The analysis of scientific publications devoted to the concepts of “market power” and “negotiating power of the buyer” is carried out. The evolution of opinions about competitive market conditions, forms of intercompany interactions and anticompetitive behavior is considered. The positions of researchers regarding the influence of the market (negotiating) power of buyers on public welfare and the need to use these categories in competition law and antimonopoly regulation have been studied.

The article deals with the issues of transformation of the economy as a result of energy transition and the achievement of carbon neutrality. The studies and the discussed draft regulatory legal acts indicate the presence of a number of negative factors arising in the transition to a carbon neutral economy. Thus, the refusal to finance traditional fuel markets can lead them to a state of stagnation, despite the fact that fossil fuels have been in demand for a very long time, including for the production of carbon-free fuels. When assessing the consequences of the transition of an economy to carbon neutrality in terms of regulation of competition relations, as a rule, factors uncharacteristic of the traditional economy are not evaluated. Until recently, challenges to competition in traditional markets were formed, as a rule, as a result of the objectively evolutionary development of technology and product markets under the influence of the economic and legal mechanism of monopolization. At present, the conditions for the transition to a carbon-neutral economy are formed by decision-making and regulation centers purposefully independent from most countries in the world (including Russia). This creates new artificial threats to competition that require not only reflection, but also the rapid adoption of adequate response measures in order to protect markets from the negative impact of new threats to the rivalry of economic entities that is in Russia’s interests.

The paper addresses the issues of necessity to consider antitrust restrictions at the stage of elaboration of strategy of product promotion. Potential damage arising from ignorance of legislation on protection of competition may negate the income received by using a marketing ploy, sequestering such income by way of turnover-based fine.

The authors of the paper, while analyzing modern marketing ploys, by the example of “package” proposals of products give practical recommendations for antitrust risks management.

The material herein is primarily intended for employees of commercial departments of economic entities, who are in charge of promotion and sales of products.

The article is devoted to the following issues: application of the antitrust compliance institute in the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU); inclusion in the law of the EAEU of provisions related to the institution of antitrust compliance: the development of international standards of antitrust compliance. The main goal of the study was to determine the place of the antimonopoly compliance institute in the system of competition development in the EAEU member states. To achieve this goal, the author made a comparative analysis of the formation of antitrust compliance in the EAEU member states, studied the dynamics of the introduction of antitrust compliance in the practical activities of economic entities.

The legal grounds and conditions for the legality of appealing decisions or orders of its territorial departments to the collegial body of the FAS Russia by persons who did not participate in the consideration of the case occupy a special place. (departmental appeal). The conditions for the exercise of the right to departmental appeal for interested parties have been determined. In the author’s opinion, the right to appeal the decision and (or) the order of the territorial body to the FAS Russia is also held by the entities, although not involved in the case, but meeting the criteria provided for in Article 42 of the Law on the Protection of Competition.

Instructions issued by the antimonopoly body, both as a result of consideration of cases on violation of antimonopoly legislation, and as a result of consideration of complaints when organizing and conducting purchases in accordance with Federal Law No. legal entities, in an unconditional and imperative manner must be subject to execution by the persons to whom they were issued. The article examines the topical issue of not suspending the order of the antimonopoly authority issued based on the results of consideration of complaints about violation of the bidding procedure, in the event of its judicial challenge and liability for its failure.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the commercial concession agreement and antitrust immunities provided for by the provisions of the Law on the Protection of Competition and allowing business entities to use the design of the commercial concession agreement in order to conceal their own violations. A legal assessment of the nature of a commercial concession agreement is given, the boundaries between the legitimate protection of the rights and legitimate interests of a cheating entity and a violation of the requirements of antimonopoly legislation are determined.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the practice of proving cartel agreements after the adoption of the Resolution No. 2 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 4^th, 2021 “On some issues arising in connection with the application of antimonopoly legislation by the courts.”

Prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the legal approaches of the law enforcement officer to the establishment and proof of signs of cartel agreements prohibited in accordance with Article 11 of the Federal Law of July 26th, 2006 No. 135-FZ “On Protection of Competition”, with all their effectiveness, were often criticized by the professional community for lower standards of proof and lack of attention to the economic aspects of the violations investigated.

Based on the latest trends in law enforcement practice in cartel cases, the author comes to the conclusion that the clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, reflected in the Resolution No. 2 of its Plenum dated March 4, 2021, contribute to the formation of a more grounded approach to the interpretation and proving of cartels.

The article analyzes the tools used by business entities when carrying out entrepreneurial activities in order to compete in digital markets. The purpose of the study was to identify the applied practices recognized by the antitrust authorities of various countries as a violation of the antitrust legislation, to identify the applied approaches to assessing the actions of participants in digital markets, and their qualifications. The author also analyzed the features of the approaches of administrative and judicial authorities to defining the boundaries of the market in the considered examples of cases, compared foreign and Russian practices, highlighted practical mechanisms that are useful for researching digital markets.

Rail transport cannot be considered without non-public railway tracks and their operations, if we based on the technological point of view. The cargo railway service’s market, in the same time, amount a unified whole with the enterprises of industrial transport. The large portion of cargo’s flow usually is forming on the non-public railway tracks and is processed on the same tracks after arriving. Regulation of haulage services of rail transport enterprises – first of all, tariff (price) regulation – in it’s development have congealed on the level of the middle 1990s. The legislative power has no interest in it, and executive and judicial branches of power both have conservative observations about this question, which making situation worsen. Some of contemporary problems are represented in this article.

New standards of proof in cases of violations of antimonopoly legislation during tenders, formed on the basis of the positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, imply a qualitatively new level of analysis of the content of documents regulating procurement activities of customers and capable of limiting competition. Customers, in turn, are required to regularly monitor their own procurement activities for the validity of the requirements contained in such documents and, in particular, cases of purchases from a single supplier.