{"id":6659,"date":"2025-03-13T09:27:55","date_gmt":"2025-03-13T07:27:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-520-28124-23-dated-06-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-13T09:27:55","modified_gmt":"2025-03-13T07:27:55","slug":"case-no-520-28124-23-dated-06-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-520-28124-23-dated-06-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 520\/28124\/23 dated 06\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the State Audit Service’s conclusion regarding a violation of the procurement tender procedure.<\/p>\n

2. Main Court Arguments:<\/p>\n

– Regarding occupational safety certification: The court recognized that the chief engineer’s documents fully comply with the tender documentation requirements.<\/p>\n

– Regarding bank guarantee:
\nThe court established that:
\n– The bank guarantee meets all necessary requirements
\n– A separate guarantee agreement is not mandatory
\n– Reference to the basic banking service agreement is legitimate<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: The claim of the Capital Construction Department was fully satisfied. The State Audit Service’s conclusion was deemed unfounded.<\/p>\n

4. Key Conclusion: The State Audit Service unreasonably demanded termination of the contract with the tender winner.<\/p>\n

Decision in favor of the procurement customer.<\/p>\n

Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the State Audit Service’s conclusion regarding a violation of the procurement tender procedure. 2. Main Court Arguments: – Regarding occupational safety certification: The court recognized that the chief engineer’s documents fully comply with the tender documentation requirements. – Regarding bank guarantee: The court established that: –…<\/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-6659","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\/6659","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=6659"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6659\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6659"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6659"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6659"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}