The article examines changes in the practice of applying antimonopoly law after the adoption by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on March 4, 2020 of Resolution No. 2 “On some issues arising in connection with the application of antimonopoly law by courts”. According to the authors, in the rapidly changing economic conditions, the legal positions of the highest court on economic disputes, enshrined in the said Decree, have become even more important for both law enforcement officers and right users, have become a kind of tuning fork and at the same time a “filter” for improving antimonopoly practice in our country.

The practice of the antimonopoly authorities of Russia and foreign countries in relation to violations in the field of parallel imports of goods has been studied. The problems of qualification of this type of offenses (including in the law enforcement practice of a number of foreign states) in terms of vertical agreements and abuse of dominant position are identified. The authors conclude that the positions of the antimonopoly authorities of Russia and a number of foreign countries are similar on the issue of abuse of the right of legal monopolies for trademarks: a legal monopoly for trademarks should not be a basis for abuse of the right by the right holder and restriction of the possibility of free movement of goods and services marked with trademarks. According to the authors, it is advisable to use the experience of foreign countries when qualifying violations in the field of parallel imports to Russia.

The legal institution of mandatory execution by virtue of Art. 25 of the Law on Protection of Competition, a request by the antimonopoly authority for information from controlled entities (including public authorities) acquired a modern look in 2011-2013 (hereinafter referred to as the institution of requesting information, the institution of requesting information) as an important tool for exercising the powers of antimonopoly authorities, including powers in the field of antimonopoly control and antimonopoly regulation in the Russian Federation.

This tool allows you to obtain information (including information) necessary for the exercise of numerous powers of the antimonopoly body without audits. The imperativeness of the institution of requesting information by the antimonopoly authority is ensured by administrative liability for failure to provide information, submission of information in violation of the deadline or in a distorted form (part 5 of article 19.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), which not only guarantees a potentially high level of efficiency of such requests, but also imposes on the antimonopoly authorities additional requirements related to the validity (motivation) and relevance of such requests to the execution of specific powers. Unfortunately, the Federal Law of July 31, 2020 No. 248-FZ “On State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control in the Russian Federation”, which entered into force on July 1, 2021 (with the exception of certain provisions), did not establish general requirements for the validity (motivation) and relevance of the information requested by the control and supervisory authorities from controlled persons.

In this regard, in the opinion of the author, there is a need for additional (both general and special) regulatory legal regulation of the request for information by control and supervisory (including antimonopoly) authorities, as well as the development of alternative tools for obtaining information about controlled entities, in including using interdepartmental automated systems for collecting and processing information.

Author considers issues connected with merger control practice transformation due to the changing commodity market conjuncture. In particular regarding to the escape of some foreign companies and carving out of their Russian business. Based on current practice author proposes potential criteria of admissibility, re m&a transactions, indicates problems that can be raised during merger control application review proceedings, presents his view of solutions.

In contractual relations, the dominant person does not have the right to impose unfavorable conditions on the counterparty. However, the concept of “imposing unfavorable terms of the contract” has no legal definition. The Supreme Court, in its Plenum Resolution No. 2 dated March 4, 2021 “On Certain Issues Arising in connection with the Application of Antimonopoly Legislation by Courts”, indicates that the very offer of unfavorable conditions is not an abuse.

It follows from this legal position that the courts have some criteria that allow individualizing the imposition of unfavorable terms of the contract and separating it from permissible contractual practices. Therefore, we can talk about some antitrust standards of behavior that a dominant person should follow when concluding a contract. The article attempts to formulate the basic standards of such behavior.

The article presents the author’s Model of antimonopoly compliance for use in the activities of economic entities operating in the cross-border markets of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The model was developed taking into account the general rules of competition provided for by Art. 76 of the EAEU Treaty and provisions on the delimitation of the competence of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) and national antimonopoly regulators. The model does not take into account aspects of the national legislation of the EAEU member states, is based on a point system of company responses that allows assessing risks, includes general indicators and indicators by type of violations. Within the model, each indicator is assigned 1 or 0 points, depending on the conditions provided by the model.

The study of the legal foundations of antimonopoly legislation in the field of solid municipal waste management (hereinafter referred to as MSW) and the development and implementation of antimonopoly compliance by regional operators has been carried out. The main purpose of the study is the scientific analysis of antimonopoly risks and the specifics of the application of legislation in the field of MSW.

The solution to this problem, according to the authors, is to improve legislation in the field of MSW, ensure the correct application of this legislation, develop an internal corporate management system (including control), including an antimonopoly compliance system, as a tool for preventing violations of antimonopoly legislation.

The article reviews the main legal constructions and doctrinal approaches related to the regulation of the subject of antitrust control in the electric power industry. Special attention is paid to the issues of enshrined legal aspects of antitrust control in this domain, as well as to a number of key concepts for competition law in general. Moreover, the objects of antitrust control in the field of electricity’ current state of legal regulation is revealed in the article, as well as the importance of implementing state policy aimed at ensuring the defense of competition by an uninterrupted and effective antitrust control over electric energy and capacity markets functioning.

The problems of transformation of the energy sector and the transition to the development of hydrogen technologies in the world in connection with the signing of the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2015 are studied. The main state support measures in Russia aimed at maintaining the competitiveness of Russian enterprises in the field of investment projects for the implementation of hydrogen programs are characterized. Examples of projects in the field of hydrogen technologies with the participation of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, oil refineries, rolling stock manufacturers and state corporations are considered. An assessment is made of the legislative regulation in the field of “hydrogen” projects, as well as the prospects for the development of hydrogen energy in Russia.

This article reveals the modern attitudes of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia) applied by the agency when considering cases of violation of antimonopoly legislation in cases of anticompetitive agreements.

The attitudes of the FAS Russia often play a significant role both for the FAS Russia territorial agencies and for courts in cases of violation of antimonopoly legislation. The cases considered by the Collegial Bodies of the FAS Russia are essential for the development of antimonopoly law enforcement practice and maintaining its consistency.

To disclose the current positions of the FAS Russia more fully and practically on various issues of antimonopoly enforcement, the article will consider some examples of cases considered by the agency in the II and III quarter of 2022.

Analysis of the legal positions of arbitration courts in cases of violation of antimonopoly legislation in terms of consideration of issues: control over economic concentration, administrative responsibility, creation of preferential conditions for participation in the competition, imposition of unfavorable conditions of the contract.

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