02 June 2025

Procurement of Medicinal Products and Medical Devices by Companies with State Participation: Legal Regulation in Russia

June 2, 2025

On January 1, 2012, Federal Law No. 223-FZ of July 18, 2011, "On Procurement of Goods, Works, and Services by Certain Types of Legal Entities" (hereinafter – "Law No. 223-FZ," "The Procurement Law") entered into force. This law defines the general requirements for the procurement of goods, works, and services (hereinafter also – "GWS") by companies with state participation: state corporations, subjects of natural monopolies, autonomous institutions, and a number of others.

Legal entities with state participation not specified in this normative legal act are obliged to carry out procurements based on Federal Law No. 44-FZ of April 5, 2013, "On the Contract System in the Sphere of Procurement of Goods, Works, and Services for Meeting State and Municipal Needs" (hereinafter – "Law No. 44-FZ," "The Contract System Law").

There is a persistent opinion that it is much easier to procure goods, including medicinal products and medical devices, under Law No. 223-FZ than under Law No. 44-FZ. This is due to the fact that the Procurement Law implies greater freedom in regulating procurement procedures. Also, there is no obligation to establish anti-dumping mechanisms, and there is a right to change contract terms in accordance with the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation without the restrictions inherent in Law No. 44-FZ.

However, in recent years, there has been a trend towards the convergence of the legal regulation of these laws. Let us consider the features of procuring medicinal products and medical devices under Law No. 223-FZ.

Methods of Procuring Medicinal Products and Medical Devices

The main document regulating the procurement activity of Customers under Law No. 223-FZ is the Procurement Regulation.

This act provides for competitive and non-competitive procurements that the Customer may conduct, requirements for procurement, the procedure and conditions for their application, the procedure for concluding and executing contracts, as well as other provisions related to procurement support.

A competitive procurement has the following features:

information about it is posted in the Unified Information System (EIS) and is available to an unlimited circle of persons, or to at least two participants in closed procurements;
competition is ensured between competitive procurement participants for the right to conclude a contract with the Customer;
the description of the procurement object is carried out according to the rules established in Law No. 223-FZ.

In accordance with Part 3.1, Article 3 of Law No. 223-FZ, competitive procurements may be carried out by the following methods:

contest (open contest, electronic contest, closed contest);
auction (open auction, electronic auction, closed auction);
Request for Quotations (electronic RFQ, closed RFQ);
Request for Proposals (electronic RFP, closed RFP);
other methods established by the Procurement Regulation.

Non-competitive procurement methods are established by the Procurement Regulation. The only method directly specified in the law is single-source procurement.

An exhaustive list of cases for conducting such procurement is also defined by the Procurement Regulation (Article 3.6 of Law No. 223-FZ).

At the same time, according to the position formed by the Supreme Court of the RF in the Review of Judicial Practice on Issues Related to the Application of Federal Law No. 223-FZ of July 18, 2011 "On Procurement of Goods, Works, and Services by Certain Types of Legal Entities"^[1], for the purposes of economic efficiency, single-source procurement is expedient if the GWS circulate in low-competition markets, or if conducting contest or auction procedures is inexpedient for objective reasons (for example, liquidation of consequences of emergencies, force majeure consequences). Furthermore, single-source procurement is possible based on the results of a failed competitive procurement procedure.

When choosing the method and form of procuring medicinal products and medical devices, in addition to the criteria established in the Procurement Regulation, one should also be guided by the following:

Competitive procurements, the participants of which can only be small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), are carried out strictly in electronic form.
Certain types of medical devices are included in the List of Goods, Works, and Services, the procurement of which is carried out in electronic form, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 616 of June 21, 2012. For example, procurements of dressing materials, surgical gloves, vials for medicines, glassware for pharmaceutical purposes, and medical furniture are possible only in electronic form (e.g., in the form of an electronic auction).

Thus, in one case, the Customer announced a Request for Quotations for the supply of syringes and needles. The documentation stated that the application for participation must be submitted in printed form on paper. One of the participants filed a complaint with the antimonopoly authority, citing that this contradicts Decree No. 616, which consolidates the Customer's obligation to procure syringes and needles in electronic form. The antimonopoly authority recognized the complaint as justified, issued an order to eliminate violations, and transferred the materials for holding the guilty persons administratively liable^[2].

Conducting procurement in a manner other than provided for by current legislation entails administrative liability under Part 1, Article 7.30.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (CAO RF) with the imposition of a fine on officials in the amount of 5,000 to 30,000 rubles, and on legal entities – from 50,000 to 100,000 rubles.

