OREANDA-NEWS. January 27, 2014. “URALSIB” OJSC and “Volkswagen Bank RUS” Ltd. informed FAS on executing a determination in an antimonopoly case.

On 23rd October 2013, the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia) found that “URALSIB” OJSC and “Volkswagen Bank RUS” Ltd. violated Part 4 Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” by concluding and taking part in a Cooperation Agreement.

The Agreement obligated “URALSIB” OJSC not to recommend and create conditions for obtaining services of “URALSIB” OJSC by customers of “Volkswagen Bank RUS” Ltd. to repay loans of “Volkswagen Bank RUS” Ltd. as well as for any other purposes including purchasing motor vehicles.

In the Commission’s opinion, by entering into the Agreement under those conditions “URALSIB” OJSC refused to pursue independent actions on this market - to compete with “Volkswagen Bank RUS” Ltd. for customers.

Since at the time of making the decision “URALSIB” OJSC and “Volkswagen Bank RUS” Ltd. did not eliminate the violation, the FAS Commission issued a determination to the banks to stop the competition-restricting agreement.

To execute the determination, respondents concluded an additional agreement that excluded the provisions in question from the Agreement, about which the antimonopoly authority was informed within the designated period.

Commenting execution of the determination, the Head of FAS Department for Control over Financial Markets, Olga Sergeeva, emphasized: “In the absence of controversial clauses in the inter-bank agreement such cooperation is allowed since as a result of it “Volkswagen Bank RUS” Ltd. was able to strengthen its position on the market of auto lending by obtaining a possibility to offer loans to customers on conditions comparable or potentially more advantageous in comparison with competitors, owing to which consumer choices are expanded”. “At the same time”, pointed out Olga Sergeeva, “restrictions for promoting services by banks similar to those specified in the Agreement for “URALSIB” OJSC cannot be allowed, because such restrictions prevent obtaining the fullest information by consumers about available services, and, therefore, reduce а the likelihood of making the best choice by them”.