In its Resolution of 14 October 2004, the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeals confirmed the illegal nature of the Decision of the Commission of the Ministry for Antimonopoly Policy of 11 February 2004 concerning bringing OJSC “Edinaya torgovaya kompaniya”

In its Decision of 11 February 2004 on case № 1 06/5-04, the Commission of the Ministry for Antimonopoly Policy ruled that OJSC “Edinaya torgovaya kompaniya” was in breach of p.p. 3 and 5 art. 6 of the Law on Competition, and issued a Prescription that envisaged, inter alia, the necessity of terminating agreements on delivery of caustic soda and polyvinyl chloride suspension, executed between OJSC “ETK” and producer plants, and also an application to the courts with a claim for the liquidation of OJSC “ETK.”

The attorneys of the law firm “YUST”, representing the interests of OJSC “ETK”, filed an appeal against the above-mentioned Decision and Prescription of the Ministry for Antimonopoly Policy, basing their arguments for the acknowledgement of the indicated Decision and Prescription as invalid on the unproven nature of the circumstances cited by the Commission of the Ministry; an erroneous interpretation of the law on competition; and also the lack of verification of a number of questions, essential to the reaching of a substantiated conclusion.

On 9 August 2004, the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow ruled in favor of OJSC “ETK” and acknowledged the Decision and Prescription of the Commission of the Ministry for Antimonopoly Policy of 11 February 2004 on case № 1 06/5-04 as invalid.

The antimonopoly body rejected this ruling of the court and lodged an appeal in the relevant order. At a hearing on 14 October 2004, in which the attorneys of the law firm “YUST” took part, the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeals confirmed the illegality of the Decision and Prescription of the Commission of the Ministry for Antimonopoly Policy of 11 February 2004 regarding bringing the company “Edinaya torgovaya kompaniya” to book on charges of violating antimonopoly legislation.

Consequently, the decision of the court of the first instance remained unchanged.