Court Confirmed Validity of FAS Decision on Lukoil-Uralnefteproduct
OREANDA-NEWS. On April 06, 2009 the Chelyabinsk Regional Arbitration Court confirmed validity and relevance of the decision of the Chelyabinsk OFAS Russia that found that "Lukoil-Uralnefteproduct" Ltd. and individual entrepreneur Kazykhanova had violated the antimonopoly legislation by engaging in concerted actions aimed at maintaining prices for motor fuel, reported the press-centre of FAS Russia.
On 30th September 2008, the Chelyabinsk OFAS Russia processed a case against "Lukoil-Uralnefteproduct" Ltd. and individual entrepreneur Kazykhanova regarding concerted actions aimed at maintaining prices for motor fuel. OFAS Russia issued a determination to stop concerted actions and initiated administrative proceedings against the above persons under Article, 14.32 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Violations.
Investigating the case, the Chelyabinsk OFAS Russia established that in January -June 2008 "Lukoil-Uralnefteproduct" Ltd. increased petrol prices in average by 15%. In the same period individual entrepreneur Kazykhanova was also increasing petrol prices. Prices per litre of petrol "Lukoil-Uralnefteproduct" Ltd. and individual entrepreneur Kazykhanova matched each other with accuracy to a kopeck with a one or two days time lag.
After OFAS Russia initiated a case against those companies, "Lukoil-Uralnefteproduct" Ltd. and individual entrepreneur Kazykhanova decreased petrol prices and they no more matched each other, which confirmed concerted actions between economic entities.
The Chelyabinsk OFAS Russia already processed two cases regarding concerted actions between "Lukoil-Uralnefteproduct" Ltd. and individual entrepreneur Kazykhanova in 2004 and 2006.
"Lukoil-Uralnefteproduct" Ltd. and individual entrepreneur Kazykhanova disagreed with the decision and determination issued by the Chelyabinsk OFAS Russia and filed a lawsuit to the Chelyabinsk Regional Arbitration Court on invalidating them. The Court, however, accepted the arguments of the antimonopoly body and upheld its decision and determination.
Комментарии