The Supreme Court has indicated which documents are not entitled to require the FAS

FAS fined the customer for 100 000 rubles. The reason is that during an unscheduled audit the organization did not submit documents about the employee who was responsible for the procurement.

The information was needed by the FAS to bring the employee to administrative responsibility. The Supreme Court decided that the antimonopoly service had received all the necessary information from the procurement documentation that the customer had provided. FAS does not have the right to demand documents from an unscheduled audit in order to fine the guilty employee.

FAS conducted an unscheduled inspection of the customer and found violations. To impose a fine, the antimonopoly authority demanded documents on who was in charge of publishing the procurement documentation. The customer did not give the documents to the inspectors, and FAS fined the customer for 100,000 rubles. on part 1 of Article 19.7.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

 The customer appealed the decision of the FAS in court, but the arbitration court found the fine lawful. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the first instance court. The court pointed out that for the control of procurement, the information that the customer placed in the auction documentation is sufficient.

And the information on the employees who developed and published the procurement documentation was no longer required for an unscheduled audit, but to initiate an administrative case. The Supreme Court confirmed the position of the Court of Appeal: in the case of an unscheduled audit, the customer is required to submit only those documents that are needed for the audit.

Document: Definition of the Supreme Court of September 28, 2017 No. 304-AD17-