OREANDA-NEWS. August 08, 2014. The 9th Arbitration Appeal Court upheld the judgment of Moscow Arbitration Court on legitimacy of the decision and determination on the case against “URALSIB” OJSC and “Volkswagen Bank RUS” Ltd. violating the antimonopoly law, as well as determinations in imposing fines upon the fact of the violation.

Earlier, on 23rd October 2013, the joint Commission of FAS Russia and the Bank of Russia found that “URALSIB” OJSC and “Volkswagen Bank RUS” Ltd. violated Part 4 Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” due to concluding an Agreement on Cooperation.

The Agreement was concluded because “Volkswagen Bank RUS” Ltd. did not have a license for depositing funds of physical persons and provided for “URALSIB” OJSC opening accounts of the borrowers of “Volkswagen Bank RUS” Ltd. to deposit and service loans of the latter.

The Agreement indicated an obligation of “URALSIB” OJSC not to recommend and not to create conditions for receiving services of “URALSIB” OJSC by its partner’s customers to repay loans of “Volkswagen Bank RUS” Ltd., as well as to any other purposes including purchasing vehicles.

In the course of the case investigations, it was established that concluding the Agreement the banks were potential competitors on the auto loan market for physical persons, and in the process of its execution became real competitors on the market.

In view of this circumstance, the Commission concluded that by entering into the Agreement under such conditions, “URALSIB” OJSC effectively refused from some independent actions in the future on the above market – from competition with “Volkswagen Bank RUS” Ltd. for the customers attracted by it.

Taking into account that by the time of issuing a decision the violation was not eliminated, the Commission issued a determination to the respondents to exclude anticompetitive provisions from the Agreement, that later was executed within the statutory period.

For the exposed violation, “URALSIB” OJSC and “Volkswagen Bank RUS” Ltd. were held administratively liable under Part 1 Article 14.32 of the Code on Administrative Violations.

The credit organizations disagreed with the decision and determination of the Commission and determinations on imposing fines and filed a lawsuit.

On 29th May 2014, Moscow Arbitration Court dismissed the claim “URALSIB” OJSC and “Volkswagen Bank RUS” Ltd., confirming legitimacy and reasonableness of the acts adopted by the antimonopoly body.

On 29th July 2014, the 9th Arbitration Appeal Court also dismissed the banks’ claim to abolish the judgment of Moscow Arbitration Court.

Reference:

Part 4 Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” prohibits other agreements between economic entities if established that such agreements lead or can lead to restricting competition.

Clause 17 Article 4 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” specifies that refusals by economic entities that are not members of the same group of persons, from independent actions on the market constitute a sign of restricting competition.

Part 1 Article 14.32 of the Code on Administrative Violations establishes that if an economic entity concludes an agreement prohibited by the antimonopoly law of the Russian Federation as well as participating in such an agreement, is punishable by an administrative fine upon legal entities – from one hundredth to fifteen hundredth of the income of the violator from selling goods (works, services) on the market, where the administrative violation was committed by no less than 100,000 RUB.