Antimonopoly Proceedings in Russia: Initiation and Consideration of Cases by FAS

 

February 17, 2022

BRACE Law Firm ©

 

The procedure for initiating and considering cases concerning violations of antimonopoly legislation is regulated by Federal Law No. 135-FZ dated July 26, 2006, On Protection of Competition (the "Law No. 135-FZ", the "Competition Law", or the "Law on Protection of Competition"). The categories of antimonopoly cases initiated and considered by antimonopoly authorities and courts are closely linked to groups of antimonopoly law violations, namely:

• monopolistic activity (prohibition of a dominant position, restriction of restrictive agreements);
• unfair competition (any form of unfair competition, including unfair competition in advertising, illegal use of third-party means of individualization (trademarks, etc.);
• acts of state and municipal authorities that restrict competition;
• the procedure and conditions for conducting tenders;
• the provision of state preferences;
• and several others.

The consideration of antimonopoly cases is an alternative to judicial protection of rights and is characterized by faster timelines for considering complaints, as well as opportunities for preventive response through the issuance of warnings to violators of antimonopoly legislation.

At the same time, considering a case within an antimonopoly authority does not preclude the possibility of judicial protection. Cases involving violations of antimonopoly legislation may be heard through administrative proceedings in accordance with the procedure established by the Law No. 135-FZ and several subordinate acts, as well as through judicial proceedings in accordance with the norms of procedural legislation.

Under the administrative procedure, complaints from applicants regarding violations of antimonopoly legislation are considered, and the issue of initiating administrative cases is examined.

In judicial proceedings, claims may be considered to challenge the acts of antimonopoly authorities, cases challenging tenders, and contracts concluded based on their results.

Grounds for Initiating Cases Within the Antimonopoly Authority

The list of grounds for initiating a case within the antimonopoly authority is exhaustive and is set forth in Art. 39 of the Competition Law:

• receipt of materials from state bodies or local self-government bodies indicating signs of a violation of antimonopoly legislation (such bodies may also include investigative authorities); [1]
• an application from a legal entity or individual indicating signs of a violation of antimonopoly legislation;
• detection of signs of a violation of antimonopoly legislation by the antimonopoly authority itself;
• a media report indicating signs of a violation of antimonopoly legislation;
• the result of an audit during which signs of a violation of antimonopoly legislation were identified.

Applicants, as well as persons who have an interest in the initiation of such a case, may challenge a refusal to initiate an antimonopoly case in court. [2]

Although challenging such refusals in practice is often difficult and courts generally side with the antimonopoly authority, successful examples of such challenges do exist. Typically, refusals to initiate a case are challenged due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, in instances where it is established that such a period has not been missed. [3] Furthermore, there are examples where the court indicates the presence of a violation of antimonopoly legislation in cases where the antimonopoly authority concluded there was none and refused to initiate a case, [4] or where the court established an abuse of a dominant position while the antimonopoly authority reached different conclusions. [5]

Notably, at the stage of deciding whether to initiate a case, the antimonopoly authority does not consider the merits of whether a violation exists. The antimonopoly authority only checks the application for the sufficiency of the circumstances cited that may indicate such a violation in the actions of a specific person. The antimonopoly authority also verifies the sufficiency of the evidence presented.

Moreover, at the stage of initiating a case, the antimonopoly authority is not bound by the qualification of the violation designated by the applicant.

If signs of an administrative offense are discovered during the review of materials in a case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation, the antimonopoly authority initiates a case based on the signs of an administrative offense.

Until a case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation is considered on its merits, the antimonopoly authority may issue a warning to suppress actions (omissions) that lead or may lead to the prevention, restriction, or elimination of competition and (or) the infringement of the interests of other persons (economic entities) in the sphere of entrepreneurial activity or the infringement of the interests of an indefinite circle of consumers. Such a warning is issued upon the discovery of signs of a violation of competition legislation involving an abuse of a dominant position, as well as actions qualified as unfair competition. In such instances, initiating cases concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation without issuing such a warning is not permitted.

