Discriminatory Terms in Russia: Concepts, Types, and Legal Protection Methods

 

March 21, 2022

BRACE Law Firm ©

 

Federal Law No. 135-FZ dated July 26, 2006, On Protection of Competition (the "Law No. 135-FZ", the "Competition Law") governs the concept of discriminatory terms and the regulation of relations in this area. Specifically, discriminatory terms refer to conditions for access to a commodity market, as well as conditions for the production, exchange, consumption, acquisition, sale, or other transfer of goods, under which an economic entity or several economic entities are placed in an unequal position compared to another economic entity or other economic entities.

To evaluate discriminatory terms, one must use objective criteria that differentiate the rights and obligations of economic entities, as well as the presence of a legitimate goal in the conditions of the economic entities' activities and the exercise of their rights. In this regard, providing support to economic entities (e.g., property or financial support) in accordance with Federal Law No. 209-FZ dated July 24, 2007, On the Development of Small and Medium-Sized Entrepreneurship in the Russian Federation, Federal Law No. 488-FZ dated December 31, 2014, On Industrial Policy in the Russian Federation, and Federal Law No. 260-FZ dated July 25, 2011, On State Support in the Sphere of Agricultural Insurance and on Amending the Federal Law On the Development of Agriculture does not constitute the creation of discriminatory terms per se.[1]

Types of Discriminatory Terms

1. Setting different prices for the same product (price discrimination).

Under the Competition Law, the concept of price discrimination includes:

• Setting different prices for the same product (including monopolistically low and monopolistically high prices);
• Creating discriminatory terms (including through the provision of discounts and other preferential terms).

These actions are prohibited for economic entities whose position is recognized as dominant. However, if it is proven that such actions do not violate the rights of third parties, they will be considered permissible. Under Russian antimonopoly legislation, setting different prices for the same product without economic, technological, or other justification is prohibited for both dominant economic entities and government authorities.[2]

The following aggregate circumstances must exist to establish a violation of the prohibition on setting different prices:

• Different prices are set for the product; furthermore, the price policy must apply to all consumers regardless of whether they belong to the seller's group of persons;
• The time interval for setting the different payment amounts coincides;
• The prices are set within the same commodity market;
• There is no technical, economic, or other justification for setting different prices.

Permissible justifications for setting different prices include:

• Differences in the volume and frequency of deliveries of the purchased goods;
• Differences in costs associated with the delivery of goods;
• Differences in the qualitative characteristics of the goods;
• Payment terms (advance payment or deferred payment);
• Other conditions.

Price discrimination can occur on the part of economic entities that can exert corresponding influence. These may be monopolists or persons who have entered into cartel agreements. Failure to prove a subject's dominant position will mean that it is impossible to charge them with price discrimination. [3]

2. Discriminatory terms on the part of public authorities.

Discrimination may also originate from public authorities. The establishment (provision) of rights and resulting market advantages for a specific category of economic entities by a legal act does not, in itself, indicate the creation of discriminatory terms if such actions are permitted by law and driven by public interest. For instance, this may be necessary to provide support to specific categories of economic entities defined by law to ensure the socio-economic development of a region.

Pursuant to Article 15 of Law No. 135-FZ, authorities are prohibited from adopting acts and (or) performing actions (omissions) that lead or may lead to the prevention, restriction, or elimination of competition, except for cases provided for by federal laws. Specifically, the following are prohibited:

1. Introducing restrictions on the creation of economic entities in any field of activity;
2. Unjustifiably hindering the activities of economic entities;
3. Establishing prohibitions or introducing restrictions on the free movement of goods;
4. Instructing economic entities on priority deliveries of goods for a specific category of buyers (customers) or on the priority conclusion of contracts;
5. Establishing restrictions for purchasers of goods on the choice of economic entities providing such goods;
6. Providing an economic entity with access to information on a priority basis;
7. Providing state or municipal preferences in violation of the requirements of Law No. 135-FZ;
8. Creating discriminatory terms;
9. Establishing and (or) collecting payments not provided for by law when providing state or municipal services, as well as services that are necessary and mandatory for the provision of state services;
10. Instructing economic entities to purchase goods, except for cases provided for by law;
11. Failing to take measures to reorganize or liquidate a unitary enterprise operating in a competitive commodity market, or creating a unitary enterprise, except for cases provided for by Law No. 135-FZ.