Thus, Customers are endowed with great opportunities to choose the optimal procurement method. It is important that this method is provided for by the Procurement Regulation, does not violate the requirements for the form and conditions of its conduct provided by law, and is not aimed at restricting competition.

Planning Procurements of Medicinal Products and Medical Devices

According to Part 2, Article 4 of Law No. 223-FZ, the Customer places a plan for the procurement of goods, works, and services for a period of at least 1 year in the Unified Information System. The plan must contain information on procedures planned by the Customer, the timing of their conduct, the subject, form, and methods of procurement.

The formation procedure and requirements for the form of the procurement plan are established by Government Decree No. 932 of September 17, 2012 (hereinafter – "Decree No. 932").

Information on GWS procurements, the cost of which does not exceed 100,000 rubles, may be omitted from the plan. If the Customer's annual revenue for the reporting financial year is more than 5 billion rubles, the Customer has the right not to post information on a procurement the cost of which does not exceed 500,000 rubles (Part 15, Article 4 of Law No. 223-FZ). The procurement plan must be posted in the EIS within 10 calendar days from the date of its approval, but no later than December 31 of the current year.

Also, the law obliges Customers to compile and post in the EIS a plan for the procurement of innovative products, high-tech products, and medicinal products for a period of 5 to 7 years (Part 3, Article 4 of Law No. 223-FZ). Unlike the annual plan, it includes only general information about such procurements. The features of its compilation are defined in Decree No. 932; however, the form of the plan has not been approved.

According to clarifications from the Ministry of Finance of Russia, if the Customer does not procure medicinal products, innovative, and high-tech products, it is necessary to post an "empty" plan^[3]. The plan for the procurement of innovative products, high-tech products, and medicinal products is posted in the EIS within the same timeframes as the regular one.

Violation of the deadline and procedure for posting procurement plans may result in administrative liability under Part 2, Article 7.30.4 of the CAO RF, which provides for a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of 3,000 to 10,000 rubles, and on legal entities – from 10,000 to 30,000 rubles.

Requirements for Participants in the Procurement of Medicinal Products and Medical Devices by Companies with State Participation

A procurement participant is any legal entity or several legal entities acting on the side of one procurement participant, regardless of the organizational and legal form, form of ownership, location, and place of origin of capital, with the exception of a legal entity that is a foreign agent (Part 5, Article 3 of Law No. 223-FZ).

The law imposes no other requirements on participants. The Customer determines the requirements for procurement participants in the documentation in accordance with the Procurement Regulation. Undoubtedly, these requirements must take into account the specifics of the procurement subject matter. Furthermore, requirements must not restrict competition and must apply equally to all procurement participants, to the GWS offered by them, and to the conditions for contract execution (Part 6, Article 3 of Law No. 223-FZ).

As a rule, general requirements are established that apply to any procurement (e.g., non-liquidation, absence of tax and fee arrears, absence of conflict of interest, etc.), as well as additional ones that take into account the specifics of the procurement. Thus, when procuring medicinal products, the supplier must have a license for pharmaceutical activity specifying "wholesale trade of medicinal products", and if the procurement participant is a manufacturer of medicinal products – a license for "the production of medicinal products".

In recent years, FAS Russia has been implementing the position that when procuring medicinal products, the participant must have rights to use the invention used in creating the medicinal product. Thus, in Case No. 223FZ-270/24^[4], FAS Russia received a complaint about the Customer's actions during an auction for the supply of a medicinal product with the INN "Dapagliflozin". In the applicant's opinion, their rights were violated by the actions of the Customer, who unlawfully admitted the winner's application to participate in the auction. During the consideration of the case, it was established that the applicant proposed for supply the medicinal product "Forxiga" (INN "Dapagliflozin"), which is protected by a patent belonging to the company "AstraZeneca". The winner was recognized as the participant who proposed for supply the preparation "Fordiglif", which is also manufactured using the active substance "Dapagliflozin". However, the patent holder did not grant the right to use the invention belonging to them in the medicinal product "Fordiglif".The antimonopoly authority decided that the winner violates the exclusive rights of the patent holder. It recognized the Customer's actions in admitting the winner's application to the auction as unlawful.

Thus, Law No. 223-FZ empowers Customers to independently establish requirements for participants. It is important to observe the principles of the law, such as equality, measurability of requirements, and the absence of unjustified restriction of competition. At the same time, we believe that checking for the existence of rights to use the results of intellectual activity is not within the competence of Customers and is an excessive requirement.

