vestnik-msalВестник Университета имени О.Е. Кутафина (МГЮА)Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL))2311-59982782-6163Московский государственный юридический университет имени О.Е. Кутафина (МГЮА)10.17803/2311-5998.2017.37.9.116-125vestnik-msal-236Research ArticleТРИБУНА МОЛОДОГО УЧЕНОГОTRIBUNE FOR YOUNG SCIENTISTСИСТЕМА ВНУТРЕННЕГО ОБЕСПЕЧЕНИЯ СООТВЕТСТВИЯ ТРЕБОВАНИЯМ АНТИМОНОПОЛЬНОГО ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА В ИНОСТРАННЫХ ЮРИСДИКЦИЯХ: ПРОБЛЕМЫ ТЕОРИИ И ПРАКТИКИTHE SYSTEM OF INTERNAL COMPLIANCE OF THE ANTIMONOPOLY REQUIREMENTS IN FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS: PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICEАшфаД. М.AshfaD. M.ashfa0408@gmail.comУниверситет имени О.Е. Кутафина (МГЮА)Russian Federation20171203202009116125Copyright © Ашфа Д.М., 20202020Ашфа Д.М.Ashfa D.M.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://vestnik.msal.ru/jour/article/view/236

Статья посвящена исследованию концепций системы внутреннего обеспечения соответствия требованиям антимонопольного законодательства с акцентом на обзор официальных разъяснений антимонопольных органов иностранных юрисдикций. Проанализированы дела в отношении компаний, в которых реализация системы внутреннего обеспечения соответствия требованиям антимонопольного законодательства учитывалась антимонопольными органами в качестве обстоятельства, смягчающего ответственность в рамках рассмотрения дел, а также заключения мировых соглашений.

The article is devoted to the research of the concepts of the system of internal compliance with the requirements of the antimonopoly legislation with an emphasis on review of official guidelines of antimonopoly authorities of foreign jurisdictions. The cases concerning companies in which the implementation of the system of internal compliance with the requirements of the antimonopoly legislation was taken into account by the antimonopoly authorities as a circumstance mitigating responsibility in the course of cases, as well as reaching an amicable agreements.

