In March 2026, Yana Lantratova, then Chair of the State Duma Committee on Civil Society Development, asked the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia (FAS Russia) to investigate major companies over possible ‘wage-fixing’ arrangements. According to her request, ‘employers may be coordinating their recruitment and pay policies, not to compete fairly for skilled professionals, but to artificially restrain wage growth and reduce workers’ mobility’.
At the time of writing, there was no established practice in Russia of holding employers liable for breaches of competition law. Nevertheless, existing competition law provisions may also apply to agreements and conduct in the labour market.
Article 11 of the Law on Protection of Competition prohibits anti-competitive agreements and certain forms of anti-competitive coordination of economic activity. Article 11.1 also prohibits concerted practices between competing undertakings where these result, among other things, in price-fixing, the imposition of surcharges, market sharing or refusals to enter into contracts with particular parties.
No-poach clauses covering employees, contractors and other individuals may be characterised as non-compete or market-sharing arrangements and should therefore always be assessed for compliance with competition law.
Employee poaching may also give rise to unfair competition. For example, in Case No. A45-18610/2016, the courts confirmed that the use of another company's trade secrets and know-how, together with the manufacture of similar products, constituted unfair competition. The infringement was further evidenced by the fact that a former director had established his own company and recruited some of his former employer's employees.
FAS Russia has extensive experience of assessing non-compete agreements, including whether they may be permissible under competition law. For example, restrictions contained in joint activity agreements may be considered permissible if they are limited in duration and geographical scope. Exchanges of information that could facilitate the maintenance of a cartel or anti-competitive concerted practices are also prohibited.
Agreements restricting competition (other than cartels), the coordination of economic activity and concerted practices may be found permissible under Article 13 of the Law on Protection of Competition, provided certain statutory conditions are met. These include consideration of whether the benefits of such arrangements outweigh their potential adverse effects.
In our view, the greatest challenge in such disputes is likely to be defining the relevant market. This will require identifying its product and geographical boundaries, market participants, market capacity and barriers to entry. Issues at the intersection of competition and employment law may well represent the next stage in the development of competition regulation in Russia.
__________
This material has been prepared solely for informational and/or educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. EPAM Law, its management, lawyers, and staff cannot guarantee the applicability of such information to your specific circumstances and accept no liability for any decisions you make, or for any direct or indirect losses and/or damages arising from the use of the information contained in these materials, in whole or in part.
