arbitration Court, confirming validity of the decision made by Sakhalin OFAS Russia.

The Head of Sakhalin OFAS Russia, Mr. Georgy Tychenok, said: “Such decisions are very important for the Sakhalin region, where transportation costs has decisive impact upon the overall costs of goods, works and services for end-customers. Abusing market dominance by economic entities is inadmissible, and in such important sector for the regional economy actions of dominant economic entities are under special control of the antimonopoly body”.

Reference:
Clause 1 Part 1 Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” prohibits actions (omissions) by an economic entity with dominant market position if such actions (omissions) have resulted or can result in preventing, restricting or eliminating competition and (or) infringing the interests of other persons, in particular, fixing unreasonably high or low prices, in particular, fixing unreasonably high or low prices of goods.