The winner hid the ban on participation — the state contract was invalidated and obliged to return the payment
The prosecutor appealed to the court to invalidate the contract for the supply of auto parts. It was established that the supplier had previously been held liable for illegal remuneration on behalf of a legal entity. He did not meet the uniform requirements for the participants of the purchase.
Three instances declared the transaction invalid. The supplier was obliged, among other things, to return the payment. He did not want to return the money, because he fulfilled the contract in good faith. In his opinion, the customer could have rejected the application, but did not do so. Responsibility should have been shared between the parties and bilateral restitution applied.
The courts decided otherwise:
- at the time of filing the application, the supplier did not respond to the notice and Law No. 44. He did not inform the customer about his ban on participation in the purchase, he did not withdraw the application;
- the fact that the customer knew about the counterparty's limitations at the conclusion of the contract was not proved;
- the deal was declared void, which means that the delivery was carried out without a contract. Paying for it is an unjustified enrichment that needs to be returned. Bilateral restitution was refused correctly.
A similar position was recently supported by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
Note that in practice there is an example when the court decided that it is illegal to require the counterparty to return the payment in such a situation.
Document: Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District of 02/14/2023 in case N A51-8757/2022