Pnevmostroymashina to pay fine

UrBC, Yekaterinburg, November 18, 2010. X5 Retail Group announced they were going to contest the fines imposed on the company by Sverdlovsk Region division of Russia’s Federal Antimonopoly Service. ‘The company, which comprises such supermarket chains as Pyaterochka, Perekrestok, and Carousel, is made up of independent legal entities that deal in retail trade as separate operators. On August 1, 2010, ZAO Perekrestok Trade House started running Pyaterochka chain instead of OOO Ural Retail. The FAS’s Sverdlovsk Region division was informed of the changes during their inspection of Pyaterochka.

Ural Federal District’s division of Rosprirodnadzor (the state environmental watchdog) completed its scheduled inspection of Ural Civil Aviation Plant; the main purpose of inspecting the enterprise that deals in repairs of aero-engines, units, and reducing gear was to check the plant’s compliance with the existing environmental legislation, the spokesperson for Rosprirodnadzor informed UrBC. Twelve environmental offenses were detected in the course of the inspection; the environmental officials issues eleven orders for the enterprise and drew up offense protocols that accuse the plant of

OAO Gazpromneft-Ural is to pay a 500,000-ruble fine for committing an administrative offense in the securities market field; the company’s charges are based on Article 15.19 (part 1) of the Russian Federation Administrative Offense Code. The decision to this extent was made by Ural Federal District’s division of the Federal Financial Markets Service.

Noviy Urengoi public prosecution authorities for transportation inspected OAO Airport Salekhard for compliance with the existing securities legislation and detected a number of problems, Ural public prosecution authorities for transportation’s press officer reports. It was revealed that OAO Airport Salekhard violated the existing law on securities while administering its stockholders register. For one, the joint stock company keeps a customer account and a report form of the issuer and not the customer account and a report form of a registered individual. Then, the extract from the company’s

Sverdlovsk Region division of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) looked into Bank24.ru’s alleged administrative offense case. The regional public prosecution authorities had investigated the bank’s advertising materials and papers earlier and placed their files with the division so that the latter might decide whether the bank’s loan ads violated the existing legislation. The division did declare Bank24.ru’s ads violated Article 28 (part 3) and Article 5 (part 7) of the Federal Advertising Act. For example, the bank’s Outstanding Loans advertisement did not provide any information as to