The provision of the third application will be transferred to the state customer only if the violations are systematic, the court recalled
The Company submitted applications for participation in two purchases in one day. They were rejected because of the same violations. Later, it submitted an application for participation in the third purchase and made its provision. The application was also rejected. The security was transferred to the customer, since this deviation is the third during the quarter on one electronic platform.
The company went to court to recover unjustified enrichment. The first and appellate instances supported it:
• this financial sanction is a measure of responsibility for ignoring violations previously identified within the quarter and for continuing negligence in the formation of documents for participation in procurement;
• two of the three rejected applications were submitted simultaneously with a difference of several minutes. The grounds for recognizing them as nonconforming are similar. The society could not know that it had submitted incorrect applications. This is one violation;
• there is no systematic negligence in the behavior of society.
Recall that a similar position is supported, in particular, by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District did not recover the security from the customer. Among other things, he took into account that more than a month had passed between participation in purchases N 1, 2 and 3. The participant could show foresight and prevent violations.
Document: Resolution of the 10th Arbitration Court of Appeal of 31.05.2023 in case N A41-93596/2022