Features of Describing the Procurement Object for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices

In accordance with Part 6.1, Article 3 of Law No. 223-FZ, when describing the subject matter of procurement in competitive procurements, the Customer must be guided by the following rules:

The description of the procurement subject matter indicates functional characteristics (consumer properties), technical and qualitative characteristics, as well as operational characteristics (if necessary) of the procurement subject matter.
The description must not include requirements or indications regarding trademarks, service marks, trade names, patents, utility models, industrial designs, requirements for goods, information, works, services, provided that such requirements entail an unjustified restriction of the number of procurement participants, except for cases where there is no other way providing a more precise and clear description of the specified characteristics of the procurement subject matter.
In case of using an indication of a trademark in the description of the procurement subject matter, it is necessary to use the words "(or equivalent)", except for cases of:

incompatibility of goods on which other trademarks are placed, and the necessity of ensuring the interaction of such goods with goods used by the Customer;
procurements of spare parts and consumables for machines and equipment used by the Customer, in accordance with the technical documentation for said machines and equipment;
procurements of goods necessary for the execution of a state or municipal contract;
procurements with an indication of specific trademarks, service marks, patents, utility models, industrial designs, place of origin of goods, manufacturer of goods, if this is provided for by the conditions of international treaties of the Russian Federation or conditions of contracts of legal entities for the purpose of fulfilling obligations under concluded contracts.

These rules for describing the procurement object are fully applicable to procurements of medicinal products and medical devices, but in practice, they cause a significant number of disputes.

Let us consider the key positions developed by FAS Russia regarding requirements for procured medical devices and medicinal products.

1. The set of technical and functional characteristics of the procured good established by the Customer in the description of the procurement object must not correspond to the products of a specific manufacturer.

Thus, in Case No. 223FZ-286/24^[5], FAS Russia received a complaint about the Customer's actions during an open contest for the supply of control and measuring and diagnostic equipment. In the applicant's opinion, the Customer unlawfully established technical and functional characteristics of the procured good, the totality of which corresponds to the good of a specific manufacturer. The Customer did not present information and evidence confirming the existence of two or more manufacturers ready to manufacture the procured good. The FAS Russia Commission concluded that the actions of the Customer, who established technical and functional characteristics corresponding to the good of a specific manufacturer, contradict the provisions of Clause 2, Part 6.1, Article 3 of the Procurement Law. An order was issued to eliminate the identified violations by canceling the procurement protocols, as well as making changes to the procurement documentation.

2. When indicating a specific type/brand of a good, it is necessary to establish requirements for technical and functional characteristics so that participants can propose an equivalent good for supply.

In Case No. 223FZ-292/24^[6], the antimonopoly authority received a complaint about an improper description of the procurement object. In justification, it was stated that the Customer established specific requirements for the brand of the good without indicating technical characteristics, which, in turn, does not allow procurement participants to propose an equivalent good for supply.The FAS Russia Commission concluded that the Customer violated the requirements of Clause 2, Part 6.1, Article 3 of Law No. 223-FZ, which contains signs of an administrative offense. Subsequently, the arbitration court supported the decision of the antimonopoly authority.

Note that courts share this position of the antimonopoly authority. Thus, in Case No. A50-21935/2021^[7], the Customer conducted a Request for Proposals for the supply of an IPLEX NX video endoscope. The words "or equivalent" were used in the description of the procurement subject matter. However, the control body and courts established that only the good of one manufacturer (optical device IPLEX NX video endoscopic system "Olympus") corresponds to the parameters determined by the Customer, while the supply of an equivalent good, which does not exist on the market, is provided for. Under such circumstances, the courts made a well-founded conclusion that the disputed wording of the procurement subject matter actually restricts competition, and the Customer's actions violate the rules for describing the procurement object.

3. When procuring medicinal products, it is recommended to provide for the possibility of procurement participants submitting an interchangeable medicinal product.

A feature of procuring medicinal products under Law No. 223-FZ is that, unlike the Contract System Law, the Customer is not explicitly prohibited from procuring medicinal products by trade name, and not only by international nonproprietary names (INN).

On the one hand, such a possibility allows reducing the risks of supplies of medicinal products that do not meet the Customer's needs (for example, generics); on the other hand, in a number of cases, a number of potential procurement participants may be restricted from participation.

At the same time, FAS Russia attempts to limit the activities of Customers in this direction. Moreover, lately, there has been a trend where courts take the side of the control body.