When issuing a warning, according to Part 2 of Art. 39.1 of the Law No. 135-FZ, the antimonopoly authority establishes only the signs of a violation of antimonopoly legislation, rather than the fact of a committed violation. The issue of the guilt of the economic entity in the antimonopoly offense is also not investigated when the warning is issued.

The fact of a violation of antimonopoly legislation and guilt in its commission are established by the antimonopoly authority in the manner prescribed by Chapter 9 of the Law No. 135-FZ, after the initiation of a case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation.[6]

During the period of case consideration (after initiation), a warning may be issued if the commission, during the hearing, establishes the presence of violations in the person's actions for which a warning is mandatory. [7]

Provided that the warning is complied with, a case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation is not initiated, and the person who complied with the warning is not subject to administrative liability for the violation of antimonopoly legislation in connection with its elimination.

In the event of failure to comply with a warning within the established period, the antimonopoly authority must decide to initiate a case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation within a period not exceeding 10 business days from the date of expiration of the period established for complying with the warning.

Statutes of Limitation for Initiating Cases Concerning Violations of Antimonopoly Legislation

A case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation cannot be initiated, and an initiated case must be terminated, upon the expiration of 3 years from the date the violation was committed, or in the case of a continuous violation of antimonopoly legislation — from the date the violation ended or was discovered.

When determining the statute of limitations for initiating cases, defining the nature of the violation—specifically whether it is continuous — has significant legal importance. It is crucial to distinguish a continuous violation from a repeat violation if the violation has a similar objective side.

It should be noted that Russian legislation lacks a definition for a continuous violation of antimonopoly legislation specifically regarding the initiation of cases for such violations.

Such a concept is utilized within the framework of initiating cases for administrative offenses. According to the third paragraph of Clause 14 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 5 dated March 24, 2005, On Certain Issues Arising for Courts When Applying the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, when applying Part 2 of Art. 4.5 of the CAO RF, it is necessary to proceed from the fact that a continuous administrative offense (action or omission) is one expressed in a long-term, uninterrupted failure to perform or improper performance of duties provided for by law. It should be considered that such duties may be imposed by other normative legal acts or non-normative legal acts, such as a prosecutor's submission or a prescription from an authority (official) exercising state supervision (control). Failure to perform a duty provided for by the named legal acts by the established deadline indicates that the administrative offense is not continuous.

Since the grounds for administrative liability within the legal relations regulated by antimonopoly legislation is a violation of antimonopoly legislation, it appears that the definitions specified in this resolution can also be used to determine the nature of a violation of antimonopoly legislation when initiating cases for such violations.

Furthermore, for a correct understanding of the commencement of the limitation period, it is necessary to correctly qualify what specifically constitutes the violation of antimonopoly legislation.

In one specific case where a case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation was initiated regarding the conclusion of contracts for communal property without tenders and a prescription was issued for the return of such property to the municipal treasury, the antimonopoly authority considered such a violation to be continuous since the violator did not return the property to the treasury for a long time. However, the court, in vacating the acts of the antimonopoly authority, indicated that the violation consisted of concluding an agreement that restricted competition. [8]

From the meaning and content of the provisions of Art. 16 of the Law No. 135-FZ, it follows that a violation should be considered completed at the moment the agreement is concluded, since the onset of the consequences of preventing, restricting, or eliminating competition presupposed by the norm of the law is the very fact of reaching such an agreement. Thus, the imputed antimonopoly offense cannot be of a continuous nature, as it was expressed in the commission of a specific completed action in the form of concluding an agreement.

When initiating cases under Art. 18.1 of the Competition Law, the case is initiated no later than 3 months from the moment the corresponding violation was committed.

In accordance with Part 9 of Art. 44 of the Law No. 135-FZ, upon the expiration of the statute of limitations for initiating a case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation, the antimonopoly authority refuses to initiate the case. If a case was initiated but the violation of initiation deadlines was subsequently established, the commission terminates the proceedings (Part 1 of Art. 47.1 of the Law No. 135-FZ).