Discriminatory terms in the actions of public authorities may relate to any field of activity, but the common criterion for all is the creation of conditions for the restriction of competition. For example, in a specific case, a court upheld a decision by the antimonopoly authority recognizing the actions of an authority as unlawful. These actions consisted of refusing to allocate medical care volumes to a medical organization for the period in question on grounds not provided for by law and without considering the criteria for medical care distribution. The court established that the public authority's actions created unjustified obstacles for the medical organization in the medical services market and created discriminatory terms compared to other market participants. [4]

State authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are prohibited from adopting acts and (or) performing actions (omissions) that lead or may lead to the prevention, restriction, or elimination of competition, except for cases provided for by federal laws. Specifically, the creation of discriminatory terms is prohibited. At the same time, actions of local government authorities cannot be recognized as violating the Competition Law if there is a specific provision of federal law authorizing the authority to adopt the act or perform the actions (omissions). [5]

In one court case, a local government authority was charged with effectively establishing a new route without holding a tender by adopting a resolution under the guise of amending the traffic pattern for a municipal regular transport route. The court recognized these conditions as discriminatory, as it established that the introduction of a duplicating route and the increase in the number of a legal entity's buses on the municipal route created discriminatory terms for the company. [6]

3. Discriminatory terms in trade.

As noted above, the essence of creating discriminatory terms for another economic entity is that such terms place that entity in an unequal position compared to other economic entities. This prohibition is linked to the lack of an objective justification for different prices for the same product.

Regarding the relations under consideration, it should be recognized that the discriminatory nature of contract terms is determined not by their formal difference from terms in contracts with other economic entities, but by the groundless unequal position of some counterparties compared to others under otherwise equal conditions.[7]

Imposing unfavorable contract terms on a counterparty consists of behavior by an economic entity that infringes upon the counterparty's rights or forces them to enter into legal relations on unfavorable terms. Imposing contract terms occurs when an economic entity engaged in trade activities sends a contract with unfavorable terms that the counterparty rightfully disputes, yet the organization refuses or evades coordinating and accepting the counterparty's proposals.

Pursuant to Part 1, Clause 2, Article 13 of the Law on Trade, economic entities engaged in trade activities by selling food products through a retail chain, as well as economic entities supplying food products to retail chains, are prohibited from, among other things, imposing terms on a counterparty regarding the reimbursement of losses by the supplier due to the loss or damage of such goods after the transfer of ownership, except for cases where the loss or damage occurred due to the fault of the supplier.[8]

4. Discriminatory terms in procurement.

It is prohibited to establish requirements of a discriminatory nature for procurement participants. It is not permitted to impose requirements on bidders, goods, works, services, or contract performance conditions that are not provided for by the procurement documentation, or to evaluate and compare bids based on criteria and procedures not specified in the documentation. Requirements for bidders and the goods, works, and services being procured, as well as the criteria and procedures for evaluating and comparing bids, must be applied equally to all bidders.

Federal Law No. 223-FZ dated July 18, 2011, On Procurement of Goods, Works, and Services by Certain Types of Legal Entities (the "Procurement Law") establishes general principles and basic requirements for procurement. This is done to ensure a unified economic space, create conditions for the timely and full satisfaction of the needs of the legal entities specified in Article 1, Part 2 of the Procurement Law for goods, works, and services with the necessary indicators of price, quality, and reliability, ensure the efficient use of funds, expand the opportunities for legal entities and individuals to participate in procurement for the needs of customers, stimulate such participation, develop fair competition, ensure publicity and transparency, and prevent corruption and other abuses. Under Article 3, Part 1, Clause 2 of the Procurement Law, the principles that customers must follow include the equality (lack of discrimination) of bidders. The principle of equality implies the inadmissibility of imposing different requirements on bidders in identical positions without objective and reasonable cause. This specifically means that it may be permissible for a customer to establish requirements that apply equally to all bidders and do not lead to the exclusion of economic entities for reasons unrelated to satisfying the customer's needs.[9]

