The practice of the FAS of Russia in cases of violations in the issuance of bank guarantees of Sberbank of Russia PJSC in the field of public procurement
In the first case, the supervisory authority found that the bank guarantee issued by Sberbank of Russia did not include mandatory information about the e-mail addresses of the beneficiary (customer) and the principal (supplier): the e-mail addresses of the parties were missing.
The customer lawfully rejected the supplier's application due to the non-compliance of the guarantee with the requirements set out in the purchase notice and Federal Law No. 44-FZ. The FAS recognized the supplier's complaint as justified, noting that the Standard Form of the Bank Guarantee (approved by RF Federal Law No. 1005 dated November 8, 2013) obliges to keep the e-mail addresses of the beneficiary, the guarantor and the principal.
A similar situation developed in the second case: the subject of the appeal by the participant of the purchase was a guarantee in which Sberbank of Russia PJSC did not specify the e-mail address of the customer (beneficiary). The FAS found the complaint about participation in the bank purchase operation justified.
Practical recommendations: If circumstances arise during the registration of a bank guarantee, namely non-compliance with the requirements established by law (for example, lack of mandatory information), it is recommended to file a complaint directly against the actions of the bank that issued the document. The complaint is filed with the FAS of Russia. Appealing the decision of the customer's commission to reject the application due to non-compliance of the bank guarantee with the requirements, as a rule, does not lead to a positive result, since the actions of the commission in this case comply with the provisions of Federal Law No. 44-FZ. In other words, the bank is responsible for incorrect execution of guarantees, not the customer.