Arbitration tribunal proved that OJSC “TGC-9” was right in the dispute with OFAS of Perm Region concerning lawfulness of refusal of heat supply contract comclusion between OJSC “TGC-9” and managing company “Our House”.

In October, 2007 “Managing company “Our House”, Ltd. (Gubaha City) approached OJSC “TGC-9” with a request to conclude a contract on heat maintenance. It was supposed that residential houses managed by the MC “Our House” would be provided with heat by this contract.

After OJSC “TGC-9” had carried out a request and documentation review, it refused to conclude the contract. MC “Our House” did not provide any documents proving that the residential houses listed in the application for the contract actually were managed by it. More over, it turned out that these houses were in fact governed by another organization.

After the OJSC “TGC-9” refusal the managing company simultaneously went to the OFAS of the Perm Region and the Arbitration Tribunal of the Perm Region with the claim to obligate OJSC “TGC-9” to conclude the deal.

The Arbitration tribunal tried on charge quicker than the antimonopoly body, investigated the case and dismissed it. The managing company did not appeal from the judgment. The legal decision inured on March 13, 2008 and became obligatory for all government bodies pursuant to Arbitration code of practice of RF.

OJSC “TGC-9” presented the Arbitration tribunal decision to the OFAS of Perm Region in the framework of the claim investigation on antimonopoly law abuse raised by the managing company.

Despite of the conclusive evidence of OJSC “TGC-9” rightness and constancy of the managing company requirements (to conclude a contract on heat supply with it), the antimonopoly body made a decision in favor of MC “Our House” and committed OJSC “TGC-9” to conclude the heat supply contract. More over in the middle of May the OFAS of Perm Region made a decision on institution of arbitration proceedings against OJSC “TGC-9” by the Article “Abuse of dominant position at the commodity market” of Arbitration code of practice and set a penalty of 1.7 million rubles.

OJSC ‘TGC-9” appealed the decree of OFAS of Perm Region on setting of the administrative penalty at the Arbitration tribunal. The Arbitration tribunal specified in its regulation that “TGC-9” refusal of contract conclusion was legitimate and reasonable which already had been specified in the court decision that had come into effect. The Arbitration tribunal also decided that “the administrative body [OFAS of Perm Region] did not prove the circumstances being the basis for bringing OJSC “TGC-9” to administrative charge”, admitted the OFAS decree illegal and annulled it.

So that it was the second time OJSC “TGC-9” proved its rightness in the Arbitration tribunal of Perm Region.