Judicial practice has recognized the inclusion of different rules for comparing price proposals depending on the bidders' tax systems as a discriminatory term.[10] This term was subject to review to determine, first, whether the application of the disputed provisions placed certain bidders (specifically those using the Simplified Tax System) in a vulnerable position compared to others and, second, whether the customer had reasonable causes for establishing these provisions related to satisfying its needs for high-quality and timely work, considering the specifics of the procurement object. In this case, the application of the disputed provision effectively led to an increase in the price offered by a bidder using the Simplified Tax System, against its will and contrary to its formed price proposal. This inevitably placed the participant using the Simplified Tax System in a significantly less favorable position compared to bidders using the general tax system, whose price proposals were accepted by the customer without upward adjustment. Thus, participants who are VAT payers received an advantage in concluding the contract with the customer.

5. Discrimination by natural monopolies.

A natural monopoly is a state of a commodity market where satisfying demand is more efficient in the absence of competition due to the technological features of production (due to a significant decrease in production costs per unit as volume increases), and where the goods produced by the natural monopoly entities cannot be replaced in consumption by other goods. Consequently, demand in such a market depends less on price changes for that product than demand for other types of goods.

Natural monopolies include, in particular, electricity transmission services, operational dispatch management services, public postal services, and services for the use of inland waterway infrastructure, among others. Some of these monopolies are natural by law (e.g., electricity transmission), while other areas are regarded as potentially competitive (e.g., services at transport terminals, ports, and airports).

Preventive regulation is common for natural monopolies, which involves the development of rules for non-discriminatory access to the services of natural monopolies.

Legal Protection Methods Against Discriminatory Terms

The protection of economic entities from discriminatory actions is characterized by standard types of protection in the field of antimonopoly activity.

1. Preventive protection method.

The most effective approach is preventing violations by monopolists through the creation of discriminatory terms for specific economic entities. Preventive measures involve developing special rules of conduct for monopolists in a given market to prevent discrimination against consumers of such goods, works, and services, including the development of rules for non-discriminatory access.

One way to recognize the actions of an economic entity as permissible business practices is for a dominant economic entity to approve Trade Practice (Policy) rules. This promotes the transparency of the dominant company for counterparties and serves as a preventive element against potential abuses, including in the form of creating discriminatory terms for consumers. The main advantage of implementing this mechanism is the minimization of antimonopoly risks associated with the adverse consequences of legal liability, as financial sanctions for antimonopoly violations significantly impact the economic position of an economic entity.

Trade practice rules are a document defining the basic principles for the sale of goods by a dominant economic entity. Trade practice rules and their proper implementation can be part of a mechanism for preventing violations of antimonopoly legislation, covering both the internal procedures of the economic entity and its external interactions. [11]

If a dominant economic entity submits approved trade practice rules to FAS Russia for review, and FAS Russia confirms that the provisions of the rules comply with antimonopoly legislation, then the actions of the economic entity explicitly provided for by the trade practice rules (policy) cannot be recognized as a violation of antimonopoly legislation.

At the same time, if a dominant economic entity performs actions that contradict the Competition Law, such actions may be evaluated by the antimonopoly authority for violations of Article 10 of the Competition Law. For example, when considering a complaint regarding the actions of a dominant entity expressed as a refusal to conclude a contract that does not comply with the provisions of the trade practice rules (policy) approved by the entity and reviewed by FAS Russia, such actions may be evaluated for a violation of Article 10, Part 1, Clause 5 of the Competition Law.

Furthermore, it is important not only to have trade practice rules but also to ensure their content includes transparent, non-discriminatory criteria for selecting counterparties and terms of cooperation, that the rules are accessible to an unlimited number of persons, and that the dominant entity complies with these rules.

The existence of and compliance with a detailed process for reviewing applications to conclude contracts and bids (proposals) to purchase goods by a dominant economic entity significantly reduces antimonopoly risks. Moreover, transparency in interacting with counterparties demonstrates the integrity and openness of the economic entity and, consequently, reduces antimonopoly risks, which are expressed in the possibility of being held administratively liable for violating antimonopoly legislation.

2. Filing a complaint with the antimonopoly authority.

Upon identifying discriminatory violations, an interested party has the right to file a statement regarding the violation with the antimonopoly authority. Following the initiation of a case regarding a violation of antimonopoly legislation, the antimonopoly authority must establish the circumstances of the discrimination and the conditions thereof.

