Kharkiv court returned UAH 2 million to the state budget: details of the decision were revealed
The Kharkiv Prosecutor’s Office contested the construction contract concluded due to the conspiracy of the tender participants. The court decided to return more than 2.3 million hryvnias to the state. About this reported the press service of the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office.
In 2017, the Department of Construction, Repair and Reconstruction of the Department of Construction and Road Management of the Kharkiv City Council held open tenders for the purchase of works on the construction of an irrigation water pipeline on Heroiv Kharkiv Avenue.
The winner of the tender was the private enterprise with which the contract was concluded. In the future, the parties repeatedly entered into additional agreements regarding changes in the cost and terms of performance of works.
However, according to the decision of the Administrative Board of the Kharkiv Antimonopoly Committee, the tender participants violated the rules of competition through concerted actions. During the preparation of the tender documentation, the participants did not act independently, but in coordination with each other, which violated the customer’s right to an optimal result.
The Shevchenkiv District Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv, defending the state’s interests, filed a lawsuit with the Economic Court of the Kharkiv Region, but it was refused. After that, the prosecutor’s office filed an appeal.
The Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal declared the contract invalid and decided to collect more than 2.3 million hryvnias from the company for the benefit of the state budget.
We will remind, in Kyiv, the prosecutor’s office was unable to appeal the court’s decision to change the preventive measure for the owner of the Poltava turbomechanical plant, who is accused of supplying components to Russia’s defense industry.
It was previously reported that the Lviv City Council appealed to the court with a demand to remove obstacles to the use of communal land on the territory of the pasta factory and to demolish the illegal building, but the court rejected the claim.
