‘Koltsovo airport of Yekaterinburg is trying to impugn our order regarding the airport’s refusal to provide Ural Airlines with the slots for winter flights from Yekaterinburg to Moscow and back,’ says the spokesperson for Federal Antimonopoly Service in Sverdlovsk Region.

The Service earlier stated that Kotsovo airport had been violating the antimonopoly law when refusing the carrier the so-called historic slots in winter. The airport said back then that due to overhaul of check-in zones 1 and 2 and leasing of zones 5 and 6 meant for domestic flights they couldn’t service too many passengers at the given time period. It was Aviaprad that rented zones 5 and 6 from Koltsovo airport. Ural Airlines agreed to the decision as all the other carriers were not allowed to use the zones either, but still decided to place a claim with Federal Antimonopoly Service.

An independent committee of experts consisting of Rosaviation executives, public prosecution officers from the transport department, and other authorities looked at all the papers and declared the airport’s refusal to provide the slots was unjustified and violated the federal law on protection of competition into the bargain.

‘Federal Antimonopoly Service made its decision based on the committee’s report. The airport couldn’t agree with the report findings and therefore laid a claim in court. The Service actually made two provisions: to cancel the lease contract with Aviaprad and to restore the historic slots from Yekaterinburg to Moscow and back. Koltsovo airport complied with the first requirement but put off the fulfillment of the second one. It was supposed to restore the slots on January 10, 2007, but the airport notified the Service it would do so on January 30, which never happened. Another deadline was set at February 15, 2007, whereupon we had to file an administrative suit against the airport and held them responsible,’ says the spokesperson for Federal Antimonopoly Service in Sverdlovsk Region.

‘We are inclined to believe Koltsovo airport impugns our order because of delaying its fulfillment. The airport claims the report of the expert committee was only of stochastic nature and contained procedural irregularities.’