August 2000

15 August 2000

Dear Mr KOEZUKA

We have the pleasure to invite you to participate in the International Conference "10^th Anniversary of Antimonopoly Bodies.".

This high-level International Conference will take place in Moscow, 18-19 October 2000. It will host participants from foreign and international organizations, governmental, academic and business circles for discussion of crucial problems of competition policy and competition law.

The working languages of the Conference are Russian and English.

For further details please contact Ms Johnston (tel.: 456 899 01)

Joe Brandton

Vice-Minister

Task III. Conversation on the topic of your thesis

аспирантура (канд. экз.)

Экзаменационный билет (на 2 листах) по дисциплине

английский язык

(специальность: гражданское право; предпринимательское право;
семейное право; мчп)

Task I. Translate from English into Russian in writing using a dictionary. Your time is 45 minutes

Article 103 obligates the Member States to consider business cycle policy a matter of common concern. This means that except to the extent that decisions of the Council based on Article 103 create Community law, business cycle policy remains within the competence of each Member State. On the other hand, the Member States do not remain entirely free, for in its actions each Member State must bear in mind any possible impact on the other Member States. Furthermore, each Member State has a justified interest in watching business cycle developments in all other Member States. Finally, there would seem to be a right to complain if a Member State occasioned unfavorable business cycle developments.

The right to complain poses a difficult problem. Although certain aims of the Treaty, especially those listed in Article 104, do not impose legally binding obligations, it may be questioned whether the same holds true if these aims are significant for business cycle policy and thus become a matter of common concern.

A clear remedy exists if the business cycle policy of a Member State disregards the common interest to such an extent that competitive conditions among the Member States are seriously distorted. Since under Article 101, a qualified Council majority suffices, these distortions can be eliminated by directives pursuant to that Article even against the will of the Member State affected. In any event, the relative autonomy Article 103 leaves the Mem­ber States is not an excuse for ignoring other binding Community rules. Hence a Member State cannot justify a national rule which does not conform to a Community pricing scheme for agricultural products on the ground that the rule is designed as a means of fighting inflation, and Article 103 gives the Member States competence in that area. On the other hand, given the present limited amount of integration, Member States may pursue a general incomes policy, even if that policy affects a group, such as farmers, who are the object of Community policy goals, so long as the national measures do not distort the function­ing of the Community market organization (without mentioning Article 103 probably illustrating how little known article 103 is).

The Law of the European Community. A Commentary on the EEC Treaty. Hans Smit, Peter E. Herzog. Matthew Bender, May 1998. Vol 3

Task II. Translate the letter from English into Russian without a dictionary. Your time is 5-7 minutes

TO: Ms Klery STAVRAKAKIS

Director

Organization of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises

5 February 2000

Dear Ms Stavrakakis

Herewith we are informing you that Mr Bogachev, Deputy Minister, who is a participant to the AZ1A FORUM 2000 in Thesallomki on February 7-8, will be in Athens on February 9 in the afternoon.

Taking the chance of being in Athens he would greatly appreciate if you could meet so as to discuss issues of mutual interest.

Please contact Mr Filimonov so as to arrange the meeting.

I thank you in advance for your kind cooperation.

Sincerely yours

Vladimir Egorov

Head, Department for International Relations

Task III. Conversation on the topic of your thesis

аспирантура (канд. экз.)

Экзаменационный билет (на 2 листах) по дисциплине

английский язык

(специальность: гражданское право; предпринимательское право;
семейное право; мчп)

Task I. Translate from English into Russian in writing using a dictionary. Your time is 45 minutes

Friedmann himself referred to the trend of criminalivzing offences by legal persons, such as corporations. In opposition to the ILC's adoption of the concept of international crimes, many cite the maxim impossibile est quod societas delinquat. However, the increasing departure from this maxim in national laws suggests that opposition to the concept of international crimes stems from state sovereignty rather than from the character of the state as a legal person.

In addition to the individual criminal responsiblity of the officers of a corporation,in the modern business world a corporation itself may be criminally liable for the actions or omissions of agents acting on the corporation's behalf, in the scope of their employment. The movement towards this form of Criminalization began in areas of strict liability, where no mens rea was required, but soon expanded to crimes requiring, a certain mental state. This was achieved through imputing to the corporation not only the acts, but also the mental state, of its employees. Whereas individuals would be punished by imprisonment or even death, corporations have been penalized by fines or punitive damages.

Even though labelled civil rather than criminal, treble damages for anti-trust violations have become a major feature in evaluating the movement of the law towards the imposition of punitive sanctions. The role of parallel developments in many countries, which influence general principles of law and, in many cases, general principles of criminal law, reinforces the impact of such treble damages.

The action for civil treble damages in the United States for violation of the Sherman Act or other anti-trust legislation may be initiated by either the government, private individuals or corporations. This civil action is in addition to governmental enforcement through both criminal and civil action, for example, by enjoining an illegal transaction. Governmental criminal action leads to fines on corporations and their officers and, whenever appropriate, imprisonment of the corporation's officers. Allowing private parties to sue to supplement governmental enforcement means that private parties are allowed to act, in effect, as private attorneys general. I emphasize this point to illustrate that significant sanctions can also be carried out through private agents. Thus, the dividing line between civil and criminal action may be becoming blurred in several areas of the law.

European Journal of International Law. Vol. 9, Nol, 1998. Oxford University Press

Task II. Translate the letter from English into Russian without a dictionary. Your time is 5-7 minutes