SOME ASPECTS OF THE CONSIDERATION BY THE US COURTS OF PRIVATE ANTITRUST CLAIMS
( Pp. 159-162)

More about authors
Artemieva Yuliya A. kandidat yuridicheskih nauk, docent, docent kafedry grazhdanskogo prava i processa i mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
Moscow, Russian Federation
Abstract:
The Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation has repeatedly raised the issue of the need to expand ways to influence violators of antitrust laws, proving the effectiveness of private law enforcement measures to protect the rights of persons affected by anti-competitive actions. [1] However, the number of claims for damages is still insignificant and their effectiveness is extremely small. The reasons for this are many, but the main problem is the difficulty of proving such a category of lawsuits. The authors propose to turn to the US experience for having accumulated a considerable amount of knowledge on antitrust dispute resolution for more than a hundred years. The article discusses the issues of determining the subject of proof, means of proof, methods of calculating damages in the resolution of private antitrust lawsuits in the United States. The purpose of the study is to analyze the US antitrust laws in the field of private law enforcement of consumer rights and small business. The author uses a set of philosophical, general scientific, private scientific methods of knowledge of theoretical and empirical material. In the course of this study, a dialectical materialist method was used, which allows studying the rules governing the procedure for determining the subject of proof, the procedure for calculating damages, the types of evidence used in their relationship, interdependence, contradiction, taking into account comprehensiveness and objectivity in the study. To carry out a comprehensive study of problematic issues, general scientific (analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction, systemic) and private scientific (comparative legal, formal legal, technical legal, social modeling of research) methods are used in the work.
How to Cite:
Artemieva Y.A., (2019), SOME ASPECTS OF THE CONSIDERATION BY THE US COURTS OF PRIVATE ANTITRUST CLAIMS. Economic Problems and Legal Practice, 3 => 159-162.
Reference list:
Raz yasnenie Prezidiuma Federal noy antimonopol noy sluzhby ot 11 oktyabrya 2017 g. № 11 Po opredeleniyu razmera ubytkov, prichinennykh v rezul tate narusheniya antimonopol nogo zakonodatel stva (utverzhdeno protokolom Prezidiuma FAS Rossii ot 11.10.2017 №20 Elektron. resurs // https://fas.gov.ru/ documents/612049 po sostoyaniyu na 07.05.2019
Dudin M., Sertakova O., Frolova E., Artemieva Y, Galkina M. Development of methodological approaches to assessing the quality of healthcare services. // QUALITY-Access to Success, June 2017. Vol. 18, Nr. 158. r.71-79. ISSN15822559-Romania-Scopus.
Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act), 1890. Elektron. resurs // URL: http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/sherman antitrust.html / data obrashcheniya: 02.05.2019).
Clayton Antitrust Act, 1914. Elektron. resurs // URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/clayton-antitrust-act/(data obrashcheniya: 02.05.2019).
America West Airlines, Inc. v. Burnley, 838 F.2d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Elektron. resurs // URL: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/ reporter/F2/838/ 838.F2d.1343.87-1639.html(data obrashcheniya: 02.05.2019).
Hovenkamp H. Federal Antitrust Policy. The Law of Competition and its Practice. // West. 4th ed. 2011. 906 p.
Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. 429 U.S. 477 (1977). United States Supreme Court Elektron. resurs // URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/429/477.html(data obrashcheniya: 02.05.2019).
Dudin M., Sertakova O., Frolova E., Artemieva Y, Galkina M. Development of methodological approaches to assessing the quality of healthcare services. // QUALITY-Access to Success, June 2017. Vol. 18, Nr. 158. r.71-79. ISSN15822559-Romania-Scopus.
United States Supreme Court. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co. No. 88-1668 Argued: December 5, 1989 Decided: May 14, 1990 Elektron. resurs // URL https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/495/328.html(data obrashcheniya: 02.05.2019).
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. 401 US 321 91 S. Ct. 795. 1971. Elektron. resurs // URL https://casetext.com/case/zenith-radio-corp-v-hazeltine-research(data obrashcheniya: 02.05.2019).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Elektron. resurs // URL: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/ data obrashcheniya: 02.05.2019).
Foer A.A., Cuneo J.W. Cheltenhem// Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2012, P. 4. ISBN-13: 978-1781005286.
Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004. (ACPERA) Elektron. resurs // URL // https://en.wikisource.org /wiki/Public Law 108-237/Title II (data obrashcheniya: 02.05.2019).
Wendkos v. ABC Consolidated Corp., 379 F. Supp. 15, 21 (E.D. Pa. 1974) Elektron. resurs // URL https://www.casemine.com/judgement /us/5914c6a0add7b049347dc7c2(data obrashcheniya: 02.05.2019).
Luria Steel Trading Corp. protiv Ogden Corp. 484 F.2d 1016 (3d Cir. 1973) Elektron. resurs // URL https://casetext.com/case/luria-steel-trading-corp-v-ogden-corp. (data obrashcheniya: 02.05.2019).
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth. Inc., 473 US 614. 635. 105 S. Ct 3346 (1985) Elektron. resurs // URL: https://supreme.justia.com /cases/federal/us/473/614/ (data obrashcheniya: 02.05.2019).
YU.A. Artem eva, E.P. Ermakova, N.A. Kovyrshina, E.P. Rusakova. Sposoby razresheniya sporov v raznosistemnykh pravoporyadkakh. Monografiya. Moskva: Infotropik Media, 2017.
Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 U.S. (1946). Elektron. resurs // URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/327/251/ (data obrashcheniya: 02.05.2019).
Hovenkamp H. Black Letter Outline on Antitrust (Black Letter Outlines). // West. 5th ed. 2011. 464 p.