OREANDA-NEWS. On July 21, 2008 the 9 Arbitration Appeal Court dismissed the appeal of the "Rozhdestvensky" Consumer Maintenance-and-Building Cooperative (PESK) on invalidating the resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia) which imposed administrative charges upon the Cooperative - a 300 000 Rubles fine, reported the press-centre of FAS Russia. 

Earlier FAS Russia recognized that "Rozhdestvensky" PESK violated Part 1 Artcile 25 of the Federal Law "On Protection of Competition" (failure to present information upon a request of an antimonopoly body).

FAS Russia received a complaint from the residents of Rozhdestvenno village, Odintsovo district, in the Moscow region, on the actions of "Rozhdestvensky" PESK. According to the residents' petition, "Rozhdestvensky" PESK prevented power supply to the houses of those village residents who were not members of the Cooperative.

To establish whether an antimonopoly violation took place and to thoroughly analyze the facts stated in the petition, FAS Russia twice requested "Rozhdestvensky" PESK to present the necessary documentation and information.

Upon receiving the requests, however, "Rozhdestvensky" PESK failed to present the necessary information to FAS Russia.

Reference:
Under Part 1 Article 25 of the Federal Law "On Protection of Competition", commercial organizations and non-profit organization (their officers), the federal executive bodies (their officials), the authorities of the constituent territories of the Russian Federation (their officials), the local self-government bodies (their officials), other bodies or organizations executing the functions of the above bodies or organizations (their officials), as well as state extra-budgetary funds (their officials), physical persons, including individual entrepreneurs, must present to an antimonopoly body, upon its reasonable formal request documents, written or oral explanations, information (including the information which constitutes commercial, official, or other legally protected secrets), required by an antimonopoly body in accordance with its terms of reference to process petitions and materials on antimonopoly violations, control economic concentration or determine the level of competition.

Therefore, by failure to present the information, requested by FAS Russia, "Rozhdestvensky" PESK violated the antimonopoly legislation. A violator bears administrative responsibility in the form of a fine (Part 5 Article 19.8 of the Code of Administrative Violations).

"Rozhdestvensky" PESK disagreed with the determination of the antimonopoly authority and appealed to the Arbitration Court. The Court, however, found the arguments of "Rozhdestvensky" PESK ungrounded and confirmed the rightness of FAS Russia.