“Gorvodokanal” fails to appeal 1.5-mln-ruble Federal Antimonopoly Service fine
Penza, 17 February 2016. PenzaNews. The 11th Arbitration Appeal Court upheld the verdict of the Penza region Arbitration Court dated 11 December 2015, which deemed legal the decision of the regional Federal Antimonopoly Service deparment to fine “Gorvodokanal” nearly 1.5 million rubles over the case of installation of communal meters.
© PenzaNewsBuy the photo
The verdict issued on 15 February 2016 dismisses the appeal by “Gorvodokanal.”
According to materials of the case, on 7 October 2014, the committee of the regional antimonopoly body concluded that “Gorvodokanal,” during installation of communal cold water supply meters, had no legal reasons to bill people for the equipment and works used for meter installation, which, as the committee concluded, constitutes the abuse of monopoly in the service market and a violation of Part 1, Art. 10 of the federal competition protection law.
The demand to the organization to cease the violations was issued on the same day.
On 5 March 2015, the FAS department representative drafted a protocol against the organization under Part 2, Art. 14.31 of the Administrative Code, “Abuse of Dominance in a Commodity Market.”
After the review of the case, the head of the antimonopoly body issued a statement to fine “Gorvodokanal” 11,452,386 rubles 65 kopecks. According to the case files, the fine was calculated based on net profit of the enterprise in cold water supply.
While in court, representatives of “Gorvodokanal” mentioned that there are reasons to bring the fine amount down to 100,000 rubles. In particular, they pointed out that due to the money-losing character of the business and its critical financial situation, the amount of the fine will not create the expected administrative effect.
According to the company’s financial statement, its net profit reached 33,491,000 rubles over 2013, and 23,125,000 rubles over January-September 2014, with an overall lost of profits of 1,207,000 rubles over the nine months of 2015.
After the consideration of all details, the court found no reasons to reduce the fine.