Legal regulation of exchange transactions (2017)

Exercise 1
 
Legal regulation of exchange transactions

Activity 2

Give examples of articles of civil legislation that provide for the possibility of collecting sanctions in an increased amount for gross violations of contractual or state discipline

Task 1

The city administration applied to the arbitration court with a request to declare invalid the prescription of the antimonopoly authority on the cancellation of the resolution of the head of administration.
The antimonopoly body announced that the plaintiff had missed the 6-month deadline for appeal.
The arbitration court refused the city administration to satisfy the claim due to the expiration of the period of appeal to the court.
Considering such a decision illegal, the administration appealed to the appellate instance. At the same time, she referred to the need to apply a 3-year limitation period established by Article 169 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, since the recognition of a non-normative act of a state body as invalid is a way of protecting civil rights.
Are there grounds for canceling the decision of the arbitral tribunal?

Task 2

The joint-stock company applied to the arbitration court with a request to invalidate the decision of the antimonopoly body to include the company in the Register, since the company´s share in the market of a certain product does not exceed 35%.
When considering the case, the court found that the plaintiff owns a share of 50 to 100% of the votes in subsidiaries of a similar profile.
What decision should be taken on this dispute? Was the antimonopoly authority competent to determine the share of the joint-stock company in the market and included it in the Register as part of a group of individuals?

Task 3

The natural monopoly entity applied to the arbitration court with a demand to invalidate the antimonopoly agency´s orders to enter into a contract with the consumer in accordance with the quota established by the natural monopoly regulating authority, citing the fact that the activities of natural monopolies are not subject to control by antimonopoly bodies.
The arbitral tribunal did not agree with the opinion of the natural monopoly entity and refused to file a lawsuit. Article 5 of the Federal Law of March 22, 1991. No. 9488-1 "On Competition and Restriction of Monopolistic Activity in Commodity Markets" prohibits economic entities dominating the market to abuse this provision.
The natural monopoly entity appealed against this judgment, considering that the activities of natural monopoly entities are under the control of the state regulation of natural monopolies and they are not subject to the prohibitions established by the antimonopoly legislation.
Give an opinion on the situation.