Persons Participating in the Consideration of Cases Concerning Violations of Antimonopoly Legislation in Accordance with Chapter 9 of the Law No. 135-FZ

When considering antimonopoly cases, the following persons participating in the case are identified:

1. The Applicant — the person who filed the application, or the state body or local self-government body that submitted the materials.

Involving the applicant in the consideration of the case is mandatory. Violation of this requirement will serve as grounds for declaring the decision issued based on the results of the case invalid.[9]

2. The Respondent — the person against whom an application has been filed, materials have been submitted, or in whose actions (omissions) the antimonopoly authority has discovered signs of a violation of antimonopoly legislation. These persons are recognized as respondents in a case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation from the moment the case is initiated.

Issuing a decision against a person who was not properly involved as a respondent will serve as grounds for declaring the decision invalid. In one specific case, a territorial department of FAS initiated a case against a certain circle of persons, thereby by law initially determining their procedural status as respondents.

Meanwhile, according to the operative part of the decision, the antimonopoly authority recognized a violation of the Competition Law in the actions of a specific official, concluding that the combination of circumstances indicated that these specific individuals, through their actions, committed the violation imputed to them.

At the same time, the named official was not recognized as a respondent in the established manner. Consequently, the requirements of Articles 42 and 44 of the Law on Protection of Competition were not fulfilled in respect of that person; specifically, no order was issued to involve them as a respondent, and no notice of the time and place of the hearing with their participation as a respondent was sent by the antimonopoly authority.[10]

3. Interested Parties—persons whose rights and legal interests are affected in connection with the consideration of a case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation. Involving interested parties is intended to guarantee a full, comprehensive, and objective hearing on matters requiring clarification (taking into account the legal and factual grounds of the case) in each specific instance. The mandatory involvement of interested parties by the antimonopoly authority is not expressly provided for by the Competition Law. [11]

There is also an alternative position that involving interested parties during the consideration of a case is mandatory. Interested parties are categorized as persons participating in the case due to their legal interest in the outcome.

The participation of interested parties in a case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation is legally provided for the purpose of a correct and justified resolution of the case and the establishment of all circumstances. The legislator ensures procedural compliance with the guarantees of the rights and legal interests of persons participating in a case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation. [12]

Persons participating in the case have the right to be represented through authorized proxies. From the moment a case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation is initiated, the persons participating in the case have the right to review the case materials, make extracts from them, present evidence, review evidence, ask questions to other persons participating in the case, file motions, provide written or oral explanations to the commission, present their arguments on all issues arising during the case, review the motions of other persons, and object to the motions and arguments of others.

Persons not participating in the hearing (interpreters, experts) who are involved to provide consultations regarding the circumstances of the case are also identified. Interested parties may file a challenge against such persons, which is then considered by the commission.

The Commission for Considering a Case Concerning a Violation of Antimonopoly Legislation

To consider cases involving violations of antimonopoly legislation, a commission is formed, the composition of which is approved by the antimonopoly authority. The commission consists only of employees of the antimonopoly authority. Changing the composition of the commission is possible only based on a reasoned decision.

The quorum for the commission's hearing is at least 3 members. If such a quorum is not reached, the hearing will be postponed. Decisions are made collectively by a majority vote. In the event of a tie, the vote of the commission chairman, who votes last, takes precedence.

During the consideration of a case, upon establishing signs of a violation of antimonopoly legislation in a person's actions, the commission of FAS Russia, prior to issuing a decision, adopts a Statement of Case Circumstances (Art. 48.1 of the Competition Law). This is formalized as a separate document, signed by the chairman and members of the commission, and must contain:

• the factual and other circumstances of the case established by the commission, including circumstances established during the analysis of the state of competition conducted by the antimonopoly authority and circumstances established during audits of compliance with antimonopoly legislation;
• the evidence on which the commission's conclusions regarding the circumstances of the case are based, the reasons for which the commission rejected certain evidence, and the reasons it accepted or rejected the arguments of persons participating in the case presented in support of their claims and objections.

