Courts: the bidder's application was rejected legally, since the copy of ST-1 is not certified by the manufacturer
The bidder's request was rejected because the manufacturer of the product did not certify a copy of the ST-1 certificate.
Controllers and the court of first instance considered the customer's decision illegal: Law N 44-FZ does not require such certification. There are no such conditions in the procurement documentation. Copies of certificates are issued correctly.
The appeal and cassation did not agree with this opinion. The participant submitted a copy of ST-1 issued to the manufacturer. According to the procedure for issuing the certificate, its copy is certified last.
The courts found that the participant was not the manufacturer, but he certified a copy. The fact that the applicant additionally declared the country of origin of the goods in the application does not affect the obligation to provide a proper copy of the ST-1 certificate.
the
Application was rejected lawfully.
Earlier, the FAS provided explanations on this issue. The customer does not have the right to demand that a copy of the ST-1 certificate be certified by the manufacturer of the product, and the Commission cannot reject applications because it is not certified. There are no such requirements in Law No. 44-FZ and by-laws.
Note that the purchase was carried out according to the old rules of the national regime for furniture, but the example given has not lost its relevance. Thus, participants in the procurement of certain medical devices with restricted access confirm the country of origin of the goods with a certificate ST-1. The procedure for obtaining it also requires that a copy of it be certified by the manufacturer (if the certificate is issued for it).
In addition, the position of the courts is also relevant for disputes on furniture purchases that were held under the previous rules.
Document: Resolution of the AC of the North-Western district of 01.10.2020 on the case N A56-108718/2019