Thus, in Case No. A40-254173/23-93-2060^[8], FAS Russia received a complaint about the provisions of the documentation for the supply of the medicinal product Keytruda, concentrate for solution for infusion, 25 mg/ml, manufactured by MSD International GmbH, Ireland. The FAS Russia Commission established that the INN "Pembrolizumab" corresponds to medicinal products with trade names: "Keytruda" and "Pembrorea". However, information on the interchangeability of the procured medicinal product was not indicated in the documentation. The Customer could not justify the necessity of supplying precisely such a trade name. The Commission concluded that the procurement of a medicinal product with a specific trade name without the possibility of supplying the same preparation with another trade name of the same INN violates the requirements for describing the procurement object. An order was issued to eliminate violations. Challenging it in court was unsuccessful.

A similar decision was made in Case No. A46-10134/2024^[9].

4. The remaining shelf life of medicinal products must be defined by a specific period.

In the opinion of antimonopoly authorities^[10], Customers' requirements regarding the remaining shelf life of a medicinal product, expressed as a percentage of the total shelf life or otherwise made dependent on the total shelf life of the given good, may entail the establishment of unequal conditions for manufacturers of medicinal products and restriction of the number of procurement participants.

Therefore, when establishing such requirements, it is necessary to define the remaining shelf life by a period (e.g., in years, months, days), or by a specific date, similar to the position formed by FAS Russia within the framework of the Contract System Law^[11].

For establishing requirements for procured goods in violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation in the sphere of procurement, one may be held administratively liable under Part 3, Article 7.30.4 of the CAO RF. Possible punishment is a warning or imposition of a fine on officials in the amount of 5,000 to 30,000, and on legal entities – from 10,000 to 30,000 rubles.

Thus, despite the lesser regulation of the procedure for describing the procurement object, law enforcement practice follows the path of convergence with the requirements established by legislation on the contract system. In particular, in the absence of specifics of the procured good, it is better to refuse to indicate trademarks, models, brands, and trade names that may entail unjustified restriction of the number of participants.

An exception is a situation where there is no other way to describe the procurement subject matter most clearly. In such a case, it is desirable to indicate the possibility of supplying an equivalent good.

Admission of Foreign Products in Procurements of Medicinal Products and Medical Devices

Since January 1, 2025, the national regime rules in public procurement have undergone radical changes. Previously, they were regulated by Decree of the Government of Russia No. 925 "On the Priority of Goods of Russian Origin, Works, Services Performed, Rendered by Russian Persons, in Relation to Goods Originating from a Foreign State, Works, Services Performed, Rendered by Foreign Persons".

However, the provided mechanisms almost did not work, since effectively advantages were granted to practically all states.

The obligation of Customers to ensure a minimum share of procurements of Russian goods was also consolidated, the percentage of which was approved by Decree of the Government of Russia No. 2014 of December 3, 2020, "On the Minimum Mandatory Share of Procurements of Russian Goods and Its Achievement by the Customer".

According to Article 3.1-4 of Law No. 223-FZ as amended on January 1, 2025, when carrying out procurements, goods originating from a foreign state are granted a national regime: equal conditions of access with goods of Russian origin.

As an exception to this rule, the Russian Government is empowered to establish:

a ban on the procurement of goods originating from foreign states, works, and services performed or rendered by foreign persons (hereinafter – "admission bans");
a restriction on the procurement of goods originating from foreign states, works, and services performed or rendered by foreign persons (hereinafter – "admission restrictions");
a preference regarding goods of Russian origin, works, and services performed or rendered by Russian persons (hereinafter – "preferences").

The procedure for granting the national regime is established by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1875 of December 23, 2024, "On Measures for Granting the National Regime when Carrying Out Procurements of Goods, Works, and Services for Meeting State and Municipal Needs, Procurements of Goods, Works, and Services by Certain Types of Legal Entities" (hereinafter – "Decree No. 1875").

This act regulates national regime rules both under Law No. 223-FZ and Law No. 44-FZ. However, there are some differences. Most Customers apply national regime rules in full. Companies (except for business included in the register of organizations of the military-industrial complex^[12], business societies – subjects of natural monopolies or organizations carrying out regulated types of activities in the sphere of electricity supply, gas supply, heat supply, water supply, sanitation, wastewater treatment, handling of solid municipal waste) comply only with the minimum share.

The minimum share of procurements of Russian goods is defined as a percentage of the total volume of procurements of goods of the corresponding category that the Customer procured in the reporting year.