Adopting the Statement of Case Circumstances serves as grounds for postponing the hearing, as persons participating in the case are entitled to submit written explanations, evidence, and arguments to the commission regarding the circumstances set forth in the Statement of Case Circumstances before the end of the consideration of the case. The Statement of Case Circumstances and the decision on the case are prepared in a single copy.

Based on the results of reviewing such objections, the commission may conclude that there are no signs of a violation, in which case it decides to terminate the proceedings.

To ensure the protection of commercial secrets, the commissions of FAS Russia, when preparing the relevant Statement of Case Circumstances and decisions, should describe the relevant circumstances and evidence to the extent necessary for the procedural decision, without including information that directly constitutes a commercial secret.

If justifying the commission's conclusions is impossible without including information that constitutes a commercial secret, such information must be included in the relevant act. However, to maintain the balance of public and private interests of all participants, the antimonopoly authority must issue (provide for review or send) to the persons participating in the case who have not received the consent of the owner of such information a copy of the act with the commercial secret information redacted. [13]

The Decision of the Antimonopoly Authority is adopted at the end of the consideration of the case and constitutes a separate document signed by the chairman and all members of the commission who were present at the meeting. A dissenting commission member may express a separate opinion.

A decision by the antimonopoly authority consists of introductory, descriptive, motivational, and operative parts. These sections describe the data concerning the commission's composition; a brief summary of the claims, objections, explanations, statements, and motions of the parties; the factual and other circumstances of the case established by the commission; the evidence for the commission's conclusions and arguments in favor of the decision; and the reasons for rejecting or accepting certain evidence or arguments.

The operative part of the decision must contain:

• conclusions regarding the presence or absence of grounds for terminating the case;
• conclusions regarding the presence or absence of a violation of antimonopoly legislation in the actions (omissions) of the respondent;
• conclusions regarding the presence or absence of grounds for issuing a prescription and a list of actions to be included in the prescription for performance;
• conclusions regarding the presence or absence of grounds for the antimonopoly authority to take other measures to suppress and (or) eliminate the consequences of the violation.

Based on the decision, the commission of FAS Russia issues a Prescription for the Case Concerning a Violation of Antimonopoly Legislation, which also constitutes a separate document prepared simultaneously with the decision. It contains a requirement to perform specific actions to eliminate or suppress the violation within a specific timeframe.

In accordance with Art. 51 of the Law on Protection of Competition, a prescription must be executed within the period established therein. The antimonopoly authority monitors the execution of issued prescriptions. Failure to execute a prescription on time entails administrative liability as established in Art. 19.5 of the CAO RF.

Law enforcement practice indicates significant instances of challenging orders to impose liability for failure to execute a prescription due to the expiration of the 2-month statute of limitations for liability. [14]

If a prescription is found to be non-compliant with legal requirements or the requirements of feasibility, imposing administrative liability for failure to execute the prescription is also impossible. [15]

Thus, by indicating in a prescription the need to perform specific actions that will allow the violator to eliminate the violation and ensure the restoration of the competitive environment, the antimonopoly authority must establish a reasonable and objective timeframe (period) for such actions, sufficient for the prescription's execution. Simultaneously, the person to whom the prescription is issued must take all necessary measures aimed at full compliance.

The period established by the commission in the prescription may be defined by a specific date or a period of time (year, month, etc.). [16]

In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 52 of the Law on Protection of Competition, if an application to challenge a prescription is accepted by an arbitration court, the execution of the antimonopoly authority's prescription is suspended until the arbitration court's decision enters into legal force.

If the antimonopoly authority's decision is challenged without challenging the prescription, the period for executing the prescription is not suspended. In such a case, the prescription must be executed within the timeframe established therein. If the person fails to execute the prescription on time, the antimonopoly authority must apply administrative liability measures regardless of the stage of the decision appeal, provided the decision has not been declared invalid by a legally effective court act at the time the administrative offense case is initiated. [17]

A decision and prescription of the antimonopoly authority may be reviewed based on new and (or) newly discovered circumstances (Art. 51.2 of the Law No. 135-FZ) on several grounds, namely:

• the discovery of circumstances that were not and could not have been known at the time the operative part of the decision was announced but are of significant importance for the correct resolution of the case;
• the falsification of evidence, deliberately false testimony from a person with knowledge of the case, a deliberately false expert opinion, or a deliberately incorrect translation, which resulted in the adoption of an illegal or unjustified decision and (or) the issuance of a prescription based on it.

