Обзор практики рассмотрения жалоб на решения и предписания управлений Федеральной антимонопольной службы Российской Федерации, поданных в порядке части 6 статьи 23 Федерального закона от 26 июля 2006 г. № 135-ФЗ «О защите конкуренции» за третий квартал 2019 года
The Association of antitrust experts, together with FAS Russia, has prepared a new review of administrative appeal practices for the III quarter of 2019. The document discusses the most relevant positions of the FAS Presidium and appeal commissions, which the Antimonopoly authorities will use when considering similar and comparable cases.
The Association of antitrust experts, together with FAS Russia, has prepared a new review of administrative appeal practices for the IV quarter of 2019. The document discusses the most relevant positions of the FAS Presidium and appeal commissions, which the Antimonopoly authorities will use when considering similar and comparable cases.
The subject of this article is the procedural issues that arose in the case of the Moscow Commercial Court No. A40-235720/2018. This dispute actualized several discussions of legal science, which were previously considered as having no intersection points: individualization of the claim, authority of the appellate court and cooperation between the court and the parties. The doctrine and practice have not yet developed a consensus on one of the most long-running issues of procedural law: what if the plaintiff proved a violation of his right, but was mistaken in choosing a method of defense? In the commented case this problem arose in a new form. So, the key question was the actions of the appellate court, if during the verification of the judicial act the erroneousness of the method chosen by the plaintiff to protect the violated right (and, accordingly, the satisfaction of the claim with this method of protection) was established. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation took a rather radical position regarding the absolute impossibility of canceling a judicial act on the grounds of the erroneous choice of a method of protecting a violated right. But this position, in turn, entailed new problems associated with the general ambiguity of the algorithm of practical actions of appeal in the situation under consideration. This article is an attempt to evaluate the approach of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation both from the point of view of the theory of procedural law, and from the point of view of already existing approaches of judicial practice.
The sixth issue of the series “Studia Historico-Juridica” (“Historical Jurisprudence”) is confined to the 520th anniversary of the Code of Laws (Sudebnik) of Ivan the Great, which played a key role in the formation of a unified Russian state. The reader will get acquainted not only with the modern legal and historical scientific interpretations of Russian medieval legal norms and institutions, but also with new documents supplementing our knowledge about Russian legal culture of the 15th-17th centuries. The collection is addressed to the scientific community and a wide range of readers who study the historical and cultural heritage of our country.
This article explores early modern criminal procedure and the emergence of a culture of appeal in the Russian system of criminal justice. It raises several important questions: Why did the appeal procedure not function as an ultimate guarantee of justice? How did Russian procedural law make appeals nothing more than the last stop on an ‘assembly line’, as a confirmation of a verdict rather than another court instance? How was criminal procedure connected with the political regime and a broader understanding of justice in early modern Russia? And what was then the ultimate goal of appeals that encouraged litigants to proceed with their cases to the highest court authorities? The author argues that Russia developed a so-called ‘appeal culture’, i.e., a situation in which individuals were willing to proceed with an appeal despite the quality of judicial decisions. Coupled with selective justice and a subjective understanding of fair trial, the appeal became one of the main means of acquiring a desirable verdict or, at least, of preventing an adversary from receiving such a verdict.
The results of the scheduled annual analysis undertaken by us to survey the activities of leasing companies in the Russian Federation indicate that the year 2006 was most successful for the leasing business.
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.
We address the external effects on public sector efficiency measures acquired using Data Envelopment Analysis. We use the health care system in Russian regions in 2011 to evaluate modern approaches to accounting for external effects. We propose a promising method of correcting DEA efficiency measures. Despite the multiple advantages DEA offers, the usage of this approach carries with it a number of methodological difficulties. Accounting for multiple factors of efficiency calls for more complex methods, among which the most promising are DMU clustering and calculating local production possibility frontiers. Using regression models for estimate correction requires further study due to possible systematic errors during estimation. A mixture of data correction and DMU clustering together with multi-stage DEA seems most promising at the moment. Analyzing several stages of transforming society’s resources into social welfare will allow for picking out the weak points in a state agency’s work.