The list of goods for which the share must be observed is established in Annex No. 3 to Decree No. 1875 and includes, inter alia, a number of medical devices (e.g., surgical gloves, ultrasound devices, electrocardiographs, etc.). The specified Customers apply national regime rules only in relation to highly specialized procurements unrelated to the topic we are considering (Sub-clause "l", Clause 4 of Decree No. 1875).

In addition, national regime measures do not apply when Customers who are pharmacy organizations carry out procurements of medicinal products and medical devices for the purpose of retail trade in them (Sub-clause "k", Clause 4 of Decree No. 1875).

Next, let us consider how national regime rules work in procurements of medicinal products and medical devices.

Regarding medicinal products included in the VED List, admission restrictions and preferences are established. Restrictions and preferences apply when conducting competitive procurements, as well as non-competitive procurement, provided that the procurement regulation provides for the submission of applications by several procurement participants when conducting non-competitive procurement.

The mechanism for restricting the admission of foreign goods is as follows: if at least one application with proposals of goods from Russia or EAEU countries is submitted for participation in the procurement, the conclusion of a contract for the supply of a foreign good is not permitted. If all stages of production of the medicinal product, including the synthesis of the active substance molecule, are carried out in Russia or EAEU countries, preferences are additionally granted over medicinal products that do not have a full production cycle in the indicated countries.

The price proposal of such a participant is reduced by 15% from the price proposed by them. If, based on the results of the reduction, such a participant is recognized as the winner, the contract is concluded at the price actually proposed by them.

Information and documents confirming the country of origin of the good are:

the registry entry number from the Russian or Eurasian register of industrial goods;
the ST-1 certificate of the product – for drugs from the RF. It can be submitted if the procurement began before August 31, 2025, inclusive;
the ST-1 certificate of the product – for drugs from the EAEU, except the RF.

This is possible until amendments are made to EAEU law regarding confirmation of the country of origin of goods by a registry entry number from the Eurasian register of industrial goods. To confirm production stages, a document containing information on the stages of the technological process of medicinal product production issued by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Russia is provided in addition.

From September 1, 2025, similar rules should become operational regarding medicinal products included in the List of Strategically Significant Medicinal Products, the production of which must be ensured in the territory of the Russian Federation (Sub-clause "ph", Clause 4 of Decree No. 1875). The exception is strategic medicinal products (INN) which are included in the list after January 1, 2025. For them, such rules will have to be applied only from September 1 of the second year after the year of inclusion in the list. For preparations not included in the VED List, neither restrictions nor preferences apply.

Regarding medical devices, different national regime measures may be established:

bans, if the med. device is included in Annex No. 1 to Decree No. 1875;
restrictions, if the med. device is included in Annex No. 2 to Decree No. 1875;
preference – if the good is not included in either Annex.

Bans or restrictions apply if the procured medical device corresponds to the name, OKPD2 code, and medical device type code in accordance with the Nomenclature Classification of Medical Devices (NCMD) indicated in the annex.

Thus, for example, the list of goods falling under bans includes such medical devices as medical furniture, ventilators, medical masks, and test tubes of certain NCMD codes. Bans apply both to competitive procurements and single-source procurements. The ban mechanism implies a prohibition on concluding a contract for the supply of goods not originating from the RF and EAEU countries.

However, Decree No. 1875 establishes cases where a ban may not be established. For example, until July 1, 2025, regarding medical furniture, a restriction can be applied instead of a ban. Confirmation of the country of origin when establishing bans is the registry entry number from the register of Russian industrial products or the register of Eurasian industrial products.

Admission restrictions apply only when conducting competitive procurements. The mechanism for applying admission restrictions and preferences in procurements of medical devices is the same as in procurements of medicinal products.

Documents provided to confirm the country of origin differ. As a general rule, the origin of the good is confirmed by:

the registry entry number from the register of Russian industrial products;
the number of the register of Eurasian industrial products;
the ST-1 certificate.

For certain categories of med. devices indicated in positions 400 – 432 of Annex No. 2, until September 1, 2025, documents confirming the origin of goods are:

ST-1;
an expertise act of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation or a similar document issued by an authorized body (organization) of an EAEU member state;
details (date and number) of the document confirming the compliance of medical device production with the requirements of GOST ISO 13485-2017.

When establishing preferences, it is sufficient to declare the country of origin. Despite the fact that Decree No. 1875 has been in effect for less than six months, disputes regarding its application are already arising in practice.