In this context, court acts that assess evidence as failing to meet the requirements of reliability and objectivity, upon which the antimonopoly authority based its conclusion of a violation, should also be considered as grounds for review due to circumstances unknown at the time the operative part was announced. [18]

A refusal to review an act of the antimonopoly authority may be appealed through judicial proceedings. [19]

The timeframe for review is set within 3 months from the moment the relevant circumstance is discovered and may be restored if missed for valid reasons.

If a decision is made to review a previously issued decision or prescription, the procedure for such review is carried out in the same manner as the consideration of a complaint. The forms of acts issued by the commission are approved by Order of FAS Russia No. 337 dated December 22, 2006. [20]

Procedure for Considering Applications, Materials, and Cases Concerning Violations of Antimonopoly Legislation

First, we consider the requirements for an application regarding a violation of antimonopoly legislation. An application subject to consideration must meet the following requirements and contain:

• information about the applicant (full name and residence address for individuals; name and location for legal entities);
• information available to the applicant regarding the person against whom the application is filed;
• a description of the violation of antimonopoly legislation;
• the essence of the claims with which the applicant is applying;
• a list of attached documents.

The period for considering an application or materials is 1 month, which may be extended by no more than 2 months.

During the consideration of the application or materials, the antimonopoly authority is entitled to request documents, information, and written or oral explanations related to the circumstances set forth in the application or materials.

Based on the results of considering the application or materials, the antimonopoly authority adopts one of the following decisions:

• to initiate a case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation;
• to refuse to initiate a case;
• to issue a warning.

If a decision is made to initiate a case, the antimonopoly authority issues an order to initiate the case and create a commission. A copy of this order is sent to the applicant and the respondent within 3 days of its issuance.

The period for considering a case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation is no more than 3 months. The case is considered at a commission meeting, and all persons participating in the case are notified of the date and time. Meetings may be conducted via video conferencing and are open to the public.

Termination of Case Proceedings

The commission of FAS Russia may terminate the consideration of a case concerning a violation of antimonopoly legislation. However, the list of grounds is limited to the following cases:

• the absence of a violation of antimonopoly legislation in the actions (omissions) being considered by the commission;
• the liquidation of a legal entity or the death of an individual who are the sole respondents in the antimonopoly case;
• the existence of a legally effective decision by an antimonopoly authority establishing a violation regarding the actions (omissions) being considered;
• the expiration of the statute of limitations.

A waiver of administrative prosecution of an official does not preclude an antimonopoly investigation into the presence (absence) of violations of antimonopoly legislation.[21]

Appealing Decisions and Prescriptions of the Antimonopoly Authority

Acts of the antimonopoly authority may be challenged through administrative and judicial proceedings.

A decision and (or) prescription of a territorial antimonopoly authority may also be challenged through administrative proceedings before the collegial body of FAS Russia.

This appeal procedure is extrajudicial. The petitioner is entitled to choose independently how to challenge the acts. Interested parties possess the right of appeal. The extrajudicial (administrative) appeal procedure serves as a guarantee for protecting the rights and legal interests of persons participating in the case, including persons whose interests may be affected by the failure of the recognized violator to comply with antimonopoly legislation.

