On 25th June 2008, the Moscow Arbitration Court confirmed validity of the decision of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia) on recognizing that «Yenisei Regional Generation Company (TGC-13)» OJSC had violated Article 10 of the Federal Law «On Protection of Competition» (abusing dominant position). The company violated the law by imposing unfavorable contract conditions on a counteragent or conditions that were irrelevant to the subject matter of the contract.
The case against «Yenisei Regional Generation Company (TGC-13)» OJSC was initiated upon a petition of «Zhilservice» CJSC.
«Yenisei Regional Generation Company (TGC-13)» OJSC occupies dominant position on the market of heating supply services in Minusunsk, the Krasnoayrsk region.
FAS Russia established that «Zhilservice» CJSC, being the managing company for several residential houses in Minusunsk, had proposed to «Yenisei Regional Generation Company (TGC-13)» OJSC (the energy-supplying organization) to sign a contract for supplying heating to several apartment buildings. The energy-supplying organization presented a draft heating-supply contract, with which «Zhilservice» CJSC disagreed. «Zhilservice» CJSC sent the Disagreement Protocol to the energy-supplying organization, which, in its turn, disagreed with it.
Processing the case, the Antimonopoly Service established that the energy-supplying organization had included in the text of the contract some provisions, which had been formalized by already abolished regulatory legal acts and were not in compliance with the current regulations, as well as certain technical specifications that were not formalized by the current regulations on heating supply. Thus, «Yenisei Regional Generation Company (TGC-13)» OJSC violated Article 10 of the Federal Law «On Protection of Competition».
The company disagreed with the FAS Russia's decision and appealed to the Arbitration Court. The Court, however, found the arguments of «Yenisei Regional Generation Company (TGC-13)» OJSC ungrounded and, therefore, confirmed validity of the FAS Russia's decision.