Thus, in Case No. 223FZ-127/25^[13], FAS Russia received a complaint about the non-application of restrictions provided for by Decree No. 1875. The FAS Russia Commission established that the good procured by the Customer falls under admission restrictions.

At the same time, the procurement documentation stated that restrictions do not apply due to the incompatibility of the procured good with goods of other trademarks. However, the Customer did not present evidence of the incompatibility of the procured good with other trademarks.

Consequently, in the opinion of the control body, the Customer should have established a restriction. The case materials were sent to hold the Customer administratively liable. Both unlawful rejection and unlawful admission of applications in violation of the specified rules will lead to administrative liability under Part 3, Article 7.30.4 of the CAO RF.

Thus, when establishing national regime measures and evaluating applications, it is important to take into account the introduced restrictions on the supply of goods of foreign origin.

Lot Formation for Procurements of Medicinal Products and Medical Devices

Including goods with different national regime measures in one lot is not prohibited. However, note that Decree No. 1875 recommends guiding by rules applicable in state procurements when forming lots for procurements of medicinal products and medical devices:

Decree of the Government of the RF No. 929 of October 17, 2013, "On Establishing the Limit Value of the Initial (Maximum) Contract Price (Lot Price), Upon Exceeding Which Medicinal Products with Different International Nonproprietary Names or, in the Absence of Such Names, with Chemical, Grouping Names Cannot Be the Subject of One Contract (One Lot)";
Decree of the Government of the RF No. 620 of April 19, 2021 "On the Requirement for Lot Formation When Carrying Out Procurements of Medical Devices That Are the Object of Procurement for Meeting State and Municipal Needs".

Thus, in Case No. A40-241778/2023^[14], the Customer posted a notice of an auction for the supply of medicinal products to provide for privileged categories of citizens with an initial (maximum) contract price of 455,925,030 rubles. One of the participants appealed to FAS Russia with a complaint about the consolidation of the lot. During the consideration of the complaint, it was established that medicinal products of 13 different names with different INNs were combined into one lot. The antimonopoly authority decided that medicinal products with different INNs cannot be the subject of one contract (lot) if the IMCP of the lot exceeds the limit established by Decree No. 929. It issued a mandatory order. The Customer challenged the order in the arbitration court. The court of first instance concluded that Law 223-FZ does not contain restrictions on combining several goods in one procurement subject. However, the courts of appellate and cassation instances decided that such lot formation does not comply with current legislation and also limits the number of procurement participants. The decision of FAS Russia was recognized as lawful and justified.

Summarizing, we note that the regimes for procuring medical devices and medicinal products under Law No. 44-FZ and Law No. 223-FZ differ; each has its own features. In particular, procurement rules under Law No. 223-FZ imply greater variability of the Customer's actions. However, in recent years, a convergence of legal regulation and positions developed in law enforcement practice has been observed when carrying out state procurements and public procurements.

______________________

^[1] Approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the RF on May 16, 2018.

^[2] Decision of the Irkutsk OFAS Russia No. 835 dated December 23, 2016.

^[3] Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-07-06/128276 dated December 29, 2023.

^[4] Decision of FAS Russia dated August 15, 2024, in Case No. 223FZ-270/24.

^[5] Decision of FAS Russia dated August 27, 2024, in Case No. 223FZ-286/24.

^[6] Decision of FAS Russia dated August 29, 2024, in Case No. 223FZ-292/24.

^[7] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District No. F09-3145/22 dated May 20, 2022, in Case No. A50-21935/2021.

^[8] Decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow dated March 19, 2024, in Case No. A40-254173/23-93-2060.

^[9] Resolution of the Eighth Arbitration Appeal Court No. 08AP-11159/2024 dated December 27, 2024, in Case No. A46-10134/2024.

^[10] Decision of the Sverdlovsk OFAS Russia No. 066/01/18.1-3849/2019 dated November 19, 2019; Decision of the Moscow OFAS Russia dated July 1, 2019, in Case No. 077/07/00-1564/2019.

^[11] Letter of FAS Russia No. AK/34487/14 dated August 26, 2014, "On Clarification of Issues of Establishment by State and Municipal Customers in Procurement Documentation of the Remaining Shelf Life of Medicinal Products".

^[12] Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 96 dated February 20, 2004, "On the Consolidated Register of Organizations of the Military-Industrial Complex".

^[13] Decision of FAS Russia No. 223FZ-127/25 dated March 18, 2025.

^[14] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District No. F05-14933/2024 dated September 11, 2024, in Case No. A40-241778/2023.