The state contract provided for the possibility to refer the dispute to an arbitration court. The arbitration court considered the dispute. The arbitration court refused to issue a writ of execution for the enforcement of its decision.
According to the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1289, when purchasing drugs from the VED list, the customer must apply restrictions and comply with the conditions for admission to purchases of foreign medicines.
The Ministry of Finance proposes to allow customers to purchase from a single supplier under cl. 9 p. 1 st. 93 of Law N 44-FZ to change the schedule of purchases on the day of contracting. Now it can be corrected no later than one day before the date of the contract.
According to the RF Supreme Court, the antimonopoly body has the right to conduct an unscheduled audit of the customer for compliance with the provisions of the Law on Protection of Competition. Such a position was expressed by the court in paragraph 18 of the Review.
The RF Supreme Court in Point 12 of the Review indicated that the right of the customer specified in the documentation to withhold the security of the application, if the participant violates the terms of participation in the procurement, is a liability measure. You can apply it, for example, if the participant provides knowingly untrustworthy information.
The State Duma adopted in the first reading a bill simplifying unitary procurement enterprises. According to the amendments, these organizations will be able to conduct purchases under the Law N 223-FZ, which are carried out without attracting budgetary funds.
The RF Supreme Court considered issues related to information support for procurement, requirements for participants, restriction of competition, conclusion and amendment of the contract, control over procurement, and a number of other issues.
The customer demanded that the procurement participant be a producer of the goods or other person having the right to supply the goods. This right must be provided by the manufacturer. In the opinion of the FAS, such provisions of the documentation violate Law No. 223-FZ.
The customer concluded eight contracts with a single supplier on the same day, each amounting to less than 100 thousand rubles, to supply sports equipment for one stadium. The same day the supplier executed them. The AU of the Volga-Vyatka District recognized such actions as violating Law No. 44-FZ and the Law on Protection of Competition.
The businessman sent complaints to the antimonopoly authority on the provisions of the documentation. Complaints were submitted to the communication organization before the expiry of the appeal period, and the OFAS was received after this deadline. The control body returned them without consideration.