OREANDA-NEWS. July 23, 2012. The Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia) initiated a case against “URALSIB” OJSC and “VolkswagenBank RUS” Ltd. upon the signs of violating Part 4 Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” (competition-restricting agreements between economic entities), reported the press-centre of FAS Russia.

The case was initiated upon the outcome of considering an Agreement on Cooperation between “URALSIB” OJSC and “VolkswagenBank RUS” Ltd. Notification about the Agreement was submitted to FAS in the form, which was valid before the “third antimonopoly package” came into force.

The subject matter of the Agreement is opening current accounts of physical persons with “URALSIB” OJSC to deposit loans granted by “VolkswagenBank RUS” Ltd. and exercising bank operations with these accounts.

The Agreement obligates “URALSIB” OJSC not to recommend and not to create conditions for physical persons obtaining services of “URALSIB” OJSC for the purposes of repaying obligations under a loan agreement with “VolkswagenBank RUS” Ltd. as well as the objectives, including buying vehicles.

By concluding the Agreement under such conditions, “URALSIB” OJSC refused to compete with “VolkswagenBank RUS” Ltd. and offer own loan services to physical persons who applied to a counteragent under the Agreement.

Refusals of economic entities that are not members of the same group of persons, to undertake independent actions on the market, constitute a sign of violating competition.

The date of case investigating will be scheduled within 15 days after investigating the case.

Earlier FAS already investigated an Agreement with similar conditions concluded by “URALSIB” OJSC. In August 2009, FAS found that the credit organization and its partner under the Agreement - “Toyota Bank” CJSC violated Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” (competition-restricting agreements between economic entities).

In course of the investigation, the “URALSIB” OJSC and “Toyota Bank” CJSC admitted violating the antimonopoly law and were relieved from administrative liability.