OREANDA-NEWS. July 14, 2014. The Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dismissed cassation appeals of “Argus-Spektr” CJSC and the Ministry of Emergencies and confirmed the conclusions of the Courts of First Instance and Appeal Court on legitimacy of the actions undertaken by the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia) in the course of an unscheduled on-site inspection of “Argus-Spektr” CJSC.

In December 2012, FAS received materials from the Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service in the Pskov region (Pskov OFAS Russia) indicating that in the course of investigating a petition of “Derzhava” Private Security Company” Ltd. OFAS exposed elements of violating Part 2 Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” by “Argus-Spektr” CJSC and its dealer – “Fire Monitoring Service” Ltd. (concluding prohibited “vertical agreements”).

Based on the materials obtained from Pskov OFAS Russia, FAS carried out an unscheduled on-site inspection of “Argus-Spektr” CJSC, the results of which confirmed signs of concluding the contract by the company for supplying its products and specifying the lowest reselling prices, which is directly prohibited by Part 2 Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”.

In February 2014, FAS initiated a case against “Argus-Spektr” CJSC and its dealers upon elements of violating the antimonopoly law.

“Argus-Spektr” CJSC challenged еру actions of the Antimonopoly Service during the unscheduled inspection at Moscow Arbitration Court; however, the Courts of three instances confirmed legitimacy of FAS actions.

Reference:

Clause 4 Article 25.1 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”
4. The unscheduled inspection is carried out upon:

1) Materials received from the law enforcement bodies, other government agencies, local self-government bodies, from non-government associations, from the Commissioner for the President of the Russian Federation for protecting the rights of businessmen, commissioners for protecting the rights of businessmen in the subjects of the Russian Federationб and upon revealing signs of violating the antimonopoly law

2)
(as amended by No.294-FZ Federal Law of 02.11.2013)

2) Reports and statements by physical persons, legal enmities, information in mass media, indicating elements of violating the antimonopoly law

3) Expiry of the period for executing a determination issued upon the results of an antimonopoly case investigation, or in exercising state control over economic concentration in accordance with the procedures specified in Chapter 7 of the given Federal Law

(as amended by No.401-FZ Federal Law of 06.12.2011)

4) Instructions issued by the President and the Government of the Russian Federation

(Clause 4 is introduced by No.401-FZ Federal Law of 06.12.2011)

5) The antimonopoly authority exposing signs of violating the antimonopoly law.