The SAC RF plenum specifies application of the anti-trust legislation.
Legal Update No. 184.
Goltsblat BLP advises of adoption of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of 14 October 2010 No. 52 “On amendments to Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of 30 June 2008 No. 30 ’On certain issues arising from application of the anti-trust legislation by state arbitration courts’” (the Resolution).
The purpose of the Resolution is to improve state arbitration court practice and align previous clarifications with changes to the legislation and the legal position taken by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
The Resolution’s main provisions include:
Absence of any concerted action offence by a specific commercial entity may be confirmed not only by objective circumstances affecting all commercial entities equally, but also objective reasons for the given entity’s commodity market behaviour or evidence of its actions being independent of those of other entities.
A price established by the anti-monopoly authority as a fair one for a given product is recommendatory but, in any case, its application by a commercial entity cannot be recognised as a violation of the anti-trust legislation.
The SAC Plenum’s position on vertical agreements is excluded as a result of changes to the legislation in 2009.
For the purpose of avoiding administrative liability, a commercial entity may advise the anti-monopoly authority of an agreement it has concluded in violation of the antitrust legislation or of its prohibited concerted actions until the anti-monopoly commission’s ruling establishing an anti-trust offence is published.
Essentially, both income from an antitrust offence and fines for an administrative one may be recovered from a commercial entity simultaneously (the ban on this is lifted on the basis of the position taken by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation).
The Resolution also throws light on other procedural aspects of imposing administrative liability: the time from which an administrative offence case may be initiated and from which the statute of limitations for administrative liability runs; the nature of procedural infractions when an administrative offence protocol is drawn up, etc.
Interpretation of the rules of law contained in the Resolution constitutes grounds for reviewing, in the established manner, judicial acts on the basis of new evidence surfaced.
For additional information, please contact:
Nikolay Voznesenskiy, Head of Antitrust Group, Goltsblat BLP;
T: +7 (495) 287 44 44,
For all issues related to publications, news and press releases, please contact:
If you would like to receive our legal alerts and updates highlighting current legal issues relevant to your areas of interest and providing expert commentary by our lawyers, please click on "Sign Up" and fill out the form.