Информационный обзор практики Антимонопольного регулирования (1 октября - 15 ноября, 2013)
Additional fines enacted for failure to provide reliable information to FAS
President Vladimir Putin on 2 November 2013 signed the Federal Law No. 285-FZ, which amends the provisions of article 19.8 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation concerning liability for failure to provide information to the Federal Anti-monopoly Service of the Russian Federation (FAS).
The law enforces new sections 7 and 8 of article 19.8 of the Administrative Offences Code by establishing the administrative liability for failure to provide, upon request by the FAS, or the late submission of information necessary for the calculation of the amount of an administrative fine. It also penalizes the knowing submission of unreliable information for the same purposes, even if the defects in the information re not discovered until after imposition of the administrative fine. These "aggravated" administrative fines can be from one million to five million rubles under articles 6.19, 6.20, section 2 of article 14.32, and article 14.40.
The amendments went into effect on 4 December 2013 and do not apply to previous submissions of information.
It is worth mentioning that the State Duma of the Russian Federation on 22 October 2013 passed the second reading of the draft law regarding the alleviation of minimum fine imposed on legal entities for failure to provide or late submissions of information to the FAS, as well as the submission of knowingly unreliable information, in the amount from 300 to 50,000 rubles (Administrative Offences Code, section 5, article 19.8).
FAS proposes modification to the essential principle of quota allocation for aquatic biological resources fishing
The authorities initially proposed the entire abolition of the current traditional principle of fishing quota allocation; however this initial proposal was modified in response to criticisms from the giant fishing companies.
According to the State Secretary / Head of the Antimonopoly Service, Andrey Tsarikovskiy, the traditional principle should be replaced by auctions or competitive tenders; since they guarantee the ultimate transparency in quota allocation procedures. By doing so, the altered rules will be unfavorable for those market players who sell their quota. However those who preserved their own enterprises in hard times, bought new ships, and enhanced the infrastructure will benefit from the new system.
FAS / Central Bank of Russia Joint Committee cites a cartel occurrence in automobile loan financing
On 23 October 2013 the Joint Committee found OJSC Uralsib and Volkswagen Bank RUS LLC to be in violation of section 4 of article 11 of the Federal Law On the Protection of Competition. In the authorities’ opinion, the violation took place when these two banks concluded a cooperation agreement which imposed on OJSC Uralsib an obligation not to recommend or offer any services to the clients of Volkswagen Bank RUS LLC in automobile loan financing.
Following the results of hearing, the committee ruled that the banks, formerly known as mere potential competitors, in the course of executing the aforementioned agreement acted as real competitors. Thus, after concluding the agreement with such terms and conditions, OJSC Uralsib refused to exercise its discretion afterwards in automobile loan financing and refrained from actual competition with Volkswagen Bank RUS, which contributed to the direct violation of the competition laws.
Arbitration Court of Moscow upholds the finding of illegal competition in the Alaska pollock market
On 30 October 201, the Arbitration Court of Moscow upheld the decision and instruction of the FAS (case No. 1 11/98-12, 12 December 2012) that found illegal conduct by Alaska pollock manufacturers when they concluded and exercised the cartel in violation of article 11 of the Federal Law On the Protection of Competition (items 1, 4 of section 1 and section 5 of article 11 respectively).
The court decreed that the plaintiffs' allegations, that they concluded the prohibited agreements for the sole purpose of preservation and reasonable use of aquatic biological resources, did not rebut the allegations of a violation of the competition law. Nor did these claims disprove the obvious intent of the members of the association to conclude such agreements, including also those who implied it, in order to maintain the price of Alaska pollock and its output by regulating the volume of market supply in connection with its increased total allowable catch.
It should be noted that the authorities have now imposed administrative liability in this case on most of the Alaska pollock cartel participants, pursuant to article 14.32 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation (section 1 and 2). The total sum of the imposed fines is more than 113 million rubles.