ABUSE OF DOMINANCE LEADS TO PROBLEMS
FAS presents the TOP cases investigated by regional FAS Offices under Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” that are high-profiled by the FAS Presidium according to the results of 2019
Moscow OFAS established that the “Federal Passenger Company” JSC systematically failed to service coal to coaches1 in order to heat them during the cold season, although it is a statutory responsibility and the servicing costs are already included in the tariff of the of “Federal Passenger Company”. As a result, coach owners were forced to provide coal all by themselves.
Moreover, referring to breach of safety regulation, the “Federal Passenger Company” limited possibilities of coach owners to service coaches by themselves, which led to the risks of refusing carriage. Such actions of the “Federal Passenger Company” forced coach owners to enter into non-gratuitous contracts although counteragents had already paid for this service as part of the carriage tariff.
The antimonopoly body established that coach servicing depends not only on the carrier’s actions – the “Federal Passenger Company” JSC, but also on the actions of the infrastructure owner – “Russian Railways” OJSC. Therefore, Moscow OFAS issued two warnings in the same case2.
Executing the warning, the “Federal Passenger Company” eliminated imposing unreasonable additional financial obligations upon coach owners. To comply with the FAS warning, the “Federal Passenger Company” and “Russian Railways” drafted and approved common (non-discriminatory) Regulations on interaction between the infrastructure owner, carrier and third-party coach owners to rigorously fulfill the obligation on coach servicing en route, which is an unprecedented case of drafting such documents by monopolists.
Eliminating the violation will have a positive effect on the market of rail carriage across the entire Russia. The case is ranked the best with regard to this type of violations3.
Magadan OFAS made a decision against “Aeroflot” PJSC for fixing monopolistically high price on cargo carriage by air. The violation is eliminated. The case is on the second place in the list of the best cases, according to the FAS Presidium.
Khabarovsk OFAS gave an order to “Khabarovsk Airport” JSC regarding its omission to approve the fee (tariff) for ground handling (additionally to the base fee covering only operations rendered to consumers), which could have infringed the interests of “Aurora” Airlines” JSC and restricted competition on this market.
The case is on the third place in the list of the best cases investigated by FAS regional Offices for abusing dominance. This practice will be employed by the antimonopoly bodies investigating similar unlawful actions of airports.
Cases investigated by other FAS regional Offices are also on the TOP-list.
“Pasagiravtotrans” St Petersburg State Unitary Enterprise set different prices for carriers (which were not economically or otherwise justified) for using ticket sale services in ticket windows at the bus terminal (a case of St Petersburg OFAS).
The “Federal Passenger Company” JSC was imposing disadvantageous transportation contract conditions upon owners of freight-baggage coaches. The transport monopolist insisted on coach maintenance only in its own repair facilities (a case of Moscow OFAS).
“Vodocanal” Kaliningrad Municipal Utility Enterprise refused to permit use of metering units for cold water supply and water drainage, finding them nonconforming the standards, which could have resulted in additional spending of public funds (a case of Kaliningrad OFAS).
“Gazprom Gas Distribution Veliky Novogorod” JSC fixed monopolistically high tariffs for maintenance services of apartment gas equipment, which infringed the interests of consumers at large (a case of Novgorod OFAS).
All violations are eliminated.
1 Providing carriage services to the owners of freight-baggage coaches in the trains of the company.
2 Elements of violating Part 1 Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” under the same case.
3 Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”.
4 Purchasing metering devices that use telematic systems, payment for the consumed resources according to calculations rather than readings of the installed metering devices.