Courts: the requirement of documentation to the Bank guarantee in the form of jurisdiction of disputes does not contradict the Law № 44-FZ
The company, recognized as the winner of the electronic auction, sent to the customer a signed draft contract and a Bank guarantee as security for the contract.
The customer refused the winner to conclude the contract on the basis that the presented Bank guarantee does not meet the requirements of the auction documentation, as it does not specify that all disputes on it should be considered in the Arbitration court of the Sverdlovsk region. Instead, there is an indication that all disputes are considered in the Arbitration court of Moscow.
The winner appealed the refusal to the Antimonopoly authority, which, in turn, found the complaint unfounded. Having disagreed with this decision, the company appealed to the arbitration court with the relevant application.
The courts, making the conclusion about the absence of a set of grounds for recognition of the decision of the Antimonopoly authority to be invalid, refused satisfaction of the declared requirements.
The district court agreed with the decisions of the lower courts, noting that the requirement for the content of the Bank guarantee on the jurisdiction of disputes established by the customer in the auction documentation does not contradict the law. At the same time, the requirements for ensuring the execution of the contract are set equally for all participants in the procurement. In addition, the company, when submitting an application for participation in the auction, accepted the conditions established by the auction documentation, including the requirements established for the Bank guarantee.
Document: resolution of the as of the Ural district of July 10, 2018 № F09-3878/18