The subject of the dispute was the **nullification of the results of a state procurement and the contract for the capital repair of a military canteen** in the city of Poltava.<\/p>\n
The prosecution, in the interest of the **Ministry of Defense of Ukraine**, claimed that the procurement was conducted **with violations**, while the defendants \u2014 the **Housing and Operational Department of the city of Poltava** and **TechnoBud-Ukraine LLC** \u2014 denied this, insisting on the legality of the bidding process.<\/p>\n
The courts of first instance and appeal **denied the prosecution’s claim**.<\/p>\n
The court established that the **rejection of other bidders was justified**, as they did not meet the requirements of the tender documentation, and **TechnoBud-Ukraine LLC fully complied with these requirements**. The court also noted that **nullifying the procurement results and the contract without applying the consequences of nullity would not restore the state’s rights**, thus **such a method of protection is ineffective**. The prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence of procedural violations or wrongful actions by the defendants.<\/p>\n
The **Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal** and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The subject of the dispute was the **nullification of the results of a state procurement and the contract for the capital repair of a military canteen** in the city of Poltava. The prosecution, in the interest of the **Ministry of Defense of Ukraine**, claimed that the procurement was conducted **with violations**, while the defendants \u2014…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1731","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1731","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1731"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1731\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1731"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1731"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1731"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}