Court Confirmed Legitimacy of Fine for RSC Company
OREANDA-NEWS. May 22, 2013. The Cassation Court dismissed a cassation appeal of “Russian Satellite Communications Company” Federal State Unitary Enterprise, challenging the judgment of Moscow Arbitration Court of 13.11.2012 and the ruling of the 9th Arbitration Appeal Court on the case on invalidating FAS determination to fine the company 300,000 Rubles for failure to provide information.
Therefore, judicial proceedings that lasted over a year were completed. Nevertheless, in spite of the Court ruling, “Russian Satellite Communications Company” failed to submit to FAS the documents and information lawfully requested by the antimonopoly body. Failure of “Russian Satellite Communications Company” to fulfill its public duty established by the law: FAS requirements to submit information and documents required by the antimonopoly authority to exercise its regulatory functions in the field of compliance with the antimonopoly law prevents exercising its functions by the Antimonopoly Service and also injures social relations in this field.
In 2011 FAS initiated a case against “Russian Satellite Communications Company” upon signs of violating Part 1 Article 17 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”. In the FAS definition of 21.06.2011 on setting the case for consideration “Russian Satellite Communications Company” was requested several documents required for the case investigation. At the same time the necessary documents were not submitted to the antimonopoly authority. FAS initiated an administrative case against “Russian Satellite Communications Company” under Part 5 Article 19.8 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Violations.
The Head of FAS Department for Control over Financial Markets, Olga Sergeeva stated: “In July 2012 Moscow Arbitration Court already considered the case on challenging legitimacy of FAS determination to impose the fine upon “Russian Satellite Communications Company” and forwarded the case for reconsideration following a cassation appeal lodged by the Antimonopoly Service”.
Комментарии