конкурентное правоантимонопольное регулированиерискпредупреждениенарушениеответственностьсистема внутреннего обеспечения соответствия требованиям антимонопольного законодательстваантимонопольный комплаенсадвокатирование конкуренцииcompetition lawantimonopoly regulationriskwarningviolationresponsibilityinternal compliance with antimonopoly legislation requirementsantimonopoly compliancecompetition advocacyReferencesURL: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000005634379 (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).URL: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000005634379 (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).URL: http://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/doc/document_cadre_conformite_10_fevrier_2012.pdf (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.)URL: http://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/doc/document_cadre_conformite_10_fevrier_2012.pdf (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.)Decision of the Office of Fair Trading No. CA 98/02/2009, Bid rigging in the construction industry in England, 21 September 2009 (Case CE/4327-04).Decision of the Office of Fair Trading No. CA 98/02/2009, Bid rigging in the construction industry in England, 21 September 2009 (Case CE/4327-04).Decision of the Office of Fair Trading No. CA 98/01/2009, Construction recruitment forum: collective boycott and price-fixing, 29 September 2009 (Case CE/7510-06).Decision of the Office of Fair Trading No. CA 98/01/2009, Construction recruitment forum: collective boycott and price-fixing, 29 September 2009 (Case CE/7510-06).Eden Brown Limited v. Office of Fair Trading Case No. 1140/1/1/09, 30 November 2009.Eden Brown Limited v. Office of Fair Trading Case No. 1140/1/1/09, 30 November 2009.URL: http://www.agcm.it/component/joomdoc/normativa/concorrenza/Linee_guida_criteri_quantificazione_sanzioni.pdf/download.html (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).URL: http://www.agcm.it/component/joomdoc/normativa/concorrenza/Linee_guida_criteri_quantificazione_sanzioni.pdf/download.html (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).Decision of the Director General of Fair Trading No. CA98/9/2002 Market sharing by Arriva plc and FirstGroup plc. 20 January 2002 (Case CP/1163-00)Decision of the Director General of Fair Trading No. CA98/9/2002 Market sharing by Arriva plc and FirstGroup plc. 20 January 2002 (Case CP/1163-00)Decision of the Office of Fair Trading No. CA 98/2/2003, Agreements between Hasbro U.K. Ltd, Argos Ltd and Littlewoods Ltd fixing the price of Hasbro toys and games, 19 February 2003 (Case CP/0480-01)Decision of the Office of Fair Trading No. CA 98/2/2003, Agreements between Hasbro U.K. Ltd, Argos Ltd and Littlewoods Ltd fixing the price of Hasbro toys and games, 19 February 2003 (Case CP/0480-01)URL: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/oft-cc-cases (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).URL: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/oft-cc-cases (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).URL: http://www.corporateaccountability2009.com/CAC09%20Amsterdam/Panel%20MI/ Hoehn%20-%20OFC%20-%20How%20Achieve%20Compliance.pdf (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).URL: http://www.corporateaccountability2009.com/CAC09%20Amsterdam/Panel%20MI/ Hoehn%20-%20OFC%20-%20How%20Achieve%20Compliance.pdf (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284402/oft1341.pdf (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284402/oft1341.pdf (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284410/oft1340.pdf (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284410/oft1340.pdf (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).URL: http://bookshop.europa.eu/is-bin/INTERSHOPenfinity/WFS/EU-Bookshop-Site/en_GB/-/EUR/ViewPublication-Start?PublicationKey=KD3211985 (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.)URL: http://bookshop.europa.eu/is-bin/INTERSHOPenfinity/WFS/EU-Bookshop-Site/en_GB/-/EUR/ViewPublication-Start?PublicationKey=KD3211985 (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.)/853/EEC: Commission Decision of 7 December 1982 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (Case COMP IV/30.070 - National Panasonic); 88/138/ EEC: Commission Decision of 22 December 1987 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (Case COMP IV/30.787 and 31.488 - Eurofix-Bauxo v. Hilti); 88/518/EEC: Commission Decision of 18 July 1988 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (Case COMP IV/30.178 Napier Brown - British Sugar); 88/86/ EEC: Commission Decision of 18 December 1987 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (Case COMP IV/31.017 - Fisher-Price/Quaker Oats Ltd - Toyco); 91/532/EEC: Commission Decision of 5 June 1991 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (Case COMP IV/32.879 - Viho/Toshiba); 92/426/EEC: Commission Decision of 15 July 1992 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (Case COMP IV/32.725 - Viho/Parker Pen)/853/EEC: Commission Decision of 7 December 1982 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (Case COMP IV/30.070 - National Panasonic); 88/138/ EEC: Commission Decision of 22 December 1987 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (Case COMP IV/30.787 and 31.488 - Eurofix-Bauxo v. Hilti); 88/518/EEC: Commission Decision of 18 July 1988 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (Case COMP IV/30.178 Napier Brown - British Sugar); 88/86/ EEC: Commission Decision of 18 December 1987 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (Case COMP IV/31.017 - Fisher-Price/Quaker Oats Ltd - Toyco); 91/532/EEC: Commission Decision of 5 June 1991 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (Case COMP IV/32.879 - Viho/Toshiba); 92/426/EEC: Commission Decision of 15 July 1992 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (Case COMP IV/32.725 - Viho/Parker Pen)/418/EC: Commission Decision of 7 June 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.545/F3 - Amino Acids); Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 June 2005 (C-189/02 P - Dansk R0rindustri and Others v. Commission of the European Communities); Commission Decision of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 - Elevators and Escalators); Commission Decision of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 - Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries)/418/EC: Commission Decision of 7 June 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.545/F3 - Amino Acids); Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 June 2005 (C-189/02 P - Dansk R0rindustri and Others v. Commission of the European Communities); Commission Decision of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 - Elevators and Escalators); Commission Decision of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 - Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries)URL: https://www.justice.gov/file/440481/download (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).URL: https://www.justice.gov/file/440481/download (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).U.S. v. Barclays Plc, Case 3:15-cr-00077-SRU, Plea agreement (Filed May 20, 2015).U.S. v. Barclays Plc, Case 3:15-cr-00077-SRU, Plea agreement (Filed May 20, 2015).U.S. v. Kayaba Industry Co., Ltd, d/b/a KYB Corporation, Case 1:15-cr-00098-MRB, Plea agreement (Filed September 16, 2015).U.S. v. Kayaba Industry Co., Ltd, d/b/a KYB Corporation, Case 1:15-cr-00098-MRB, Plea agreement (Filed September 16, 2015).URL: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/compliance/index_en.html (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).URL: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/compliance/index_en.html (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.).Federal Trade Commission: National Association of Music Merchants, Inc., Docket No. C-4255 FTC File No. 001 0203; 2009Federal Trade Commission: National Association of Music Merchants, Inc., Docket No. C-4255 FTC File No. 001 0203; 2009URL: https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-28000-principles-federal-prosecution-business--organizations#9-28.400 (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.)URL: https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-28000-principles-federal-prosecution-business--organizations#9-28.400 (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.)URL: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2011/manual-pdf/2011_Guidelines_Manual_Full.pdf (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.)URL: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2011/manual-pdf/2011_Guidelines_Manual_Full.pdf (дата обращения: 27 апреля 2017 г.)

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.