Search

The sphere of public procurement and the disbursement of budget funds in all countries is an environment that attracts not only respectable entrepreneurs who want to make guaranteed money, but also various “criminal white-collar elements.” According to various estimates, the volume of financing for public procurement in the Russian Federation occupies up to one third of the total GDP. A large number of labor and financial resources are involved in this area, while regularly changing legislation in this area, as well as the complexity of procurement procedures for different categories of goods, works, and services create favorable conditions and allow unscrupulous bidders, as well as corrupt customer representatives, to obtain unjustified profits and illegal remuneration. In the current situation, the introduction of new control measures becomes vital to ensure fair competition and efficient use of budget funds. That is why additional research and measures aimed at eliminating these problems and the preconditions for their occurrence are an integral part of ensuring the effectiveness of the public procurement system and protecting public interests.Purpose of the research is to study the genesis of cartel agreements in public procurement and their impact on the implementation of national projects in the Russian Federation, as well as the impact of cartel agreements on the presence of healthy competition and the efficiency of spending budget funds. As part of the paper, the state of crime in this area was examined; the signs of cartel agreements, methods for identifying cartels, as well as signs of collusion between the customer and the participant in public procurement were identified.Methods and materials. The author in his paper applies a comprehensive methodological approach, including analysis of statistical data, methods of the general theory of statistics, as well as methods of synthesis and analysis. The main attention is paid to the analysis of the current legal regulation in the field of public procurement. Graphical and tabular methods were used to visualize statistical data. The study is based on data provided by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia, the Federal Treasury of the Russian Federation, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation and the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court.Results of the study. The paper made a quantitative assessment of the scope of public procurement in recent years, and assessed the work carried out by law enforcement officials and the antimonopoly service. Typical violations of antimonopoly legislation during public procurement are given and methods for identifying them are proposed. The illegal schemes used by cartel participants in electronic trading are analyzed, as well as problematic issues and ways to resolve them that arise in practice. The paper proposes various approaches to increasing the efficiency of law enforcement and control agencies. An analysis of law enforcement practice revealed problems associated with proving crimes in this area, and noted an insufficient level of interaction between law enforcement agencies and the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation.Conclusion. In the study, the author analyzed the main features of cartels, proposed methods for identifying them, as well as ways to improve the verification activities carried out. The presented measures do not exhaust the topic of the study, and to effectively combat cartels, a systematic approach is recommended, including not only improving the quality of work of law enforcement and control agencies, but also improving the software and hardware used in carrying out inspections. Cartels in public procurement are a relatively new phenomenon for Russia; statistical data obtained from the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicate that law enforcement and control authorities are just beginning their work to counter the criminal behavior of participants in cartel agreements. Only the fruitful joint work of law enforcement and control agencies will ensure the economic security of the state and protect the national interests of the Russian Federation.

The article is devoted to examination of the practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (the “CCU”) and the Supreme Court (the “SC”) regarding their perception and application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (the “ECHR”) on autonomous interpretation of the term “criminal charge” for the purpose of protecting human rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the “Convention”), to which Ukraine is a party, and equating the decisions of competition authorities to “criminal charges”, in part of equating administrative proceedings of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (the “AMCU”) on holding undertakings liable for infringements of Ukrainian antimonopoly legislation to criminal proceedings in part of requirements for protection of rights of undertakings. Analysis of the CCU’s practice shows that it generally accepts and applies the ECHR’s practice on equating certain administrative proceedings to “criminal” ones within the meaning of the Convention and extending criminal law guarantees to these proceedings. The CCU has not yet formed a position specifically with respect to criminal сharacter of the AMCU’s proceedings. At the same time, the ССU’s positions developed considering the ECHR’s practice, stating that criminal law principles and guarantees should apply to administrative proceedings concerning violations of customs rules, and the references made by the CCU to one of the most well-known ECHR’s decisions on extending “criminal charge” to a decision of competition authority on imposition of a fine for violation of competition laws – A. Menarini Diagnostics S.R.L. v. Italy, when substantiating these positions, allow to assert the likelihood of the CCU equating the AMCU’s administrative proceedings to criminal ones in part of requirements for protection of rights of undertakings, when this issue arises before it. As for the Supreme Court, questions about application of the Engel criteria to the AMCU’s proceedings on enforcement of antimonopoly legislation increasingly arise before it. Undertakings seek the SC’s conclusions on application of these criteria to the AMCU’s proceedings. The SC has been reluctant to form such conclusions and has denied their formation thus far. The SC’s practice, where it recognized the AMCU’s proceedings as criminal ones for the purpose of protecting rights of undertakings, is currently absent. Therefore, one can only wait to see how the SC’s practice on this issue will develop in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to analysis and general description of legal framework for ensuring observance of rights of undertakings during inspections of the bodies of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (the "AMCU"), considering provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Improving Legislation on the Protection of Economic Competition and Activities of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine" No. 3295-IX dated 9 August 2023 (the "Law No. 3295-IX"), which initiated the antimonopoly reform in Ukraine. The article analyses the main changes introduced by the Law No. 3295-IX in terms of conduct of inspections of undertakings and certain procedural actions (seizure, arrest of property, etc.) by the AMCU's bodies, and provides a general assessment of these changes from perspective of ensuring observance of rights of undertakings during exercise of investigative powers by the AMCU's bodies. Following analysis of the above law, it is concluded that it significantly altered the rules for conducting inspections of undertakings and related procedural actions by the AMCU's bodies and, in general, changed them for the better in terms of ensuring observance of rights of undertakings. The most significant positive development is that after entry of the Law No. 3295-IX into force (1 January 2024) inspections, access to premises, other possessions, other places of information storage owned and/or used by undertakings, and/or performance of certain procedural actions in the form of examination, sealing, seizure of property, and arrest of property by the AMCU's bodies should be subject to prior authorisation by the commercial court. The AMCU's bodies, in turn, are required to provide sufficient justification of the need for inspections and the above-mentioned procedural actions, so that the latter could be authorised by the court. The need to obtain prior authorisation from the commercial court to conduct inspections of undertakings and procedural actions such as seizing, imposing arrest on property, etc. in theory should prevent unjustified interference of the AMCU's bodies in operational activities of undertakings and contribute to ensuring observance of their rights to a greater extent compared to situation when commercial courts would continue to carry out only ex post control over legality of inspections of the AMCU's bodies and their procedural actions. Time will show whether the above idea will find its practical implementation and to what extent. As the AMCU's bodies utilize the investigative toolkit provided to them by the Law No. 3295-IX, time will also reveal imperfections and problematic aspects of the new legal regulation of inspections and procedural actions by the AMCU's bodies in part of ensuring observance of rights of undertakings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, based on the comparison of different approaches to the fault of a legal entity in an administrative offense, the possibility and necessity of establishing an intentional or reckless form of guilt of a legal entity in committing an administrative offense in the field of antimonopoly legislation through the forms of fault of the respective officials are substantiated. Specific features of the “intellectual” element of guilt are applied in relation to the corresponding composition of administrative offenses. Attention is drawn to the role of antimonopoly compliance in establishing the guilt of organizations in administrative offenses in the field of antimonopoly legislation. It is proposed to introduce into the administrative law institutes of complicity, double forms of guilt and kurtosis of the executor in order to ensure proper involvement of both organizations and their officials in administrative responsibility.

The article considers antimonopoly trial in the Russian Federation as a quasi-judicial process, because adversarial nature of the judicial process is to some extent implemented in the Russian antimonopoly law.

The article considers antimonopoly trial in the Russian Federation as a quasi-judicial process, because adversarial nature of the judicial process is to some extent implemented in the Russian antimonopoly law