The analysis of historical experience of development and protection of competition is carried out in the context of history of development of economic relations, formation and development of the Antimonopoly legislation and practice of its application. Ensuring the development and protection of competition is evaluated taking into account the values and philosophies, the development of economic doctrines, based on the ongoing changes in the economy and technological shifts. More than a thousand years of experience of antimonopoly regulation in India, the Roman Empire and Byzantium is summarized. The antitrust experience of the United States revealed based on the analysis of history of development of economic relations in the country studies of the background of the U.S. antitrust laws in the late XIX century describes the main conditions and precedents of the application of the antitrust laws of the United States, the major structural changes in the economy in the XX century. Examples of adjustment of priorities of antitrust policy of the USA in the conditions of dynamic changes in the XXI century are given.
The main stages of the millennial history of market relations in Russia are considered, including the analysis of the most important monuments of Russian history (Russkaya Pravda 1016, Kormchaya kniga 1274, the Cathedral Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich 1649). The basic Antimonopoly provisions of the decrees of the Peter I era, which initiated the formation of the Antimonopoly legislation and the development of competition, the Antimonopoly norms of the Criminal and Correctional Penalties Act of 1845, approved by Nikolay I for half a century of the appearance of antitrust legislation in the United States, are investigated. The history of the development of organized trade during the development of the Russian North, Siberia and the Far East, the practice of countering the monopolization and cartelization of the economy of pre-revolutionary Russia are studied. The reasons and mechanism of monopolization and cartelization of the Russian and the Soviet economy after 1917 are revealed. The ideologies of socialism and capitalism and the reasons for their isolation from the practice of economic development are assessed. The practice of formation and development of economic relations in the Soviet period is investigated.

The Authors raise the issues of development of competition in science, improvement of regulation of procurement of research and development. The proposals for optimization of this sphere are based on the analysis of the survey of scientific and higher educational organizations. The article emphasize a need of examination institution establishing, development of all existing ways of science funding, scientific organizations preservation. Also the article emphasize barriers elimination importance of participation in state procurements for scienсe workers and their temporary teams (not legal entities).

Competition, as one of the system-forming factors for the development and existence of a market economy, is of interest among representatives of various scientific fields. The article provides a comparative analysis of the economic, sociological, psychological and philosophical understanding of the nature of competition and its related phenomena. The results of the inter-sectoral competition research and the conclusions based on them provide deeper knowledge of competition and its significance for the country's economy and society.

The achievement of national goals is inextricably linked to the development of competition provided by state competition policy and competition law. Dialectics of interrelation of national projects, state policy on development of competition and competition law is capable to provide achievement of the national purposes directed on complex development of social and economic relations in interests of society and the state.

The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of the legal problems of placing advertising structures in the right of way from the point of view of the state regulator. The conclusion is substantiated that the order of the Federal Road Agency dated October 24, 2016 No. 2192-r regarding the requirement to conclude an easement agreement for the installation of an advertising structure violates the current legislation of Russia on advertising. The position of the antimonopoly authorities on the issues of monitoring compliance with the legislation regarding the placement of advertising structures in the right of way of the road is formulated.

The article deals with the grounds for classifying information as non-advertising, which will not be advertising information required to be placed by law, due to the custom of business, etc. The study of judicial practice, explanations of the FAS of Russia, the opinions of various authors on the application of these grounds. Certain conclusions are drawn.

The subject of the study is the concept of “price algorithm”, the problems associated with risks of qualification of pricing algorithms use as a violation of the competition law. Based on the analysis of Russian and case law enforcement practice, it is concluded that under certain conditions, the use of pricing algorithms can be recognized as compatible with the requirements of the competition law. However, undertakings should carefully consider using pricing algorithms to avoid restriction of competition.

The article considers the financial market as an object of antitrust regulation and control, the banking services market. The importance of conducting antimonopoly control in the banking sector is given. The state of the banking system, as well as competition in the banking services market is analyzed. The interaction of two control bodies — the FAS of the Russian Federation and the Bank of Russia is given.

The article questions it is valid to use the Institute of administrative prejudice by the legislator in the corpus delicti construction. While some scientists and lawyers argue that administrative prejudice is a «full-fledged» instrument of criminal policy, others believe that this institution violates non bis in idem principle, unreasonably increases the influence of the offender's personality traits on the basis of criminal responsibility and «blurs» the boundaries between crime and administrative offense. The author proves the inadmissibility of using the Institute of administrative prejudice in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The review contains an analysis of the legal positions of the arbitration courts of the Russian Federation in cases of violation of the antimonopoly legislation regarding the consideration of the following issues: the primacy of antimonopoly control in relation to entities holding a dominant position; creation by the customer of unequal conditions for the participation of persons in procurement; inaction of the authority, leading to restriction of competition; creating benefits for a particular business entity during the procurement; repetition when brought to administrative responsibility.
The purpose of the analytical review is the formation of uniform approaches in law enforcement practice in cases of violation of antitrust laws.