Under the provisions of the Competition Law, actions (omissions) by a dominant economic entity that result or may result in the prevention, restriction, or elimination of competition and (or) the infringement of the interests of other persons, including the violation of the pricing procedure established by legal acts, are prohibited. The consequences of committing violations may occur as a result of actions constituting an abuse of a dominant position, or a real threat of adverse consequences may be created as a result of the violation.

Based on a systematic interpretation of Article 10 of the Civil Code and Articles 3 and 10 of the Competition Law, it is sufficient for the qualification of actions (omissions) as an abuse of a dominant position that any of the following consequences (or the threat thereof) exists: the prevention, restriction, or elimination of competition or the infringement of the interests of other persons. [12]

The antimonopoly authority, in the course of monitoring compliance with antimonopoly legislation, having established the fact of an abuse of a dominant position (including imposing a price when concluding a contract or the incorrect application of regulated prices (tariffs)), is obliged to take measures to terminate the corresponding violation, ensure competitive conditions, and hold the violators administratively liable. However, while terminating such a violation of antimonopoly legislation, the antimonopoly authority is not authorized within its competence to resolve civil law disputes between economic entities. Specifically, it is not authorized to protect the subjective civil rights of a victim of such a violation by issuing an order to the violator to pay a debt to the counterparty or to reimburse incurred losses.

Based on the results of reviewing a complaint regarding discriminatory terms, the antimonopoly authority may issue a decision recognizing the entity as having violated the provisions of competition law and issue an order to eliminate the violation. Such orders must be aimed at restoring the applicant's rights. For instance, in the context of a dispute over the results of a tender, the antimonopoly authority issued orders to cancel the final protocol of the tender and to re-evaluate and compare the bids. [13]

3. Holding the person who applied discriminatory terms administratively liable.

Liability for violations of discriminatory terms is established by Article 14.31 of the CAO RF. This legal provision provides for liability for actions by a dominant economic entity that are recognized as an abuse of a dominant position and are impermissible under antimonopoly legislation if such actions result or may result in the prevention, restriction, or elimination of competition.

Additionally, the CAO RF provides for liability depending on the field of activity. Thus, in accordance with Article 14.40 of the CAO RF, the creation of discriminatory terms (as defined by the Competition Law) by an economic entity engaged in food retail through a retail chain or by an economic entity supplying food products to retail chains entails an administrative fine on officials in the amount of 20,000 to 40,000 rubles; and on legal entities in the amount of 2 million to 5 million rubles.

Administrative offense cases under Article 14.40 of the CAO RF are initiated from the moment the decision of the antimonopoly authority's commission establishing the fact of the antimonopoly violation enters into force. It should be noted that economic entities can be held administratively liable for the prohibited actions listed in Article 14.40 of the CAO RF within the statutes of limitation, i.e., within 1 year from the date the administrative offense was committed, or for a continuing offense, within 1 year from the moment it was discovered.[14]

4. Pre-contractual disputes.

Concluding a contract with a monopolist is mandatory for the latter due to the public nature of such a contract. Exceptions include cases where, for example, there is no technical capability to conclude the contract. Most forms of contracts concluded with natural monopolies are approved at the legislative level. Specifically, contract forms have been defined for grid connection to electricity networks, water supply and sewage contracts, energy supply contracts, etc.

The rules for non-discriminatory access define the conditions for concluding contracts and the requirements the contract must meet. For example, when concluding a grid connection contract, if the grid organization sends the applicant a draft contract that does not comply with the rules for non-discriminatory access, the applicant has the right to submit objections to the relevant clauses.

In a specific case, an applicant requested amendments to a grid connection contract to bring the grid connection fee into compliance with Russian legislation. In granting the request, the court stated that the grid connection contract is a public contract. Sub-clause "d" of Clause 16 of the Rules for Non-Discriminatory Access to Electricity Transmission Services and the Provision of These Services, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 861 dated December 27, 2004, provides that the amount of the grid connection fee is an essential term of the contract. This fee is determined in accordance with legislation in the power industry, which provides the applicant with the right to determine the fee amount depending on the chosen rate, and the grid organization is obliged to provide all necessary information for such calculation.[15]

5. Recovery of damages.

This protection method is a general civil remedy based on Article 15 of the Civil Code. Consequently, to recover damages, one must prove the fact of the damages, their amount, and the causal relationship.

