On 29 April 2026, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has proclaimed the Judgement No.29-П in the case on the review of constitutionality of Article 4.1.2 (part 2), Article 4.5 (part 6), and Article 24.5 (item 7 of part 1) of the Code on Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, as well as Article 41.1, Article 51.2 (parts 1 and 11) of the Federal Law «On Protection of Competition». The hearing in connection with the complaint of OOO «Strategia» (OOO – similar to LLC) took place on 19 March 2026.Background
On 21 April 2021, the Udmurt Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) of Russia decided that OOO «Strategiya», a company engaged in glazing works, had illegally used trademarks belonging to another entity in its name and domain name. This served as the basis for initiating an administrative offence case for unfair competition.
Upon the company’s application, this decision on the violation of competition legislation was reviewed. However, on 11 April 2022, the commission of the competition authority again found evidence of the illegal use of the trademarks and domain names. Having cancelled the previous administrative decision and terminated the proceedings in the administrative offence case, the Udmurt Office of FAS initiated new similar proceedings. The applicant was fined approximately 2.5 million roubles.
OOO «Strategiya» challenged this in the arbitration court, arguing that the established one-year statute of limitations for imposing administrative liability for the specified offence had expired, since it should have been calculated from the date of the commission’s first decision in 2021, which established the fact of the violation. This position was upheld in some judicial instances, but the decision at the highest level was not made in favour of the company.
Position of the applicant
According to the applicant, the contested provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, including its Articles 4 (part 2), 19 (part 1), 49 (part 3), 50 (part 1), and 55 (part 1). OOO «Strategiya» believes that they allow a person to be held liable twice for the same act, or to be held liable after the expiration of the statute of limitations, and also violate the principle of interpreting irremovable doubts about a person’s guilt in their favour.
Position of the Court
Protection of competition is one of the foundations of the constitutional order of Russia and a condition for the exercise of the freedom of entrepreneurial activity, and therefore it requires legislative support, including through the use of state coercion measures while respecting the general principles and foundations of the constitutional legal order. When regulating issues of administrative liability, the legislator must ensure the quality of legal norms (both substantive and procedural) to exclude their ambiguous interpretation in practice.
The extended limitation periods for imposing administrative liability for violations of competition legislation are due to significant organisational, procedural and other efforts to ensure the inevitability of such liability. The relevant decision of the competition authority’s commission, after the entry into force of which the limitation period begins to run, is a necessary condition for drawing up a protocol on an administrative offence. Nevertheless, it does not predetermine the conclusion that the constituent elements of an administrative offence are present in the actions of the person being held liable. This presupposes a comprehensive, full and objective examination, which does not preclude the termination of proceedings in the case of an administrative offence if the evidence gathered is insufficient.
The possibility of reviewing decisions of the competition authority’s commission on new and/or newly discovered circumstances is due to the creation of additional guarantees of the rights and legitimate interests of entrepreneurial entities in order to ensure the validity of the relevant decisions. Despite detailed regulation of various aspects of such a review, the legislation does not reflect all its nuances, including those relating to the date on which the original decision of the commission loses legal force and to the time limits for filing an application for its review.
This legal defect also manifests itself when administrative liability is imposed, which must be carried out in accordance with the rules of the Code of Administrative Offences, since from its provisions it is also impossible to draw a clear and consistent conclusion both as regards the limitation periods for imposing administrative liability for violations of competition legislation and as regards the necessity of terminating proceedings in the case of an administrative offence when a decision of the commission is reviewed on new and/or newly discovered circumstances. The lack of a proper regulatory framework places participants in legal relations in a state of uncertainty as to their rights and obligations when applying the legislation on administrative offences, which is unacceptable.
Therefore, Article 4.5 (part 6), Article 24.5 (item 7 of part 1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, and Article 51.2 (parts 1 and 11) of the Federal Law «On Protection of Competition» are inconsistent with the Constitution. Due to their uncertainty, they do not exclude the conflicting application of the rules for calculating the limitation period for imposing administrative liability for violations of competition legislation when a decision of the competition authority’s commission that served as the ground for initiating an administrative offence case is reviewed on new and/or newly discovered circumstances, nor do they exclude the termination of proceedings in such a case if the review results in the confirmation of the original decision of the commission.
The legislator should make the necessary changes to the legal framework. Until then, when administrative liability is imposed following the review of a commission’s decision on new and/or newly discovered circumstances, the limitation period shall run from the date of entry into force of the original decision finding a violation of competition legislation, if the review confirms the same violation of competition legislation by the same person. Furthermore, in the event of such a review, proceedings in the case of an administrative offence shall not be terminated, except when, as a result of the review, the commission concludes that the previously established violation did not occur in the actions (omission) of the relevant person.
Proceedings concerning the review of the constitutionality of Article 4.1.2 (part 2) of the Code of Administrative Offences and Article 41.1 of the Federal Law «On Protection of Competition» have been terminated, since their application did not result in a violation of the constitutional rights of OOO «Strategiya».
The applicant’s case is subject to review in accordance with the established procedure.
Presiding Judge Valery Dmitrievich ZORKIN
Judge Rapporteur Sergrey Dmitrievich KNYAZEV