Abstract: The object of the study is the relations connected with foreign investment in strategic sectors of the economy, the subject is the relations connected with foreign participation in the sphere of fisheries. The following topics are considered in detail: the grounds for increased control over foreign investments in the sphere of fisheries; the concepts of «strategic economic entity engaged in fishing», «foreign investor», «group of persons, which includes a foreign investor», used for the purposes of regulating relations in the sphere of fisheries; legislative restrictions on foreign participation in the sphere of fisheries; consequences of violation of the rules on restricting foreign participation. Particular attention is paid to the issues of interpretation of the concept of «strategic economic entity», and to the interpretation of the law when applied to the foreign investor using the right to extract (catch) aquatic bioresources. The methodological basis of the study was formed by general logical methods of theoretical analysis, special formal-legal, empirical methods and the method of technical-legal analysis. The made the following conclusions regarding the specifics of foreign participation control in the fisheries sector: 1) it is justified to use a broad approach to the concept of a «strategic economic entity», which allows recognizing a company as such regardless of whether it has the right to extract (catch) aquatic biological resources; 2) the legal regime of a single economic entity applies to a group of persons and the same restrictions apply as to an investor acting autonomously; 3) in the fisheries sector, stricter barriers to foreign participation are established, compared to other strategic industries; 4) in case of violation of the legislation in the sector under consideration, measures of both civil and administrative nature are applied simultaneously.

Abstract: The object of the study is certain issues of the procedure for foreign investments in strategic sectors of the economy. The subject of the study is devoted to the procedure for making foreign investments in business entities that occupy a dominant position in the commodity market.
The dominant economic entity has market power, which provides an opportunity to shape the economic environment by determining the number of market participants, the behavior of suppliers of goods (works, services) and their consumers.
The author examines the issues of necessary regulatory approvals of transactions of foreign investors for the acquisition of assets of dominant entities, as well as general antitrust and special rules for determining the existence of a dominant position in business entities operating in various sectors of the economy.
The methodological basis of the study was based on systematic and formal legal methods, as well as the method of technical and legal analysis.
The conclusions of the study are based on the constitutionally significant goals of ensuring national defense and state security, Russian legislation provides for the need to obtain additional regulatory approvals for foreign participation in business entities that occupy a dominant position on the market.
At the same time, the book value of assets and the amount of revenue of a foreign investor does not matter, a group of persons to which he belongs, as well as a business entity whose assets are planned to be acquired by a foreign investor (a group of persons to which a foreign investor belongs), unlike transactions subject to approval within the framework of antimonopoly control.
In some cases, the control of foreign investments applies special rules for determining the fact of market dominance for some business entities, which differ from the rules of antimonopoly legislation.

Abstract: The object of the study is the implementation of foreign investments in strategic sectors of the economy, the subject of the study is a «strategic business entity» as an object of investment activity. The author examines aspects of the normative and legal definition of «a business entity of strategic importance for ensuring the defense of the country and the security of the state», the features of the use of this concept in law enforcement. Particular attention is paid to the role of strategic business entities in ensuring the implementation of the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation. The methodological basis of the study was made up of general logical methods of theoretical analysis, as well as a special formal-legal method and a method of technical-legal analysis. The conclusion is substantiated about the law enforcement agency going beyond the literal interpretation of the regulatory definition of a «strategic business entity» and a new concept of such a company is formulated and understood as «a legal entity created in the Russian Federation, implementing and (or) having the ability to implement, on the basis of a license, other permit document or agreement, any of the types of activities that are of strategic importance for ensuring the defense of the country and the security of the state and the implementation of national priorities provided for by the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation (including performing work, providing services, delivering products necessary for another legal entity to implement the specified type of activity)». This definition must be provided for in the law in order to ensure legal certainty and create a positive investment climate.

