In 2020, the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) of Russia believed that three regional thermal power companies colluded in coal supply tenders. The agency accused LLC TEK, PJSC TGK-2 and JSC Arkoblenergo of collusion in coal supply. As a result of revealed violations - the antimonopoly authority estimated them at 1.5 billion rubles - the bidders were threatened with heavy turnover fines. The companies did not agree with the FAS decision and filed an invalidation application with the Moscow Arbitration Court. The Moscow Arbitration Court examined the lawfulness and validity of the agency's decision, as there were reasons to doubt the correctness of the decision.

THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRATION COURT OF THE CITY OF MOSCOW HAS NOW DECLARED THE DECISION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERAL ANTIMONOPOLY SERVICE TO BE ILLEGAL AND SUBJECT TO REVERSAL.

Our company supports the project to protect interests of TGC-2 PJSC (Territorial Generating Company No.2). (TGC-2) The Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia accused TGC-2 of entering into an agreement with a bidder and creating preferential conditions for that bidder. The company faces a fine of about 400 million rubles.

  1. T. Legal's employees provided legal services to represent TGC-2 PJSC in the FAS of Russia during the hearing of the case on violation of antitrust law: they studied the problematic situation and bidding practices of TGC-2 PJSC for 2017-2020, built a position on the case, conducted search and presentation of evidence to the FAS of Russia, conducted a coal market analysis, participated in meetings of the FAS Commission when considering the case, drafted all necessary documents.

Currently, A.T.Legal is also representing interests of TGC-2 in the FAS in an administrative case. After the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia ruled that TGC-2 violated the Law on Protection of Competition, company's lawyers prepared and filed with the court an application to challenge the antimonopoly authority's decision, prepared all necessary documents, and represented TGC-2 in the Moscow Arbitration Court. 

Lawyers of A.T.Legal have been successfully representing their clients on various issues of antitrust regulation for over 10 years. Our regular clients include major companies in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors, mining, construction, etc. We provide expert assistance in the approval of mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, reorganization of strategically important organizations, legal support for procurement activities, etc. with the Russian antimonopoly authorities.

A.T. Legal seeks to resolve disputes with antitrust authorities administratively without going to court. If necessary, we provide judicial protection of rights in any complex cases. The key to the success of our antitrust practice is not only effective advice to clients and participation in antitrust cases, but also the training of our clients' employees in order to eliminate non-competitive behavior of companies.

See more details on the Kommersant Publishing House website

Other news
PRAVO.RU. NEW FINE AND

ALEXANDER PAVLOVSKY, PARTNER AT A.T.LEGAL Pravo.ru has prepared an article about the new amendments that will come into force in February. Among the interesting ones is the prohibition to write off the minimum income from debtors. Alexander Pavlovsky comments on the Federal law "On amendments to

KOMMERSANT. A LAWSUIT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE PLATFORM. GEEKBRAINS CUSTOMERS DEMAND A REFUND

ALEXANDER PAVLOVSKY, PARTNER AT A.T.LEGAL Customers of the educational platform GeekBrains filed a class action lawsuit against it. They demand compensation because the company does not refund money for online courses if a student decides to withdraw at the beginning of the course. This is one of

KOMMERSANT. SAMSUNG CANNOT CONQUER ALONE. YANDEX AND MIR ALSO WANT TO REVOKE THE DISPUTED PATENT. BY PAVEL GANIN, PARTNER AT A.T.LEGAL

PAVEL GANIN, PARTNER AT A.T.LEGAL FOR RBC Yandex and the National Payment Card System (NPCS) decided to support Samsung in the dispute with the Swiss Sqwin SA. They filed an application for revocation of its patent on the payment system, due to which the court may prohibit the operation of Samsung