The article examines the concept, prehistory and modern practice of cartelization of the Russian economy. The key factors of the growth of cartelization are highlighted, the main approaches to modernization of the modern state policy on decartelization of the Russian economy are formulated. The intensive control over tenders by the antimonopoly bodies, Federal Treasury, Accounting Chamber and Government customers made it possible not only to reveal a large-scale practice of artificial bidding prices regulation using cartel schemes but also to reveal signs of a system of organized abuse in the field of public procurement, among which the cartel is not the most dangerous crime. Currently, the decisions on admissibility of business entities agreements in main areas of market relations should be taken in terms of facilitating the transition to an innovative digital economy, overcoming the general economic crisis, reinforced by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, as well as of maintaining a balance between transnational economic relations and protectionism of national jurisdictions. The most promising direction for the formation of common approaches to countering cartelization of digital economy might be an initiation of the development within the framework of UNCITRAL (UN Commission on International Trade Law) of a model law of the appropriate content, which refers to the form of "soft law", as well as of similar EAEU model law.

Recent judicial practice regarding the interpretation of the ‘controlled group’ in order to apply exceptions from prohibition on cartel agreements is controversial. Taking advantage of the uncertainty that has arisen, many participants in cartel cases make attempts (and sometimes successfully) to prove that in fact the conspiracy took place within a controlled group, and, therefore, was permissible. In this article we will consider the most common arguments used by business entities in cases of cartels and evaluate the possibility of their application in modern conditions.

Article discusses the need or no need of antimonopoly immunities for intellectual rights in the antimonopoly legislation of the Russian Federation. This issue is investigated in the article from the point of view of the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, based on the analysis of the validity of the existence of antimonopoly immunities by the fundamental principles of the legislation of the Russian Federation. In particular, the author touches upon the issue of the relationship between 8, 32 and 44 articles of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which establish the foundations of antimonopoly legislation and legislation on intellectual rights. The author also examines the issue of the essential nature of antitrust immunities in relation to intellectual rights.

The article analyzes the concept of “execution of a contract” subject to state control over economic concentration. Questions were raised about the relationship of this term with such legal constructions as the conclusion of an agreement, the fulfillment of an obligation, and the execution of an order. Based on the results of considering various types of contracts, the departmental approach in understanding the execution of a contract as the fulfillment of an obligation is critically assessed. Conclusions are made about the need to develop a differentiated approach to reduce the administrative risks of business entities.

The article examines the Institute of tax competition in the field of administration of budget revenues of the budget system of the Russian Federation. The issues of the essence, types and main goals of tax competition in the field of administration of tax and non-tax revenues at the regional level are considered. According to the author, the main goal of maintaining tax competition in the field of budget revenue administration is to improve the quality of financial management in the subjects of the Russian Federation, including in the provision of public services using digital technologies. An additional goal of tax competition should be to stimulate economic competition among economic entities and develop competition in General.

Although competitive battles should take place in accordance with the procedure established by law, they are often filled with dishonest behavior. For the most part, this is an area of morality, but under certain circumstances even this is given statutory power. We are talking about abuse of rights (bad faith). A retailer may find itself in this position when competing with marketplaces, especially when a common supplier (official distributor) intervenes in the confrontation.

This comment reflects the author's personal opinion.

Digital platforms are getting more general because of growing the level of online commerce. As a result, courts and antimonopoly regulators around the entire world face with the issues of applying antitrust rules to digital platforms. And each time it raises a number of interesting questions from the practical and theoretical point of view. In antitrust cases it’s difficult to define the product and geographic boundaries of the market where digital platforms operate. In 2019 the US Supreme Court decide a case between a group of iPhone users and Apple Inc. iPhone users filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc. claiming that Apple had unlawfully monopolized market for the sale of apps by charging consumers higher than competitive prices. US Supreme Court’s judgment in Apple v Pepper is really crucial for competition law, indeed. During analyzing the case, the following questions arise. Whether the «App Store» is a digital platform or not? Whether the «App Store» is a product market or not? If the «App Store» is a product market, what way should we determine geographic boundaries of this market? However, US Supreme Court’s judgment in Apple v Pepper does not provide us with answers to these questions. Obviously, the court had good reasons for this. Let's analyze this judgment and try to find answers to the questions that the US Supreme Court left opened.

This article proposes to consider the debatable question regarding the legal consequences associated with the refusal of public procurement authority to conclude an agreement with the winner of the competitive procurement procedure conducted in accordance with the Federal Law dated 18.07.2011 No. 223 — FZ “On the procurement of goods, work, services by certain types of legal entities” (hereinafter — “Law No. 223”, the Law on Corporate Procurement). The article doubts the attempts to justify from the current legislation standpoint the existence of the obligation of the public procurement authority to conclude an agreement with the winner of the competitive procurement procedure provided with the possibility of judicial enforcement. In the absence of such an obligation, the author suggests to review the legal measures available to the winner of the competitive procurement procedure in order to protect its interests. At the same time, the article states that such measures are insufficient to the best interests of the winner of the competitive procurement procedure and does not comply with the public nature of relations in the field of corporate procurement. It is proposed to amend the Law on Corporate Procurement to eliminate these inconsistencies.

The article shows legal and economical nature of unfair supplier list (black list) in Russian public procurement system, black list inclusion statistics, black list appeal court practice, problems and ways of improvement of this instrument, transformation to business reputation index.

The legislation on the contract system allows in certain cases to make purchases from a sole supplier without using competitive procedures. One of the cases is the production of goods, performance of works, rendering of services performed by an institution or enterprise of the penal enforcement system in accordance with the list of goods, works, and services approved by the Government of the Russian Federation. The practice shows that in some cases, customers and (or) suppliers may unreasonably use the opportunity provided by the legislation, formally concluding a state (municipal) contract with an institution or enterprise of the penal system, bypassing competitive procedures, when actually a third-party business entity is engaged in the execution of the contract. The authors note that such situations actually constitute a circumvention of the competitive procedures for selecting a supplier provided for by law, and contradicts the principles and ideas of regulation laid down in the Law “On the contract system”.

Analysis of the arbitration court’s legal positions in cases of violation of antimonopoly legislation on the following issues: limitation period for the institution of administrative proceedings for merger deals, determining the dominant position of an economic entity, court actions against, Antimonopoly service warnings, administrative fines reductions, ways of proving anti-competitive agreements. 

Purpose: the formation of uniform approaches in law enforcement practice in cases of violation of antitrust laws.

This review of the decisions of the “departmental appeal”, which has already become a tradition, contains comments on three cases considered by the Board of Appeals of the FAS of Russia in the third quarter of 2020. The first of the considered cases is devoted to the issues of enforceability of warnings, including qualifications of actions under paragraph 5 of part 1 of article 10 of the Law “On protection of competition”. Other two cases are related to the issues of proving anticompetitive agreements. However, in one case, the Board of Appeals of the FAS of Russia evaluated indirect evidence of cartel agreements, established territorial control, and in another case — the relevance of qualification of actions of legal entities under paragraph 4 of article 16 of the Law “On protection of competition”.

The author considers the arguments given by business entities on the classification of organizations as controlled, and provides the arguments used by the Antimonopoly authority and the courts when considering these issues.