FAS Russia issued decision on antimonopoly cases against United National electric Grid

FAS Russia pronounced that the company violated the antimonopoly law by evading contracts with “Tyumenenergo” OJSC and forcing “Tyumenenergo” OJSC to accept disadvantageous contract conditions.
FAS Russia found that “FGC USC” OJSC violated Clause 3 Part 1 Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” by forcing “Tyumenenergo” OJSC to accept contract conditions to the benefit of “LUKOIL-ENERGOSETI” OJSC.
Upon signing contracts with its customer, “Tyumenenergo” OJSC filed applications for technical connections to the network company. When sending application-based contracts, the Protocols for Adjustment of Differences, and additional agreements, “FGC USC” OJSC attempted to impose contracts conditions that were disadvantageous for the applicant and for the end consumer “LUKOIL-ENERGOSETI” OJSC, as well as not directly provided for by normative legal acts.
Investigating other cases, FAS Russia found that “FGC USC” OJSC violated Clauses 3 and 5 Part 1 Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” by evading a contract with “Tyumenenergo” OJSC, refusing to sign a contract for technological connection with “Tyumenenergo” OJSC without any technological or economic justification, and by imposing contract conditions upon the Tyumen company for connecting energy-receiving devices of “Yuzhny-Balyk Gas-Processing Works” OJSC.
The Commission of FAS Russia found that “FGC USC” OJSC attempted to impose disadvantageous contract conditions upon “Tyumenenergo” OJSC and the end consumer - “Yuzhny-Balyk Gas-Processing Works” OJSC when FGC USC” OJSC concluded additional agreements with “Tyumenenergo” OJSC to the contract for technical connection of energy-receiving devices of “Yuzhny-Balyk Gas-Processing Works” OJSC.
As the violator voluntarily eliminated the violation before the decision on the case was made by excluding such conditions from the additional agreement to the contract, FAS Russia closed the case on Clause 3 Part 1 Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” and did not issue a determination to “FGC USC” OJSC.
FAS Russia also established that “Tyumenenergo” OJSC filed an application to technical connection of energy-receiving devices of its customers – “Samootlorneftegaz” OJSC and “TNK-Nizhnevartovsk” OJSC, to which “FGC USC” OJSC responded only after 27 months. Therefore, within this period “FGC USC” OJSC as a network organization evaded the contract for technical connection. “FGC USC” OJSC failed to forward contract offer within the statutory period specified in Clause 15 of the Rules for Technological Connection of Energy-Receiving Devices to Electric Networks, approved by the Government of the Russian Federation.
Later, after receiving a substantiated refusal from “Tyumenenergo” OJSC to sign the contract in breach of Clause 15 of the Rules for Technological Connection, “FGC USC” OJSC stopped working on the contract offer for technological connection and cancelled the application.
Due to voluntary elimination of the violation – conclusion of the technological connection contract by the companies, FAS Russia also closed the case against “FGC USC” OJSC on Clause 5 Part 1 Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”.