The banks refused to issue a guarantee — the Federal Antimonopoly Service did not include data on the winner of the public procurement in the RNP
The winner did not sign the contract on time and did not submit the security. The customer recognized him as evading.
The winner explained that he did not want to evade. He applied to the bank to get a guarantee to secure the contract, and incurred the costs of issuing it. However, he refused without explanation. Other banks also did not issue guarantees. As proof, the winner presented a copy of the initial refusal and copies of appeals to other banks.
The controllers did not reveal any unfair behavior and did not find any grounds for the RNP.
It should be noted that there is a different opinion in law enforcement practice. So, under similar circumstances, the court of first instance decided: the bank's refusal to issue a guarantee is not a force majeure circumstance. It was possible to imagine providing money. Inclusion in the RNP is legal. The appeal and cassation supported this position.
Document: The
decision of the Amur Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia of 04.08.2021 in the case N RNP-28-77/2021