OREANDA-NEWS. September 30, 2011. The Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia) found that “National Aviation Materials Institute” (VIAM”) violated Part 3 Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”, reported the press-centre of FAS Russia.

On 27th April 2011, FAS initiated a case against the Institute upon the signs of violating Part 3 Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”. OFAS also started proceedings against “Alcoa Metallugr Rus” CJSC, “Alcoa SMZ” CJSC, “Kamensk-Uralsky Metallurgical Works” OJSC and “Stupinskaya Metallurgical Company” upon the signs of violating Part 1 Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”.

Having investigated the case, FAS Commission established that “National Aviation Materials Institute” coordinated economic activities of consumers and producers of shell plates from aluminium alloyes, which resulted in dividing the market according to the range of products.

“National Aviation Materials Institute” is a state research centre of the Russian Federation for aviation-purpose materials, and a developer and holder of exclusive rights (the rights holder) for aviation materials, including aluminium alloyes used for production of shell plates.

Due to technological restrictions related to production of shell plates from aluminium alloyes used in the aviation industry, “National Aviation Materials Institute” repeatedly initiated meetings with producers and consumers of the products and sent letters to consumers coordinating their activities for purchasing shell plates.

The decisions made at those meetings resulted in dividing the market of shell plates, made according to ОST 1 90070-92 standard, by the range of products and sellers’ categories.

FAS Russia found that “National Aviation Materials Institute” violated Part 3 Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”.

FAS terminated the proceeding against Рproducers of sheet places “Alcoa Metallugr Rus” CJSC, “Alcoa SMZ” CJSC, “Kamensk-Uralsky Metallurgical Works” OJSC and “Stupinskaya Metallurgical Company”- due to absence of violation of Part 1 Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” in their actions.