The article examines the place of the antitrust process within the system of Russian competition law. It analyses the main doctrinal approaches to the concepts of administrative process and administrative procedure, as well as academic positions on the content and boundaries of the antitrust process. It is shown that at least three approaches have developed in the specialised literature: procedural, narrowly administrativejurisdictional and broad. The article argues that a narrow, administrative-jurisdictional understanding of the antitrust process makes it possible to draw a clear line between administrative procedures and jurisdictional proceedings, to determine the moment when a public-law conflict arises and when the procedural status of the respondent is formed, and to delineate the scope of subsequent jurisdictional stages, including intra-agency appeal and review based on new or newly discovered circumstances. It is concluded that the institution of the antitrust process occupies an independent place within the system of Russian competition law as the procedural core of the public-law mechanism for the protection of competition, while not encompassing the entire set of administrative procedures in the antitrust sphere.

The article is devoted to the history of the introduction of a ban on anti-competitive coordination in domestic competition law, as well as the initial stage of its development from 1995 (the moment the ban was introduced)to 2006 (the adoption of the Federal Law "On Protection of Competition" No. 135-FZ (Law on Protection of Competition), which changed the previously existing approach to prohibited coordination). The prerequisites for establishing this prohibition were investigated, a comparison was made with similar prohibitions in foreign law enforcement agencies, the features of the legal prohibition on coordinating economic activities characteristic only of Russian antimonopoly legislation were highlighted. It was concluded that at the initial stage of application, the ban on coordination acted as a universal tool for qualifying any coordinated behavior, which allowed overly wide discretion on the part of the law enforcement officer.

This article examines schemes used to circumvent the antimonopoly requirements of Federal Law№381-FZ of December 28, 2009 "On the Fundamentals of State Regulation of Trade Activities in the Russian Federation," employed by certain participants in food retail markets in order to restrict competition therein and obtain unjustified advantages, as well as the law enforcement practice of the antimonopoly authority in suppressing such actions. Based on the results of the conducted research, the author formulates proposals for introducing amendments to the legislation aimed at creating conditions to prevent the unfair practices examined.

The subject of this study is the legal norms on the procedure for making foreign investments in the Russian Federation, which were adopted by the legislator in 2026. In the context of countering the unlawful economic sanctions imposed on our country by certain foreign states and their alliances, the focus of domestic policy is shifting towards additional restrictions on the inflow and outflow of foreign capital. At the same time, effective development requires the involvement of foreign investments in the economy, which contribute to attracting new technologies, creating new jobs, and improving the welfare of citizens. It is not advisable to completely close Russia's economic space, as this could result in our country and Russian entrepreneurs losing access to the global market and participation in the free movement of goods, services, capital, and labor. Given these considerations, the purpose of this study is to analyze changes in the legal regulation of foreign investment that could shape government policy in this area in the near future.

The study employs a combination of dialectical, general scientific and specific scientific methods, including comparative legal, formal logical, and systemic analysis.

Based on the results of the study, the author concludes that the government's policy on legal regulation of foreign investments is systematic, that legislative changes are adequate to changing social relations, and that the transformation of legislation is aimed at increasing legal certainty. This should contribute to improving the investment climate. At the same time, Russia continues to effectively use administrative and jurisdictional measures to protect the rights of foreign investors to fair competition.

A historical and legal analysis of the development of the institution of regulating economic competition in Russia is presented. The study covers the period from the appearance of the first systematized written sources of competitive law of the 11th century to the present, including the stages of the formation of trade relations in Ancient Russia and the Moscow state, the formation of pro-competitive norms in the legislation of the Russian Empire, their transformation in the Soviet period and modern times.

The key historical stages and legal mechanisms for regulating competitive relations during the study period, the specifics of legal regulation of economic competition at each stage were identified.

The limits of antitrust administration of procurement relations are often the subject of scientific debate, as well as one of the stumbling blocks in law enforcement. The severity of this issue is intensified in a situation where the bidder resorts to an administrative rather than a judicial method of challenging the terms of the draft procurement contract, one of the least suitable (in the opinion of the author) for appealing the categories of procurement documentation. To develop the most reasonable legal assessment, an interconnected analysis of the legislative regulation of law enforcement practice and doctrinal positions on this issue is necessary.

The article considers some of the most significant problems of establishing the dominant position of the subjects of the wholesale electric energy and capacity market and retail electric energy markets in the Russian Federation through the prism of the general requirements of legislation on protection of competition and the specifics determined by special legislation in the field of electric power industry.

It is noted that it is necessary to take into account the industry-specific features of the electric power markets when determining their geographical and product boundaries as part of an analysis of the state of competition in these markets.

The author separately emphasizes the importance of the category of market power, as well as the presence of a dominant position of an entity in the fuel markets when establishing the fact of its dominant position in the electric energy (capacity) market.

The author draws attention to the uncertainty of the applicability to the retail electric energy markets of the criteria defined by the legislation on the electric power industry for the presence of a dominant position for the wholesale electric energy and capacity market. To solve this problem, an alternative approach is proposed and justified: the consolidation in the Law on the Electric Power Industry of special criteria for dominance in the retail markets of electric energy or a direct indication in the same Law that the special criteria for a dominant position specified therein relate exclusively to the wholesale market of electric energy and capacity, while the dominant position of the subject in the retail markets of electric energy determined in accordance with the general requirements of the antimonopoly legislation.

Bringing to administrative responsibility is one of the main tools for suppressing violations of antitrust laws. At the same time, in some cases, for violation of antimonopoly legislation, the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation establishes an administrative penalty in the form of a negotiable fine, the amount of which can reach hundreds of millions of rubles. For this reason,the calculation and procedure for imposing a negotiable fine must comply with the requirements established by law, the principles of fairness and proportionality of punishment for harm caused by an administrative offense to public relations in the field of competition protection.

The article considers issues arising in the calculation and imposition of a negotiable fine for violation of antimonopoly legislation. The specifics of the procedure for determining the fine based on such factors as the period of receipt of the amount of revenue and the boundaries of the commodity market are investigated. The author also proposes possible ways to interpret and apply certain provisions that have not yet been an independent subject of assessment by the antimonopoly regulator and courts.