Liniya Prava has successfully defended the interests of Sberbank of Russia in a dispute against the Russian Antimonopoly Authority (Department of FAS) in the 15th Arbitrazh Court of Appeal.
The firm persuaded the 15th Arbitrazh Court to deny the appeal of the Department of FAS for the Rostov Region against a decision by a court of first instance stating that the antimonopoly authority's complaints for loan repayment through annuity payments were illegal, as groundless.
In 2012 the Department of FAS for the Rostov Region found that Sberbank of Russia had violated sub-p.3, p. 1, cl. 10 of the Russian "On Protection of Competition" Law, which prohibits the imposition of unfavorable contract terms, and obtained a remedial order. During their initial consideration, the court of first instance and court of appeal supported the antimonopoly authorities. However, the FAS for the North Caucasus sustained a cassation appeal prepared by Liniya Prava lawyers and referred the case to a first instance court for reconsideration. There, the efforts of Liniya Prava lawyers Vadim Novikov and Svetlana Avdasheva, as well as the economists and sociologists the firm engaged as experts, resulted in full satisfaction of Sberbank of Russia's claim to invalidate the antimonopoly authority's decision and order, by the decision issued by the Arbitration Court for the Rostov Region that reconsidered the case.
Alexey Kostovarov, the Liniya Prava Senior Associate who represented Sberbank of Russia before the courts, said that the order of the court of appeal was predictable: "Lack of grounds in the antimonopoly authority's claims is quite evident, the first instance court has reasonably confirmed this fact, thus, we could not expect any other order from the court of appeal. It is common practice in the lending market to repay loans through annuity payments, therefore, the courts did not have any grounds for finding such practice illegal. We are glad that the courts have looked into peculiarities of loan repayment options and supported the Bank that, for the most part, defended the interests of the whole banking sector and common borrowers rather than its own interests. We hope that the cassation court will draw a line in this case supporting its colleagues from the lower courts."