Abstract: The object of this study is the relations connected with the implementation of foreign investments in the Russian economy. The subject of the study is the norms of antimonopoly legislation applicable to investment relations complicated by a foreign element. Special attention is paid to the peculiarities of antimonopoly control over economic concentration in the implementation of foreign investments, the prohibition of restrictive business practices and unfair competition of foreign investors, exceptions from the principle of national exhaustion of rights in relation to intellectual property rights in parallel imports, the prohibition of agreements and concerted actions restricting competition, exceptions from the general regime of protection against violations of antimonopoly legislation during tenders, the prohibition of actions (inactions) restricting competition in the cross-border commodity market.
The author analyzes the norms of legislation and the legal positions of the courts.
The methodological basis of the study was formed by general logical methods of theoretical analysis, as well as a special formal-legal method and a method of technical-legal analysis. The main conclusions of the study are the theses that, taking into account the need to ensure national economic security, a broader list of antitrust prohibitions on unfair actions, stricter rules for monitoring economic concentration (except for cases of redomiciliation of a foreign company in Russia), exemptions from the general regime of protection against violations of antitrust legislation during tenders (request for quotations, request for proposals), compared with persons registered in the Russian jurisdiction, goods, works, services of Russian origin, as well as special rules for considering cases of violations of competition in the cross-border commodity market have been established for foreign investors. At the same time, the features of antitrust regulation of foreign investments currently established by law need to be improved.

Abstract: The author discusses some topical issues of the balance of private and public interests in the framework of limiting foreign presence in the areas of economic activity that are strategically important for the state. In 2022 - 2023 State policy in the field of foreign investment control is generally characterized by the introduction of additional restrictions in order to ensure national security: the list of areas of activity recognized as strategic has been expanded; the number of regulatory approvals required for obtaining by foreign persons for transactions with Russian companies has been increased; increased requirements for transparency in the ownership structure of strategic companies; the consequences of violation of the law in this area are detailed. Author formulates a conclusion about the necessary conditionality of the priority of public interest over private interest by current economic and political factors. First of all, proceeding from the measures necessary and sufficient to satisfy the public interest, the state determines the nature and degree of restriction of the economic freedom of the bearers of private interest.
At the same time, by satisfying the public interest, which has as its goal the provision of national economic stability and security of the state, it ultimately ensures the satisfaction of such other interests and needs of an indefinite range of entities that are part of society and the state, which cannot be satisfied only in terms of the financial stability of the state, its military and economic security.

Abstract: The article deals with some topical issues of the invalidity of transactions made for the purpose contrary to the foundations of law and order and morality. The author focuses on the consequences of the invalidity of void transactions for the acquisition by foreign investors of the assets of Russian strategic companies. The issues of application as consequences of invalidity of transactions made in violation of the legislation on foreign investments, restitution, collection of shares (shares) of a strategic company, its fixed production assets into state income are considered.
As part of the study, the author substantiates the attribution of transactions for the acquisition of strategic assets by foreign persons in violation of the law to invalid transactions burdened with the defect of the illegality of their content. The conclusion is formulated about the need to comply with an increased standard of proving the invalidity of a void transaction, corresponding to the standards used when appealing against voidable transactions. The author concludes that the measures of state coercion in the form of recovery of shares, fixed production assets of a strategic company acquired in violation of the law, are measures that are adequate and commensurate with the consequences of violation of the legislation on foreign investment in strategic sectors of the economy, which is an integral part of the foundations of the rule of law, and are predetermined by constitutionally significant goals to ensure the defense of the country, the security of citizens, society and the state.

Abstract: The article deals with some topical issues of restricting foreign participation in strategic sectors of the economy. The analysis of measures of state coercion in case of violation of the legislation in this area is carried out on the examples of: suspension of validity and cancellation of a license to carry out a strategic type of activity; termination of agreements on granting the right to harvest (catch) aquatic biological resources; application of the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction for the acquisition of the assets of a strategic company; deprivation of the right to vote at a general meeting of shareholders (participants) of a strategic company. Conclusions are formulated about the features of the legal form of state coercion in connection with the violation of legislation on foreign investment in strategic sectors of the economy, which include a complex combination of coercive measures characteristic of both administrative law and civil law coercion, as well as the concentration of such measures mainly in one special normative legal act, which directly defines the measures themselves, the grounds and subjects of their application, the implementation procedures. The author states that all measures of state coercion in case of violation of the legislation on foreign investments have one target orientation in the form of deprivation of the right to carry out a strategic type of activity of a foreign investor, the possibility of using which (indirectly, through a controlled Russian company) was obtained in violation of the permissive procedure established by the state.