Judicial practice according to the Law N 44-FZ
When purchasing security services, participants cannot be required to authorize the use of radio frequencies
The customer rejected the bid of an auction participant who did not submit a permit for the use of radio frequencies or radio frequency channels.
The office of the Federal Antimonopoly service considered such actions illegal. Private security activities are subject to licensing. If this activity is related to maintenance of security equipment or taking measures to respond to their signal information, the license is issued only if there is a permission to use radio frequencies. The requirement to submit such a permit is excessive.
Document: Resolution of the Arbitration court of the North Caucasus district of 07.02.2020 in case N A61-2359/2019
The contractor under the contract cannot compensate its expenses caused by an increase in the VAT rate without the consent of the customer
The customer made monthly payments under a long-term lease contract. They included VAT, which at the time of signing the contract was 18%.
Since the VAT rate has increased to 20% since 2019, the lessor demanded to increase the monthly payments accordingly. He argued that the agreement of the parties is not necessary for such an increase.
The courts of three instances refused the lessor. Referring to the provisions of Law N 44-FZ and the explanations of the Ministry of Finance, they pointed out that the contract price can only be increased due to changes in the VAT rate by agreement of the parties. The change in the bid itself is a commercial risk for the bidder.
Document: Resolution of The arbitration court of the Ural district of 11.02.2020 in the case N A60-19723/2019
If the contract is extended rather than executed, a new Bank guarantee is not needed
The contractor completed the work stipulated in the contract on time, but the parties needed additional time beyond the term of the contract to prepare the documents.
The customer and the contractor entered into an agreement to extend the term of the contract. Under its terms, the executor had to either extend the current Bank guarantee or submit a new security. The contractor did not do this, the customer demanded to pay a fine.
The courts of three instances refused the customer. They noted that neither the volume nor the duration of work has increased. In other words, the contractor did not have any obligations that require security.
Document: Resolution of the Arbitration court of the Moscow district of 10.02.2020 in the case N A41-107405/2018