1 / 20

Anti-Cartel Enforcement – Priority of FAS Igor Artemyev, Head of the FAS, Russia

FEDERAL ANTIMONOPOLY SERVICE. Anti-Cartel Enforcement – Priority of FAS Igor Artemyev, Head of the FAS, Russia International Conference. Almaty 2011. ANTIMONOPOLY LAW. Federal Law №135- FZ of 14th July, 2006 « On Protection of Competition ».

jelani-rios
Download Presentation

Anti-Cartel Enforcement – Priority of FAS Igor Artemyev, Head of the FAS, Russia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FEDERAL ANTIMONOPOLY SERVICE Anti-Cartel Enforcement– Priority of FAS Igor Artemyev, Head of the FAS, Russia International Conference Almaty 2011

  2. ANTIMONOPOLY LAW Federal Law №135-FZ of 14th July, 2006 «On Protection of Competition» Article 11. Prohibition of Agreements Restricting Competition or Concerted Practices between Economic Entities Article 16. Prohibition of Competition-Restrictive Agreements or Concerted Practices of the Federal Executive Authorities, the Authorities of the Constituent Territories of the Russian Federation, Local Self-Government Bodies, Other Bodies or Organizations Exercising the Functions of the Above-Mentioned Bodies, as well as Public Extra-Budgetary Funds, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation 2

  3. RESPONSIBILITY OF LEGAL BODIES AND EXECUTIVE (INDIVIDUAL) OFFICERS Legal body EXECUTIVE OFFICER Administrative responsibility Administrative responsibility Criminal responsibility or Fine Penalty on income Fine or or (and) Disqualification Imprisonment 3

  4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPONSIBILITY Code Of Administrative Offences (CodeAO) Article 14.32 – Execution of agreements and (or) concerted actions that restrict competition and the coordination of economic activities. • for executive officers: • Fine amounts: from 20 000 to 50 000 Rubles; • Disqualification for up to three years. • on legal entities: • The amount of fine for the offender’s proceeds of the sales of goods or services in the market in which the offence occurred per year ranges from 1% to 15% .  If this amount exceeds 75% of offender’s total annual revenue, an imposed fine amount ranges from 0,3 up to 3%, but the fine amount shall not be less than 100 000 Rubles. 4

  5. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY Code Of Administrative Offences, Art. 14.9 – Actions of officials or local self-government bodies aimed at restriction of competition.  Imposition of fine for executive bodies: - From 15 000 to 50 000 RUB; - Disqualification for up to 3 years. • Code Of Administrative Offences, Art. 19.5, P. 21– A failure to fulfil a lawful requirement of the antimonopoly bodyon termination of agreements and/or concerted actions restricting competition within the fixed terms. For executive bodies: • - From18 000 to 20 000 RUB; • - Disqualification: up to three years. • For legal bodies: • Fine amount:from 300 000 to 500 000 RUB. 5

  6. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY • Criminal Code,Art. 178 – Preventing, restricting oreliminating competitions by entering into competition-restricting agreements; or engaging in competition-restricting concerted actions against reiterated abuse of dominant position: • Fine amount: • up to 1 million RUB; • equal to the salary of a convicted person during 5 years; • imprisonment for up to 7 years. • Footnote: • Heavy damage – an amount exceeding 1 million RUB; • High income – an amountexceeding 5 million RUB. NB: For one and the same infringement one shall not be brought to trail by both Administrative Law and Criminal Law. Only one is applied. 6

  7. BRINGING TO RESPONSIBILITY Determination of the Antimonopoly Law Infringement is established by FAS Commission according to Chapter 9 of “Law on Protection of Competition” and is fixed in the decision of the Case. IT IS IMPORTANT Part 12of Art. 28.1 of the CodeAO :Reason to institute legal proceedings concerning administrative offences provided within Art. 14.9, 14.31, 14.31.1 - 14.33 shall be the decision coming into effect by which the fact of Antimonopoly Law infringement has been found. THE PROBLEM Court process on institution, examination and investigation of a criminal case is regulated by the Criminal Code of RF. In accordance with Art.178 of the Criminal Code a criminal case can be instituted omitting FAS of Russia. 7

