Penalty under Article 34 of the Law on the Contract System

Only one application has been submitted for participation in the life competition, which is recognized as meeting the requirements of the Law on the Contract System.

The Antimonopoly authority has agreed to the customer the possibility of concluding a state contract with a single contractor on the terms stipulated in the tender documentation. At the same time, by this decision, the antimonopoly authority established violations of the requirements of the hh in the actions of the customer. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Article 34 of the Law on the Contract System, since there was no fixed amount of fine in the tender documentation and the draft contract, but only an indication of its definition in accordance with the decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 25.11.2013. No. 1063 “On Approval of the Rules for Determining the Amount of the Fine accrued in Case of Improper Performance by the customer, supplier (contractor, contractor) of the obligations stipulated by the contract (except for the Delay in the performance of obligations by the customer, supplier (contractor, contractor), and the amount of penalties accrued for each day of delay in the performance by the supplier (contractor, contractor) of the obligations stipulated by the contract”.

Considering this decision illegal, the customer appealed to the court with an application for its invalidation.

The decision of the court of first instance, left unchanged by the court of appeal, refused to satisfy the stated claim based on the fact that the provisions of art. 34 of the Law on the Contract System, which determine the obligation to include in the contract not only the conditions on the responsibility of the customer and the supplier (contractor, contractor) for non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of obligations stipulated in the contract, but also fixing the amount of the fine (Penalty under Article 34 of the Law on the Contract System) in a fixed amount and the procedure for determining it, are mandatory norms and do not imply the possibility for the applicant to substitute such conditions at his discretion with reference to determining the amount of the fine in accordance with the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1063.

The Arbitration Court of the district annulled these judicial acts and invalidated the decision of the antimonopoly authority.

Leave a Comment