FAS Presidium determined the best cases of FAS regional offices under Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”
FAS Presidium considered cases where regional offices exposed violations under Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”.
According to the collegial body of the Antimonopoly Service, the first place is taken by a case investigated by Perm OFAS. The regional office found that “Motostroitel” Municipal Unitary Housing Operator had taken advantage of two different tariffs for hot water supply and had applied then in such a way that residents from several apartment blocks had overpaid for these services.
The Regional Tariff Service approved the costs of heat energy for the respondent in two options: heat energy supplied to “PSK” and heat energy supplied to “TGK-9”.
The “PSK” tariff was higher than “TGK-9”. The company billed residents of the apartment blocks under “PSK” tariffs and the residents of a neighboring house – under the “TGK-9” tariffs. To prepare hot ware, however, the heat energy source was TETs-6 [Thermal Power Plant] owned by “TGK-9”.
Perm OFAS issued an injunction to apply the same tariffs for hot water supply for all apartment blocks in TETs-6 coverage area (around 2000 houses).
The second place was given to Tatarstan OFAS. The antimonopoly body analyzed the state of competition on the market of regular passenger air transportation on the Kazan-Moscow and Moscow-Kazan routes. The analysis showed that “Aeroflot” PJSC has the dominant position.
Prior to initiating the case, the minimum air fare on those routes was from 5500 RUB, and currently – from 1500 RUB.
“Aeroflot” PJSC opened sale of cheaper tickets that had been previously unavailable. It enabled reducing prices.
Having investigated the case, the Commission of Tatarstan OFAS made a decision to terminate the case due to voluntary elimination of the violation.
A case of Orenburg antimonopoly body against “T Plus” Ltd. and “Orenburg Municipal Heat Supplier” Ltd. (“OKTK” Ltd.) took the third place. The companies signed a contract to lease and sublease heat networks that resulted in artificially generating the need to approve tariffs for “OKTK” Ltd. and unreasonably overrated tariff growth for heat supply for consumers, which led to violating the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”.
In a case against the South Interregional Energy Company, Kalmykia OFAS exposed a fact of manipulating prices on the retail electric power market. Such corporate actions infringed the interests of end consumers. The case was ranked the forth.
The 5th place is assigned to Moscow OFAS that exposed violations by “MOEK” PJSC. The company is unreasonably charging for the heat carrier losses in “Butovo-11” Housing Association” networks and heat energy losses. The losses were determined in breach of the law, namely: without drawing up bilateral acts that register heat carrier leaks, which infringed the interests of “Butovo-11” Housing Association.
Kurgan OFAS found that “Shumikhinskaya Electrical Grid” Ltd. requested unreasonable payment from consumers for electric power transmission service. The case was put on the 6th place. The antimonopoly body issued an injunction to transfer the unlawfully gained income through violating the antimonopoly law – 96 million RUB - to the federal budget.
Tyumen OFAS established that “Zolotie Luga” JSC, having the dominant market position and operating on the market as a buyer of milk raw materials, created discriminatory conditions for raw materials suppliers in the Tyumen region. In the course of analysis, OFAS revealed that the market is oligopsony. Courts confirmed legitimacy of the decision made by Tyumen OFAS (7th place).
The 8th position in the ranking was taken by a decision of Penza OFAS pronouncing that “TSN Energo Penza” Ltd. violated the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”. The respondent notified managing companies, housing associations, homeowners associations and cooperatives on unilateral termination of power supply contracts, concluded to supply electric power to the owners of the premises in apartment blocks in the Penza region.
As a result of such actions, their interests were infringed. The Appeal and Cassation Courts confirmed legitimacy of OFAS decision.
The final position in the case ranking (the 9th place) of the regional antimonopoly office was given to Lipetsk OFAS. The antimonopoly body established that “Quadra –Generating Company” OJSC in the person of a branch of “Quadra” OJSC – “Eastern Generation” abused its market dominance by billing how water-supply utility services provided for communal needs, with regard to non-residential premises of an organization. OFAS established that the organization was not supposed to make utility payments for hot water supply, because it is not a consumer in a non-residential built-in/ added to premises in an apartment block. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation supported the decision of Lipetsk OFAS.