FAS won an appeal against the Ministry of Construction
A ministerial document forced companies in the construction industry to purchase goods form particular producers
In 2016 FAS was approached by the Russian Association of Water Supply and Drainage and “OPORA RUSSIA” NGO. The claimants asked to verify legitimacy of some provisions of the Code of Practice - “Reinforced Concrete constructions for underground structures and communications. Anti-corrosion protection”, approved by the Ministry of Construction.
The document sets requirements to be accounted for in construction, repair and reconstruction of underground structures and communications (underground parts of residential and public buildings, underground parking, metro tunnels, underground pedestrian crossings, etc.) and designing their anti-corrosion protection.
In particular, the Code of Practice gives general information on applying concrete modifiers to increase its anti-corrosion properties. At the time of considering the statements by the antimonopoly body the Code specified the names and brands of such modifiers (“MB” and “EMBELIT”).
The Code of Practice is not mandatory and it is applied by businessmen in the construction industry voluntarily. Nevertheless, FAS established that some addressees perceive its provisions as mandatory.
Deputy Head of FAS Rachik Petrosyan explained: “Under such circumstances the reference in the Code on the goods form a particular producer can be perceived by the companies as a mandatory requirement for making a choice. That is why FAS decided that the (“MB” and “EMBELIT”).
The Code devised by the Ministry of Construction gives advantages to the developers of concrete modifiers specified in the Code and prevents development of other producers since it deprives them of some buyers”.
The FAS Commission found that the Ministry of Construction violated Part 1 Article 15 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”. The Ministry disagreed with the decision of the antimonopoly body and filed a lawsuit. The Court of First Instance and the 9th Arbitration Appeal Court dismissed the claim and supported FAS position.
In the course of the case consideration, the Ministry of Construction made amendments to the Code of Practice and deleted the references to “MB” and “EMBELIT” names.