  8. NUMBER OF INITIATED CASESART. 11 FEDERAL LAW «ON PROTECTION OF COMPETITIONИ» 8

  9. NUMBER OF INFRINGEMENTSARTICLE 16 FEDERAL LAW «ON PROTECTION OF COMPETITION» 9

  10. NUMBER OF CASES IMPLIED IN ARTICLE 14.32 OF THEADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION 10

  11. AMOUNT OF FINES, IMPOSED BY ART. 14.32 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF RF • 2007 – 4 259 493 RR. • CA – 4 075 695 RR. • TB – 183 798 RR. • 2008 – 1 528 277 100 RR. • CA – 968 921700 RR. • TB – 559 355 400 RR. • 2009 – 1 400 923 800 RR. • CA – 38 046 900 RR. • TB – 1 362 876 900 RR. • 2010– 903 457 100 RR. • CA – 322 313 000 RR. • TB – 581 144 100 RR. • The 1st half-year of 2011– 507 946 800 RR. • CA – 63 072 000 RR. • TB – 444 874 800 RR. • –lowered due to the amendments to the method of calculation 11

  12. SAMPLES OF THE BEST CASES(Article 11 of theLaw on Protection of Competition) Concert of practices at the market of Liquid Chlorine On the basis of information obtained in the result of unexpected inspections in 2011 FAS revealed a cartel in the liquid chlorine market, and which has been practicing in the market for almost 3,5 years. The cartel members established a share of each one in the market; located certain consumers for each producer and its retailers; and formed bodies to coordinate the cartel activity and its control mechanisms. Members of the cartel have been imposed a fine in an amount of USD 90 million. MIA of Russia has instituted legal proceedings. 12

  13. SAMPLES OF THE BEST CASES(Article 11 of the Law on Protection of Competition) Agreement at the Caustic Soda Market Producer of Caustic Soda “Caustic” JSC and its customers have made dealer agreements which might bring to a resale price fixing of the goods. Also, the agreements considered requirements on prohibition of making similar dealer agreements with other producers or purchasing analogous goods. The cartel members have been imposed a fine in an amount of 200 million RUB.

  14. SAMPLE OF THE BEST CASES(Art. 16Law on Protection of Competition) Agreement in the Milk Market In 2010 FAS investigated a collusion between Northern Administrative County of Moscow city and Wimm-Bill-Dan Company. In the guise of social programs the County created advantageous work conditions for this company in the dairy products market. An appellee of the case has been instructed to eliminate infringements. O. Mitvol, the prefect of the County, was prosecuted to administrative responsibility.

  15. IMPLEMENTATION OF UNANNOUNCED ISPECTIONS A practice of unannounced inspections have been implemented where procedures of examinations, copying of digital mediums of information, requirements of formal expositions and video recordings are used.

  16. USE OF ELECTRONIC ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИЕ ЭЛЕКТРОННЫХ ДОКАЗАТЕЛЬСТВ A Practice of electronic use in non-competitive agreements has been implemented! The following sources are used as e-evidence: • Internet-providers; • Telecom operators; • Radio- and TV- listings; • Websites; • Intranet; • TV- and radio broadcasts; • audio recordings (negotiations on telephone calls); • Video recordings; • Host computers, servers; • Medium, CD.

  17. USAGE OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE The «POISK» System allows: • to receive exact sectoral information from testing computer; • to retrieve deleted files; • to make advanced search by key words, exact date, type of the document (group of documents); • to analyze installed OS in PC; • to identify the list of users including passwords; • to detect all devices used on testing PC; • to check e-mail correspondences, postal programs and chattings (icq, skype, etc.)

  18. COOPERATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES According to the decisions on cases of anti-competitive infringement 23 cases were expedited to Law Enforcement Agencies in 2010: 19 – under the decision in accordance with Article 11 of Law on Competition Protection. Therefrom: 11 cases on anti-competitive agreements and 8 cases on concerted practices. 4 – under the decision in accordance with Article 16 of Law on Competition Protection. On 2 cases the decision has been taken to institute legal proceedings. The first was considered under Article 11, and the second one was considered under Article 16. On 3 cases the initiation of legal proceedings is adjudicated. 18 cases are under the examination.

  19. THIRD ANTIMONOPOLY PACKAGE • Introduction of the notion of “Cartel”; • The list of per se prohibited horizontal agreements (cartels) notably reduced: price fixation or price support; reduction or stoppage of production; refusal to agreement making; • From prohibition of dealing are excluded agreements of economic entities involved in the same group of persons if any of these entities has established a control over another entity, and also if such economic entities are under the control of the same person; • Withdraw of concerted practices from criminal responsibility.

  20. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! www.fas.gov.ru FAS-book & fas_rf (eng) rus_fas fasovka

More Related