The courts refused to pay under an agreement concluded without carrying out procedures under Law N 223-FZ
The organization has entered into an agreement for the provision of consulting services with FSUE. The customer has repeatedly signed the acceptance certificates without comment, but paid for them only partially.
The contractor went to court demanding that the customer pay for the work in full. The customer asked in response to declare the contract null and void.
The courts supported the customer: services can be rendered to him only under an agreement concluded in accordance with Law N 223-FZ. There is no such agreement, therefore, the customer has no obligation to pay for the services.
The contractor tried to appeal this decision: in their position, the courts referred to clarifications of the provisions of the law on public procurement, while under Law N 223-FZ, the customer cannot be exempted from payment due to violation of the procedure for concluding an agreement. Let us remind you that earlier the Supreme Court has already canceled the decision of the previous instance on this basis.
However, these arguments did not work. The District Court considered that Law No. 44-FZ and Law No. 223-FZ have similar subjects of regulation, therefore, in the issue of payment, one should be guided by the explanations of Law No. 44-FZ. In addition, in this case, the customer is the Federal State Unitary Enterprise, therefore, any contract with him can be concluded only as a result of procurement procedures under Law No. 44-FZ or Law No. 223-FZ.
Document: Resolution of the CA of the Moscow District of 07/09/2020 in case N A40-273635 / 2019