FAS ISSUED A WARNING TO “CONFAEL” BOARD CHAIRMAN
Company leadership announced a planned growth of prices for confectionaries in 2019
On 7 February 2019, FAS issued a warning to Board Chairman of the “Confael” Group, General Director of “Chocolate Gifts” Ltd. that actions, which can lead to violating the antimonopoly law, are unacceptable.
On 28 January 2019, sugar.ru published an article titled – “Experts and producers expects a growth of prices for sweets higher than inflation”. The text contained a statement from the General Director of “Chocolate Gifts” Ltd. on increasing confectionary prices in 2019.
In FAS opinion, this view is a public statement by a top-executive of the economic entity about a planned conduct on the market, while exercising such actions can lead to violating the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” [1].
“FAS issues warnings to top-executives of economic entities because their statements about possible increase of prices can be perceived by other market participants as a call to act in a similar manner. If other companies also raise prices, the Federal Antimonopoly Service may consider such actions as anticompetitive and concerted”, explained Head of FAS Department for Control over the Agro-Industrial Complex, Anna Mirochinenko.
Reference:
In accord with Part 1 Article 25⁷ of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”, to prevent violations of the antimonopoly law, the antimonopoly body send a written warning to top-executives of economic entities, federal executive bodies, authorities of the regions of the Russian Federation, local self-government bodies, organizations involved in providing public or municipal services, state extra-budgetary funds, that actions, which may lead to violating the antimonopoly law, are unacceptable.
Under Part 2 Article 25⁷ of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”, the grounds for issuing warnings to top-executives of economic entities are public statements by such persons about planned conduct on the market if such conduct can lead to violating the antimonopoly law and at the same time there are no grounds for opening and investigating a case on violating the antimonopoly law.
[1] Clause 1 Part 1 Article 11, Clause 1 Part 1 Article 11¹