A transaction in violation of Law No. 44-FZ does not in itself mean an anticompetitive agreement, the court decided
In February, the parties terminated the contract for the repair and maintenance of highways. The situation was recognized as an emergency, because in winter without such works the roads could not be operated. While new auctions were being held, the customer concluded a deal with a single supplier.
The supervisors saw this as an anticompetitive agreement. They decided that there were no grounds for purchasing from the supplier.
Three instances decided otherwise and supported the customer:
the deal with one supplier was forced and temporary. It was concluded in winter due to low temperatures and an abundance of snow. While it was in operation, the auction was held and a new contractor was chosen;
the controllers correctly established that there were no grounds for purchasing from the supplier — the emergency mode was not introduced, the customer could foresee the situation. However, they did not confirm the existence of an anti-competitive agreement and its consequences. The fact of a direct transaction in violation of Law No. 44-FZ does not prove this in itself.
The RF Armed Forces did not review the case.
Document: Definition of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation from 22.09.2022 N 304-ES22-16400