Court Confirmed Validity of Decision of FAS Regarding RZhD
OREANDA-NEWS. March 04, 2008. The Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow District confirmed validity of the decision and determination issued by the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia) regarding "RZhD" Ltd., reported the press-centre of FAS Russia.
Earlier FAS Russia recognized that "RZhD" Ltd. violated Clause 1 Article 10 of the Federal Law "On Protection of Competition" (abusing dominant position).
The case was initiated upon a petition of "AZOT" Ltd.
"RZhD" Ltd. violated the law by refusing to accept for transportation the goods in special containers in gondola cars without entering into a contract of carriage on special terms.
"AZOT" Ltd. was involved in loading of cargo in accordance with the "Regulations for transportation of hazardous goods" in specialized containers in gondola cars. From August 2006, the Predcombinat railway station, referring to several telegraphic messages from "RZhD" Ltd., stopped accepting the products of "AZOT" Ltd. for transportation. The consignor was required to enter into a contract of carriage on special terms, which would significantly increase the transportation costs.
Having considered the case, FAS Russia issued a determination requesting "RZhD" Ltd. to accept for transportation the products of "AZOT" Ltd. in specialized containers in gondola cars of the fleet of "RZhD" Ltd. in accordance with the procedures specified in Articles 10 and 11 of the Traffic Regulations.
"RZhD" Ltd. disagreed with the decision and determination of the antimonopoly authority and appealed.
The Moscow Arbitration Court dismissed the claim of "RZhD" Ltd., therefore, confirming validity and soundness of the decision and determination issued by the antimonopoly authority. On 31st October 2007, the 9th Arbitration Appeal Court revoked the ruling of the court of first instance.
The Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow District, however, allowed the cassation appeal of FAS Russia against the judgment of the appeal court and sustained the ruling of the court of first instance.
Комментарии