OREANDA-NEWS. May 06, 2014. Moscow Arbitration Court supported the position of Moscow OFAS Russia on a case on an oral anti-competitive agreement (cartel) between “Petrovsky Park” Ltd., “Kommunalny Service” Ltd. and “PromStroiTorg” Ltd. at an electronic auction for the right to conclude a contract for removing snow in Airport area.

Earlier the Commission of Moscow OFAS Russia found that “Petrovsky Park” Ltd., “Kommunalny Service” Ltd. and “PromStroiTorg” Ltd. violated Clause 2 Part 1 Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”.

The auction bidders concluded an oral anti-competitive agreement that resulted in maintaining auction prices, which, in its turn, allowed “Petrovsky Park” Ltd. to win the auction with 1.5% reduction of the initial contract price at 106 million RUB.

Having investigated the case materials and analyzed the auction, OFAS specialists established that commercial organizations, which were supposed to compete with each other at the auction, had acted in each other’s interests: exchanged information in the course of preparing auction applicaions and filed price bids using the common software-hardware infrastructure – exercised all significant actions using the same computers, at the same address.

It was confirmed, particularly, by matching IP-addresses and accounts, where bid files were created and changed.

The violators disagreed with the decision of the antimonopoly body and filed a lawsuit.

Moscow Arbitration Court supported legitimacy and reasonableness of the decision issued by Moscow OFAS Russia with regard to “Petrovsky Park” Ltd., “Kommunalny Service” Ltd. and “PromStroiTorg” Ltd., thus, supporting the position of the Antimonopoly Service.

“Persons recognized as cartel participants typically put forward the same arguments, long known in the practice of antimonopoly bodies. They state that there was competition at the auction in question and that legislators did not set the criteria of considerable reduction of the initial contract price, and refer to inexpediency of the price bids below the lowest values at 1-2 %, etc. When the antimonopoly body proved the fact of using the same infrastructure by formal competitors in order to take part in competitive bidding; however, such arguments pale into insignificance since the fact of concerted efforts is obvious”, pointed out the Head of the Legal Department of Moscow OFAS Russia, Nikolai Orlov.