In one case, an agricultural cooperative believed that the agricultural machinery it purchased met the conditions for a subsidy and that payment for the machinery had been made in full; however, the subsidy was refused. The court granted the claim for the recovery of damages, as providing the subsidy in accordance with the adopted legal act is a financial obligation of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, the arbitrary refusal of which is impermissible. The incurrence of damages, their amount, and the causal relationship between the damages and the unlawful actions of the authorized body were confirmed, and the calculation of damages was found to be correct. [16]

Although there are not many examples of judicial practice for the recovery of damages, this protection method significantly punishes the party that committed discrimination and restores the rights of the economic entity.

6. Challenging tenders and contracts concluded based on tender results.

When holding tenders and other procurement procedures, actions that lead or may lead to the prevention, restriction, or elimination of competition are prohibited, including: violation of the procedure for determining the winner; and including goods, works, and services that are not technologically or functionally related in a single lot.

Violation of the rules established by Law No. 135-FZ serves as grounds for a court to recognize the corresponding tenders, other procurement procedures, and transactions as invalid.

During the consideration of this dispute, the court concluded that the actions of the auction commission in establishing criteria that did not comply with the regulations governing the contract system were unlawful. The courts concluded that the requirements established by the tender documentation in the "Qualification of Bidders" section regarding the participant's experience in the successful supply of goods, performance of work, or provision of services of a comparable nature and volume did not comply with Law No. 44-FZ, and therefore the tender was recognized as invalid. [17]

When is it NOT Discrimination?

For successful protection against discrimination, it is important to know the criteria whose presence or absence will lead a court or the antimonopoly authority to conclude that no discriminatory term exists. Let us examine them in detail.

1. The rights of the person seeking protection have not been violated.

Only a person whose rights have been violated or potentially may be violated can seek protection of their violated rights. A specific case can serve as an example where the courts established that the defendant, possessing the relevant powers and performing a public obligation to resolve a local issue regarding the creation of conditions for providing transport services and organizing transport services for the population, did not violate the plaintiff's rights. There was no evidence in the case file showing that recognizing the tender and the certificates and route cards issued based on its results would lead to the restoration of any of the plaintiff's rights. [18]

2. Performing actions within the law in the absence of clear evidence of competition restriction.

In a specific case, the antimonopoly authority recognized the actions of a city mayor's office — which created conditions for organizing and holding fairs in the city that did not comply with the established terms for holding them — as a violation of Article 15, Part 1 of Law No. 135-FZ. FAS issued a warning to the mayor's office to take measures to change the timing of the fairs. The claim to challenge this decision was granted because the fact that the fairs were held with intervals of one to two days and through the placement of non-stationary trade facilities or obtaining trade stalls at them does not lead to the creation of discriminatory terms for persons who received the right to trade at the fairs. [19]

In a dispute over the compliance of legal acts, decisions, actions (omissions) with Article 15 of the Competition Law, the antimonopoly authority must prove the fact of the prevention, restriction, or elimination of competition or establish the threat of such consequences in a specific commodity market. This includes consequences resulting from the violation of the rights and legitimate interests of individual market participants or the creation of competitive advantages or obstacles to competition for them.[20]

Independent of the protection of competition in commodity markets, antimonopoly authorities are not entitled to challenge the validity (expediency) of the adoption of corresponding legal acts or the performance of actions (omissions) by public authorities within their subject matter. Therefore, the mere possibility of establishing different regulation in the relevant field of activity — even if more favorable for competition — or the preference for choosing another method of organizing the activities of a public-law formation and meeting the needs of citizens within its territory, cannot in themselves serve as grounds for concluding that Article 15 of Law No. 135-FZ has been violated.

3. Different contract terms relating to non-essential terms cannot be recognized as discriminatory.

Law No. 135-FZ provides that discriminatory terms refer to conditions for access to a commodity market, as well as conditions for the production, exchange, consumption, acquisition, sale, or other transfer of goods, under which one or several economic entities are placed in an unequal position compared to others.