The deadline for filing a complaint through the extrajudicial procedure may also be restored upon a motion by an interested party, provided that the valid reasons for missing the deadline are justified. [22]

Additionally, decisions and prescriptions may be challenged through judicial proceedings in arbitration court proceedings. Arbitration courts also have jurisdiction over cases initiated based on an application from a citizen. [23]

When applying to a court, compliance with a mandatory grievance procedure is not required. The mandatory pre-trial dispute resolution procedure for economic entities challenging non-normative legal acts, decisions, or actions (omissions) of authorities consists of exhausting administrative means of protection—appealing the contested act or decision in the established manner, if the exercise of the right of appeal is a condition for a subsequent court application under federal law. The provisions of Part 5 of Art. 4 of the APC RF regarding the pre-trial resolution of economic disputes arising from administrative and other public legal relations do not apply if, according to legislation, a person is entitled to choose the method (judicial or administrative) to protect their rights and legal interests.[24] Since the Law No. 135-FZ establishes an alternative method for appealing the acts of antimonopoly authorities, compliance with a pre-trial grievance procedure is not required.

In the event that acts of territorial departments are challenged before the central office of FAS Russia, the acts adopted in the case may be challenged in an arbitration court within 1 month from the date the decision of the collegial body of the federal antimonopoly authority enters into force.

Accepting a challenge application in an arbitration court suspends the execution of the antimonopoly authority's prescription until the arbitration court's decision enters into legal force.

Specifics of Considering Cases Concerning Violations of Antimonopoly Legislation Under Art. 18.1 of the Competition Law

The Law No. 135-FZ, in addition to the procedure for initiating and considering cases under Chapter 9, provides for the possibility of considering cases under Art. 18.1 involving complaints regarding violations of tender procedures and the procedure for concluding contracts, as well as the procedure for implementing measures during the realization of capital construction projects.

Such complaints are considered within a shortened 7-day period. If a complaint is considered under this article regarding ongoing tenders that have not yet been conducted, such tenders will be suspended from the moment the antimonopoly authority sends notification. Decisions and prescriptions issued under this article may be challenged in an arbitration court within 3 months.

Competence of Arbitration Courts in Considering Cases Concerning Violations of Antimonopoly Legislation

Arbitration courts consider cases challenging decisions and (or) prescriptions based on the location of the antimonopoly authorities that adopted these acts. [25]

A decision by the collegial body adopted on a complaint may be an independent subject of judicial challenge on its merits if it constitutes a new decision. The collegial body's decision may also be challenged separately from the territorial authority's decision on the grounds of a violation of the adoption procedure or the collegial body exceeding its powers. [26]

Decisions and prescriptions of the antimonopoly authority may be challenged in an arbitration court. The issue of challenging orders to appoint an audit or to initiate a case may be raised based on grounds that preclude the possibility of initiation under Part 9 of Art. 44 of the Law on Protection of Competition — for example, due to the expiration of the statute of limitations at the time of initiation, or because the antimonopoly authority has not established the dominant position of the economic entity, including cases where no competition analysis was conducted prior to initiation.

A decision by the antimonopoly authority to refuse to initiate a case may be challenged in an arbitration court by the persons who acted as applicants and possess an interest in the case initiation.

Such persons include those whose applications served as the basis for the initiation and consideration of the case, as well as other interested parties whose rights and legal interests were affected by the case consideration.

A procedural feature of considering cases challenging antimonopoly acts is the possibility of presenting additional evidence only if the impossibility of presenting it during the antimonopoly hearing is justified. [27]

Arbitration courts also have jurisdiction over cases involving lawsuits filed by antimonopoly authorities regarding violations of antimonopoly legislation.

When applying to an arbitration court with lawsuits to declare contracts fully or partially invalid, to compel the conclusion of a contract, to amend or terminate a contract, or to declare tenders invalid, the antimonopoly authority must justify the existence of a public interest in protecting competition (Art. 22 of the Competition Law).

Furthermore, the antimonopoly authority is entitled to apply to an arbitration court with a lawsuit (application) to compel the execution of measures specified in a previously issued prescription in the event of non-compliance. This right may be exercised by the antimonopoly authority upon the established fact of a person's inaction in eliminating identified violations.

Since the requirements of the antimonopoly authority to compel the measures specified in a prescription arise from public legal relations, these requirements are subject to consideration under the rules defined by Chapter 22 of the APC RF.

_____________________________

References

[1] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 301-ES21-26808 dated January 27, 2022, regarding Case No. A43-26071/2020.

