FAS representatives and antimonopoly experts played an exercise on appealing a hypothetical decision of OFAS

Deputy Head of FAS Sergey Puzyrevsky, Head of FAS Anti-Cartel Department, Andrey Tenishev, and Anna Numerova, Head of the General Council of the Antimonopoly Experts Association were in the FAS “Presidium”

On 19 September 2017, at the Competition Week in Russia organized in Veliky Novgorod there was an exercise, conducted by FAS together with the Antimonopoly Experts Association.

Opening the event, Deputy Head of FAS Sergey Puzyrevsky emphasized: “Today FAS abolishes up to 20% decisions of its regional offices and we are very interested in unifying antimonopoly enforcement practice. Unified application of the competition rules harmonizes the work of FAS bodies and the business community”.

The FAS “Presidium” comprised Anna Numerova, Head of the General Council of the Antimonopoly Experts Association, Head of FAS Anti-Cartel Department, Andrey Tenishev,and Deputy Head of FAS Legal Department Andrey Khomyakov. The Presidium Chairman was Sergey Puzyrevsky.

According to the materials of the imaginary case, company D complained about OFAS decision to FAS collegial body. Regional and federal retail chains were involved in trading in a particular subject of the Russian Federation. Company Е was their main supplier of consumer goods. Depending on the volume of the purchased goods, company Е gave discounts to the federal chains and did not offer such discounts to the regional chains. Regional companies А, В and С entered in to an agreement for centralized purchases from company Е. The agreement enabled to purchase goods at a better, discounted price.

Company D reported to OFAS a violation of Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” claiming that the agreements concluded by companies А, В and С was unacceptable. OFAS dismissed the claim.

After a long discussion, presentations by all case participants, invited experts, FAS Appeal Commission dismissed the claim of company D.

Sergey Puzyrevsky concluded: “In this imagineary case, the exercise, we have not ascertained the fact of violating the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”. The agreement concluded by three companies does not have elements that constitute danger to the society and lead to competition restriction.  Therefore, OFAS arguments were justified”.