Liability for violation of the antimonopoly legislation

On March 31, 2010 the Russian Corporate Counsel Association held a joint conference, sponsored by “Muranov, Chernyakov & Partners” Law Firm, with the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation “Liability of the legal entities and individuals for violation of the antimonopoly legislation.”

The issue of enhancing liability for violations of the antimonopoly legislation is of great concern for top managers of companies and heads of corporate legal departments. On March 31, 2010 the hotel Baltschug Kempinski Moscow hosted the conference “Liability of the legal entities and individuals for violation of the antimonopoly legislation” held by the Russian Corporate Counsel Association supported by the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia and several law firms. The conference participants were particularly interested in the following issues: What is the liability of a company manager in the event of violation of the antimonopoly legislation by such company? How can the subjective aspect of the antimonopoly violation be proved and how can the line of defense be worked out? What are the procedural differences in consideration of the antimonopoly legislation violations and administrative offences? How is the law enforcement practice developing in the sphere of competition protection?

Dmitry Chernyy, a partner of “Muranov, Chernyakov & Partners” Law Firm, was one of the conference speakers with the report “CORRELATION BETWEEN THE PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CASES ON VIOLATION OF THE ANTIMONOPOLY LEGISLATION AND ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENCES.”

“Presently, due to certain shortcomings of the legislative regulation and the established law enforcement practice, we face a situation when there are actually two different codes of procedural rules within the sphere of cases consideration dealing with violations of antimonopoly legislation. Besides, one of them is enacted by law (the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation), and the other by an actual by-law (Regulations of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation). Both existing procedures have their pros and cons. The parallel exploitation of these procedures, however, is a great disadvantage for the market players in terms of procedural saving and general cost of the process,” said Dmitry in his speech.

Over 100 managers of legal departments and corporate lawyers specializing in the antimonopoly legislation field took part in the conference.

 

April 1, 2010

 

 

 

Share/Save