Legal services in the field of administrative law

Nadmitov, Ivanov and Partners Law Firm represents interests of foreign citizens in administrative cases in Russia.

Our administrative practice provides services in the following categories of cases:

- Cases on contesting non-normative legal acts, decisions and actions (inaction) of state bodies, municipal bodies related to the implementation of state control (supervision), municipal control, licensing control, including cases on:

invalidation of the order to eliminate violations of the law;
recognizing the actions of officials to conduct checks, planned (raid) checks, examinations, control purchases and other activities illegal;
invalidation of the order (decree) to conduct a check, control purchase, planned (raid) task for inspection, examination;
invalidation of the decision to suspend (revoke) licenses and other permits.
liability for violation of the requirements for the production, sale of ethyl alcohol, alcohol and alcohol-containing products
liability for carrying out entrepreneurial activities without state registration or without special permission (license)
liability for the illegal use of a trademark
related to bankruptcy
liability for violation of the requirements of design documentation, violation of the established construction procedure, failure to comply with the legal order of the construction supervision authorities timely
liability for abuse of a dominant position in the commodities market
liability for the conclusion of the agreement restricting competition, unfair competition
related to the application of administrative punishment – disqualification.

- Cases on bringing to administrative liability and cases on contesting decisions of administrative bodies on bringing to administrative liability, which were initiated on the basis of the results of state control (supervision), including:

federal state fire supervision (EMERCOM of Russia);
federal state sanitary and epidemiological supervision and federal state; supervision in the field of consumer protection (Federal Service on Customers' Rights Protection and Human Well-being Surveillance);
state control (supervision) of compliance with labor legislation and other regulations containing labor law rules (Federal Service for Labour and Employment);
federal state supervision in the field of industrial safety and federal state energy supervision (Federal Environmental, Industrial and Nuclear Supervision Service of Russia);
federal state environmental supervision (Federal Supervisory Natural Resources Management Service);
state veterinary supervision (Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance);
federal state transport supervision (Federal Transportation Inspection Service);
tax authorities;
customs authorities;
antitrust authorities;
bodies exercising control in the field of foreign citizens employment;
land use monitoring authorities;
financial market authorities;
bodies carrying out control and supervision functions in the financial and budgetary sphere;
bailiffs;
Federal Alcohol Regulation authority.

Our administrative practice is experienced in:

representing a large energy company, an interested party, in the trial in the Supreme Court of a subject of the Federation, in the case on challenging the tariff on transmission of electric energy established for a client. In support of the administrative claim the administrative claimant pointed out on the inconsistency of the contested normative legal act with the legal rules of the legislation in force, the inclusion of unreasonable expenses in the tariff, the energy company’s failure to satisfy the criteria of the territorial grid organization, and the violation of the principles of the Pricing Basics in the field of regulation of prices (tariffs) in the electric power industry. The plaintiff also submitted an examination, for which we prepared a review. The Supreme Court agreed with our objections to arguments of the administrative claim and refused to satisfy the claims of the plaintiff, recognizing that the impugned normative legal act fully complies with the norms of federal law, was issued by the authorized body within its competence in compliance with the established procedure.
successful appeal in the Moscow Arbitration Court of a tax authority’s decision to hold the company administratively liable under Article 15.25 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation for violation of the time limits for submitting currency control documents on amending transaction passports to authorized bank. Having accepted our objections and arguments as substantiated, the arbitration court declared illegal and cancelled the decisions of the tax authorities on bringing the Company to administrative responsibility in full.
representing the chairman of the board of a commercial bank at the Central Bank of the Russian Federation in the case of bringing an official to administrative liability under Article 15.27 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation for non-compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of counteracting the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism, in part of organizing internal control. While deciding on bringing an official to administrative liability, due to our comprehensive arguments in support of the bank’s legal position, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation terminated administrative proceedings by applying the provisions of Article 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
representing construction company in the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation complaining of the actions of a state institution-customer during an electronic auction for the right to conclude a state contract for the reconstruction of a highway worth more than 1 billion rubles. The commission of the antimonopoly body found the complaint of the construction company substantiated regarding the non-placement in the unified information system of the design documentation in full, submission of inappropriate explanations of the provisions of the auction documentation and issued an order to eliminate identified violations.
representing large energy company – the applicant – in the Arbitration Court of the Ryazan Region in the case on contesting the decision of the antimonopoly body on bringing to administrative liability under Part 1 of Art. 9.21 of the Code of Administrative Offenses for violating the Rules for Connection (technological connection) to the heat supply system.
representing an electricity company – the applicant in the case on challenging the decision of the Department of Prices and Tariffs of a subject of the Russian Federation on bringing to administrative liability under Part 2 of Article 14.6 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and imposing an administrative fine. The Moscow City Arbitration Court satisfied the client’s claim, found illegal and cancelled in full the decision on bringing our client to administrative liability and imposing an administrative fine.
representing a large electricity company in the Moscow Arbitration Court in the claim declaring illegal and cancelling the decision and order of the Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service in the Moscow Region. The Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service in the Moscow Region acknowledged the client’s actions an abuse of a dominant position, expressed in evading the conclusion of an agreement on the technological connection of power receiving devices and issued a corresponding order. The Moscow Arbitration Court did not agree with the findings of the Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service in the Moscow Region and found the decision and order of the Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service in the Moscow Region unlawful.
representing a large energy company in the proceedings in the Supreme Arbitration Court in the case on invalidation of the orders of the municipal administration and the order of the head of the municipal administration to start the heating season.
contesting the decision of the FAS Russia Office in the Moscow Region on violation of Part 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition regarding the abuse by an economic entity of a dominant position in the market for the provision of services on technological connection of consumers to distribution electric networks within the balance sheet attribution of electric networks.
contesting the decision of the Tariff Service of the Astrakhan Region on bringing to administrative liability under Part 2 of Article 14.6 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation in connection with the violation of the pricing procedure provided for by the Federal Law of December 7, 2011 no. 416-FZ “On Water Supply and Drainage”.