JSC "Aulie-Ata International Airport" in Taraz was held administratively liable for setting a monopolistically high price in the sale of aviation kerosene. The court imposed a fine of 3.2 million tenge on the enterprise and confiscated 25.2 million tenge of monopoly income.
WHAT THE ANTIMONOPOLY AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED
According to the department of the Agency for the Protection and Development of Competition (APDC) for Zhambyl Region, the authority examined the airport's activities in terms of pricing in the sale of aviation fuel. The analysis included an assessment of the state of competition and price dynamics.
Based on the results of the investigation, the antimonopoly authority established a violation of competition protection legislation in terms of setting a monopolistically high price for aviation kerosene.
HOW THE AIRPORT CHALLENGED THE INVESTIGATION RESULTS
The airport disagreed with the investigation's conclusions and appealed them in the courts of first and second instance. By a ruling of the judicial panel for administrative cases of the Zhambyl Regional Court, the investigation results were recognised as lawful and well-founded.
After that, the case was considered by the Specialised Court for Administrative Offences of the City of Taraz. During the hearing, the airport admitted its guilt.
WHAT PUNISHMENT THE COURT IMPOSED
The enterprise was held administratively liable under Part 3 of Article 159 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Administrative Offences".
The court imposed an administrative fine of 3.2 million tenge. In addition, 25.2 million tenge of monopoly income obtained as a result of monopolistic activity is subject to confiscation.
WHAT ORDER THE AIRPORT RECEIVED
In addition to the administrative penalty, the antimonopoly authority issued an order to the airport to cease violations of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the field of competition protection.
The order provides for the setting of an economically justified price.
CONTEXT
This is not the first case of violations being identified in the aviation fuel sales market at Kazakhstan's airports.
In July, the APDC department for the city of Astana identified a violation in the operations of JSC "Nursultan Nazarbayev International Airport". The airport charged aviation fuel suppliers a fee that was not provided for by legislation: initially it amounted to 16,240 tenge per tonne, then rose to 77,852 tenge, and later decreased to 60,137 tenge. The court of first instance recognised the investigation results as lawful.
In February, a court fined JSC "Turkistan International Airport" 14.3 million tenge for violating antimonopoly legislation related to charging entrepreneurs a fee for the right to sell aviation fuel on the airport's territory.
WHAT THE ANALYSIS OF AIRPORTS' REPORTING SHOWED
Earlier, the FBRK analysed the financial statements of several major airports in Kazakhstan. In the reporting of Astana airport, attention was drawn to violations identified by the state audit, including the purchase of equipment worth 395.4 million tenge bypassing the approved financial and economic justification.
Later, the situation with Astana airport escalated into a separate dispute with the media. The airport refused to respond to the FBRK's request regarding the judicial dispute, but after the editorial team approached state bodies, the company eventually provided a response.
In the reporting of Almaty airport, issues were discovered regarding the disclosure of financial information. In the reports for 2023, 2024 and 2025, information about an already expired licence was repeated, and the amount of liabilities for the construction of a new terminal did not change between the reports for 2023 and 2024, although the terminal had already been put into operation. In addition, the state audit revealed the payment of 6.8 billion tenge in dividends to a legal entity that did not have shareholder status.
At Atyrau airport, problems were found in three reporting periods at once — 2022, 2023 and 2024. In particular, earnings per share figures did not match the calculation based on net profit. Later, the airport acknowledged some of the identified problems, demonstrating a willingness to respond openly to comments, which was clearly not observed in the case of a number of similar companies.