As follows from Article 421 of the Civil Code, parties to a contract are free to conclude a contract, meaning the supplier and the buyer under a supply contract are entitled to independently determine its terms. Economic entities engaged in trade, when organizing and conducting trade activities, independently determine: the procedure and conditions for conducting trade; prices for the goods sold; and the terms for concluding contracts for the sale of goods and for the provision of services for a fee.

In a specific case, the antimonopoly authority concluded that a company's actions in establishing different penalties in supply contracts created discriminatory terms for economic entities (suppliers of goods within the same product group). Federal Law No. 381-FZ dated December 28, 2009, On the Fundamentals of State Regulation of Trade Activities in the Russian Federation, prohibits the creation of discriminatory terms but does not contain a requirement for ensuring identical terms in supply contracts. The Department failed to provide evidence to the case file that the contracts were concluded by forcing the other party to accept them on terms proposed by the buyer. [21]

4. Price determination by agreement of the parties in a contract that is not public.

Pursuant to Article 424 of the Civil Code, performance of a contract is paid for at the price established by the agreement of the parties. Only in cases provided for by law are prices (tariffs, rates, etc.) established or regulated by authorized state authorities and (or) local government authorities applied. Since a supply contract is not a public (standard) contract, its terms do not have to be the same for all participants. [22]

Thus, when faced with discriminatory terms, an economic entity can choose from a fairly wide arsenal of protection methods. By actively protecting its rights, it can fully restore the rights restricted by the manifested discrimination.

_______________________________________

References

[1] Clause 35 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.

[2] Part 1, Clause 6, Article 10; Part 4, Clause 2, Article 11; Part 3, Clause 2, Article 11.1; and Clause 2, Article 16 of the Law on Protection of Competition.

[3] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District No. F07-5500/2016 dated August 3, 2016, in Case No. A56-61238/2015.

[4] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Urals District No. F09-3386/19 dated June 13, 2019, in Case No. A76-24274/2018.

[5] Clause 8 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 30 dated June 30, 2008, On Certain Issues Arising in Connection with the Application of Antimonopoly Legislation by Arbitration Courts.

[6] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District No. F05-16478/2021 dated August 25, 2021, in Case No. A41-21337/2020.

[7] Clarifications of FAS Russia On Certain Issues of the Application of Federal Law No. 381-FZ dated December 28, 2009, On the Fundamentals of State Regulation of Trade Activities in the Russian Federation, as amended by Federal Law No. 273-FZ dated July 3, 2016.

[8] Federal Law No. 381-FZ dated December 28, 2009, On the Fundamentals of State Regulation of Trade Activities in the Russian Federation.

[9] Clause 6 of the Review of Judicial Practice on Issues Related to the Application of Federal Law No. 223-FZ dated July 18, 2011, On Procurement of Goods, Works, and Services by Certain Types of Legal Entities, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on May 16, 2018.

[10] Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 307-ES20-21065 dated April 23, 2021, in Case No. A56-75118/2019.

[11] Clarification No. 5 of the Presidium of FAS Russia Assessment of the Admissibility of Business Practices by Entities Holding a Dominant Position in the Market.

[12] Clause 4 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 30 dated June 30, 2008, On Certain Issues Arising in Connection with the Application of Antimonopoly Legislation by Arbitration Courts.

[13] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District No. F06-68353/2020 dated December 17, 2020, in Case No. A57-29322/2019.

[14] Antimonopoly Regulation in the Field of Trade Activities. A Methodological Guide for Entrepreneurs (approved by FAS Russia).

[15] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District dated November 9, 2020, in Case No. A06-8454/2019.

[16] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Urals District No. F09-3331/21 dated May 19, 2021, in Case No. A71-9575/2019.

[17] Resolution of the Fifth Arbitration Court of Appeal No. 05AP-6042/2016, 05AP-6431/2016 dated October 12, 2016, in Case No. A59-2487/2015.

[18] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District No. F02-5125/2021 dated December 16, 2021, in Case No. A19-16815/2020.

[19] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga-Vyatka District No. F01-3206/2021 dated July 16, 2021, in Case No. A82-16887/2020.

[20] Clause 34 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.

[21] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga-Vyatka District No. F01-7164/2019 dated December 27, 2019, in Case No. A43-12269/2019.

[22] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District No. F10-5048/2020 dated December 25, 2020, in Case No. A83-21889/2019.