[2] Clause 52 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 4, 2021, On Certain Issues Arising in Connection with the Application of Antimonopoly Legislation by Courts.

[3] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District No. F06-49099/2019 dated July 25, 2019, regarding Case No. A72-17651/2018.

[4] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District No. F02-2632/2018 dated August 16, 2018, regarding Case No. A10-7594/2017.

[5] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District No. F05-22301/2019 dated December 23, 2019, regarding Case No. A40-27528/2019.

[6] Clause 37 of the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 (2020), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on July 22, 2020.

[7] Clause 1.4 of the Order of FAS Russia No. 57/16 dated January 22, 2016, On Approval of the Procedure for Issuing a Warning to Cease Actions (Omissions) Containing Signs of a Violation of Antimonopoly Legislation.

[8] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District No. A33-6072/2017 dated May 29, 2018.

[9] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga-Vyatka District No. F01-2908/2016 dated August 1, 2016, regarding Case No. A79-2293/2015.

[10] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Far East District No. F03-3966/2019 dated September 26, 2019, regarding Case No. A24-8023/2018.

[11] Resolution of the First Arbitration Appeal Court No. 01AP-9384/2019 dated December 3, 2019, regarding Case No. A38-4144/2019; Resolution of the Seventh Arbitration Appeal Court No. 07AP-10734/2018 dated November 29, 2018, regarding Case No. A27-5905/2018.

[12] Resolution of the Second Arbitration Appeal Court dated December 3, 2009, regarding Case No. A82-5941/2009.

[13] Clarification of the Presidium of FAS Russia No. 13 dated February 21, 2018, On Information Constituting a Commercial Secret Within the Framework of Considering a Case Concerning a Violation of Antimonopoly Legislation, Conducting Audits of Compliance with Antimonopoly Legislation, and Exercising State Control Over Economic Concentration (approved by the protocol of the Presidium of FAS Russia No. 2 dated February 21, 2018).

[14] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District No. F04-8031/2020 dated March 16, 2020, regarding Case No. A27-16018/2019; Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District No. F02-7172/2020 dated January 25, 2021, regarding Case No. A19-4869/2020; Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Far East District No. F03-3980/2021 dated August 10, 2021, regarding Case No. A04-9712/2020.

[15] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District No. F02-4684/2020 dated April 2, 2021, regarding Case No. A69-1/2020.

[16] Letter of FAS Russia No. TsA/37755/14 dated September 18, 2014, On the Clarification of Antimonopoly Legislation.

[17] Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 12405/11 dated February 7, 2012; Resolution of the FAS of the West Siberian District dated October 2, 2013, regarding Case No. A45-26975/2012.

[18] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga-Vyatka District No. A79-4532/2016 dated March 17, 2017.

[19] Decision of the Arbitration Court of the Altai Territory dated June 11, 2012, regarding Case No. A03-6715/2012.

[20] Order of FAS Russia No. 337 dated December 22, 2006, On Approval of the Forms of Acts Adopted by the Commission for Considering a Case Concerning a Violation of Antimonopoly Legislation.

[21] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District No. F10-4141/2020 dated November 12, 2020, regarding Case No. A35-3707/2019.

[22] Clause 49 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 dated March 4, 2021, On Certain Issues Arising in Connection with the Application of Antimonopoly Legislation by Courts.

[23] Question 4 of the Review of Issues Regarding Judicial Practice Arising from the Consideration of Cases on the Protection of Competition and Cases on Administrative Offenses in the Specified Sphere (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on March 16, 2016).

[24] Clause 45 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18 dated June 22, 2021, On Certain Issues of Pre-Trial Settlement of Disputes Considered in the Procedure of Civil and Arbitration Court Proceedings.

[25] Clauses 2 and 5 of Part 1 of Article 29 and Article 35 of the APC RF, Parts 1 and 11 of Article 52 of the Law on Protection of Competition.

[26] Clause 50 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 dated March 4, 2021, On Certain Issues Arising in Connection with the Application of Antimonopoly Legislation by Courts.

[27] Ibid.