In the second half of the year 2015 the ministries and departments of the Republic of Tatarstan conduct research of public opinion in the form of questioning within monitoring of opinion of the population on a condition of corruption in public authorities of the Republic of Tatarstan.

Within provisions of the Law N 44-FL about rationing the Government approved the general rules according to which requirements to the bought goods (to works, services), and similar rules for government bodies, the state off-budget funds of the Russian Federation and establishments subordinated to them will be defined.

If such information contains in the first part of the demand, it isn't the basis for discharge of the participant of electronic auction.

Customers won't be able to buy including arc mercury luminescent lamps and luminescent lamps with the built-in puskoreguliruyushchy device.

Conclusion applies to the contracts signed according to the Law N 223-FL and it is based on provisions of the item of 5 h. 10th Art. 4 of this Law.

The antimonopoly authority recognized lawful actions of the customer who refused the admission to participation in electronic auction as in the demand two countries of origin of one goods were specified.

From October 13 to October 16, 2015 State unitary enterprise of the Republic of Tatarstan "Center of development of purchases of the Republic of Tatarstan" with assistance of the State committee of the of State procurement committee of the Republic of Tatarstan will provide training of heads according to the program of professional development on the subject "Contract System in the Sphere of Purchases of Goods, Works, Services for Ensuring the State and Municipal Needs".

Such conclusion can be drawn from provisions p.1 Art. 94 of the Law N 44-FL where it is specified that performance of the contract includes a number of actions which need to be made after its conclusion (acceptance of the put goods and other actions).

By consideration of the appeal of Russian Armed Forces noted: the antimonopoly authority illegally considered the customer violated provisions of the Law N 44-FL when that recognized the demand not corresponding to this Law because in it there was no INN of the participant of the legal person.