Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Chelyabinsk Fined 2,1 mn Rubles
OREANDA-NEWS. September 26, 2011. The 18th Arbitration Appeal Court pronounced legitimacy of the fine imposed by Chelyabinsk OFAS Russia upon “Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Chelyabinsk” Ltd. for abusing market dominance, reported the press-centre of FAS Russia.
Earlier Chelyabinsk Regional Arbitration Court upheld the decision of Chelyabinsk OFAS Russia regarding “Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Chelyabinsk” Ltd., but reduced the fine from 3.5 million Rubles to 2.1 million Rubles. The Appeal Court supported the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
The antimonopoly body established that “Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Chelyabinsk” Ltd. was imposing disadvantageous conditions of 2008 gas supply contract upon “Zlatoust Machine-Building Plant” OJSC. The gas company insisted the contracts should include conditions that made the consumer liable for overtaking gas (penalty coefficients) and undertaking gas (forfeit).
“In case of undertaking gas, the customer then cannot ask to increase gas supply over the daily scale. Therefore, “Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Chelyabinsk” Ltd. setting fines for over or under-taking the contract gas volumes means disadvantageous contract conditions for “Zlatoust Machine-Building Plant” OJSC, which infringes its rights and legitimate interests”, commented the Head of Chelyabinsk OFAS Russia, Ms. Anna Kozlova.
Reference:
1. Clause 10 Part 1 Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” prohibits actions (omissions) of economic entities with dominant market position that have resulted or can result in preventing, restricting, eliminating competition and (or) infringing the interests of other persons, particularly, violating pricing procedures established by normative legal acts.
2. Clause 3 Part 1 Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” prohibits actions (omissions) of economic entities with dominant market position, that have resulted or can result in preventing, restricting, eliminating competition and (or) infringing the interests of other persons, particularly, imposing disadvantageous conditions upon counteragents or conditions irrelevant to the contract subject.
Комментарии