In 2025, court practice on the Register of Unreliable Suppliers (RNP) became clearer and more technically grounded. Courts now analyze not only the presence of a delay but also the party's conduct, the extent of documentary evidence, and the client's specific actions.
1. A confirmed actual violation — inclusion is lawful
In February 2025, the Supreme Court confirmed that an effective court ruling establishing material breach of contract is sufficient grounds for inclusion in the RNP. This means the FAS is not required to separately assess good faith if the breach has already been confirmed by a court decision in a dispute under Federal Law No. 223-FZ/44-FZ.
Practice shows that if a contractor systematically breached its obligations and the breach is documented in a court ruling, this is direct grounds for inclusion in the RNP.
2. False information in bids — a direct route to the RNP
2025 arbitration practice (a case from the Moscow District, August 2025) clearly established that providing false information as part of a bid is unconditional grounds for inclusion in the RNP. This applies to all information: experience, resources, qualifications, documentation, and more.
3. Missed deadlines and state expert review — a separate issue
Courts are increasingly hearing disputes where a client terminates a contract due to a negative expert review and then attempts to have the contractor placed on the RNP. The Supreme Court emphasized that inclusion in the RNP must occur within the statutory deadline and be justified, otherwise the inclusion is unlawful.
A client's unilateral termination plus a negative expert review is grounds for a dispute, but not automatic grounds for inclusion in the RNP.
4. FAS and court practice — documentation, not words
A contractor's statement alone is not enough. The court also requires objective evidence of actual obstacles.
In 2025 cases, the FAS included contractors in the RNP when they failed to submit actual documentation of obstacles (official requests, the client's responses, expert opinions).
Formal notices and a lack of responses are not always proof of obstacles. Document every stage.
Conclusion:
In 2025, courts do not simply compare contractual deadlines with actual ones — they assess the parties' conduct, the volume of evidence, and the proportionality of obligations. A client or regulator may initiate RNP proceedings, but this is not a final verdict — if the contractor's position is backed by documentation and sound technical reasoning, inclusion in the RNP is increasingly being overturned by the courts.
