Close
Array
(
    [ID] => 212
    [TIMESTAMP_X] => 2017-06-05 13:08:45
    [IBLOCK_ID] => 26
    [NAME] => Иконки наград
    [ACTIVE] => Y
    [SORT] => 500
    [CODE] => PICTURE
    [DEFAULT_VALUE] => 
    [PROPERTY_TYPE] => E
    [ROW_COUNT] => 1
    [COL_COUNT] => 30
    [LIST_TYPE] => L
    [MULTIPLE] => Y
    [XML_ID] => 
    [FILE_TYPE] => jpg, gif, bmp, png, jpeg
    [MULTIPLE_CNT] => 5
    [TMP_ID] => 
    [LINK_IBLOCK_ID] => 35
    [WITH_DESCRIPTION] => N
    [SEARCHABLE] => N
    [FILTRABLE] => N
    [IS_REQUIRED] => N
    [VERSION] => 1
    [USER_TYPE] => 
    [USER_TYPE_SETTINGS] => 
    [HINT] => 
    [PROPERTY_VALUE_ID] => Array
        (
            [0] => 282715
            [1] => 282716
            [2] => 283988
            [3] => 318427
        )

    [VALUE] => Array
        (
            [0] => 8197
            [1] => 8807
            [2] => 8842
            [3] => 11289
        )

    [DESCRIPTION] => Array
        (
            [0] => 
            [1] => 
            [2] => 
            [3] => 
        )

    [VALUE_ENUM] => 
    [VALUE_XML_ID] => 
    [VALUE_SORT] => 
    [~VALUE] => Array
        (
            [0] => 8197
            [1] => 8807
            [2] => 8842
            [3] => 11289
        )

    [~DESCRIPTION] => Array
        (
            [0] => 
            [1] => 
            [2] => 
            [3] => 
        )

    [~NAME] => Иконки наград
    [~DEFAULT_VALUE] => 
)
Array
(
    [ID] => 199
    [~ID] => 199
    [NAME] => Antimonopoly regulation
    [~NAME] => Antimonopoly regulation
    [IBLOCK_ID] => 26
    [~IBLOCK_ID] => 26
)
Array
(
    [PROPERTY_ECONOMY] => 199
    [PROPERTY_economics] => 199
    [0] => Array
        (
            [LOGIC] => OR
            [0] => Array
                (
                    [!PROPERTY_HIDE_SERVICE_VALUE] => Y
                )

            [1] => Array
                (
                    [PROPERTY_HIDE_SERVICE_VALUE] => Y
                    [PROPERTY_LAW_BIND] => 199
                )

        )

)
Head of Antitrust Practice
Antimonopoly regulation

Antimonopoly regulation

Our lawyers assume a prominent role in expert organisations that are working together with the regulator, the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS of Russia), to improve Russian antimonopoly legislation. 

Breaching antimonopoly legislation may have adverse effects and be detrimental to business. Pepeliaev Group has broad experience in advising on antimonopoly regulation.

We are ready to provide comprehensive legal support in all aspects of antimonopoly regulation, including: abuse of a dominant position, entering into anticompetitive agreements/concerted actions, unfair competition; advising participants in, and organisers of, tenders on orders placed by government and municipal authorities; legal support regarding regulatory aspects of economic concentration, etc.

Our services:

  • Representing clients before the FAS, the Eurasian Economic Commission and in courts, including cases on cartels and abuse of a dominant position
  • Performing antimonopoly audits and developing antimonopoly compliance systems
  • Providing support during antimonopoly audits
  • Providing advice on antitrust legislation and other issues that fall within the jurisdiction of the FAS
  • Obtaining approval for transactions and other actions with the FAS and with the Governmental Commission for Overseeing the Making of Foreign Investments in Russia
  • Holding training sessions on antitrust law compliance and other issues that fall within the FAS’s competence

Projects

The first system of antimonopoly compliance on the russian market has been unveiled to the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service On 8 December 2015 at the office of mobile operator MTS, a presentation was held dedicated to the system of antimonopoly compliance. This system was devised specially for MTS by Pepeliaev Group's lawyers and their colleagues from the company, in conjunction with audit firm Ernst & Young. 

The major project to develop the antimonopoly compliance system was ongoing for over a year. MTS has become the first company on the Russian market to introduce an internal system to prevent such violations of the legislation. The purpose of the antimonopoly compliance system is to reduce antimonopoly risks. The system makes a company's business activity more transparent and ultimately reduces the burden on the antimonopoly authority. 

During the presentation Sergey Puzyrevskiy noted that the system developed for MTS may be used as a basis for the federal standard of antimonopoly compliance when such standard, along with issues relating to certification of this instrument, is discussed.

Legal support to Airport Norilsk LLC during the investigation conducted by the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service: the case was terminated on the grounds that law had not been violated The lawyers of the antitrust practice have successfully defended Airport Norilsk LLC, a subsidiary of MMC Norilsk Nickel.
The lawyers of the antitrust practice have successfully defended Airport Norilsk LLC, a subsidiary of MMC Norilsk Nickel. Airport Norilsk LLC operates the Alykel airport, which is one of the most important transportation hubs in Krasnoyarsk Territory. The Branch of the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the Krasnoyarsk Territory conducted an investigation in connection with a potential abuse of a dominant position, which allegedly took the form of the airport infringing the interests of an airline. It was claimed that the airport had refused, without any grounds for doing so, to approve a number of slots for the summer and winter seasons. Since the airport is a natural monopoly entity, it is not covered by the restrictions on and rules of non-discriminatory access set by legislation. The client managed to prove that the airport’s actions were caused by objective circumstances relating to a large-scale project that involved the reconstruction of the Alykel airport which is of immense social importance for transport communication between Norilsk and neighbouring regions. Following the consideration of the case the Branch of the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the Krasnoyarsk Territory terminated it on the grounds that antimonopoly law had not been violated.
Other projects