An analysis of the current state of antimonopoly regulation suggests that when suppressing anticompetitive behavior, a certain priority is given to protecting public interests, while less attention is paid to the property rights and interests of individuals violated as a result. This is manifested, among other things, in the serious dependence of the outcome of the consideration of the case on the relevant civil claim on the preliminary assessment of the subject’s behavior by the antimonopoly authority, as well as in the insufficient effectiveness of the existing mechanism for restoring the rights of persons affected by violations of antimonopoly norms. Meanwhile, market economy participants should be given a broader opportunity to protect their rights, since they are the ones who directly enter into competitive relations with each other, and eliminating violations of their private property interests is as important a task as protecting public ones. The purpose of the study is to outline and substantiate some elements of a legal mechanism that combines both substantive and procedural provisions and allows entities whose rights and legitimate interests have been violated as a result of anticompetitive behavior to exercise their effective protection in a civil procedure. Based on the study of current regulations and scientific doctrine, it is proposed to establish in the legislation on the protection of competition a penalty in the form of a fine or special compensation, levied in favor of the victim and caused by the behavior of the offender, as well as other circumstances. In addition, it makes sense to establish the civil law consequences of concluding an anticompetitive agreement, including its assessment as an invalid transaction, as well as to establish the joint responsibility of the persons who concluded it. It is also necessary to expand the capacity of business entities and the court to present and evaluate evidence in an antitrust case, including the ability to establish the dominant position of a market participant. It is noted that a more definite recognition of the legality of the inclusion of conditional remuneration in contracts with representatives will contribute to the development of group proceedings, including in cases of violations of antimonopoly regulations.
V. G. Istomin (Wed,) studied this question.