The court invalidated municipal contracts for the demolition of dilapidated houses in Murmansk. And as usually happens, there is a nuance. The administration of Murmansk filed a claim in the arbitration court with the support of the heavy artillery of the regional prosecutor's office. According to the statement, the city authorities believe that seven contracts for the demolition of blocks of wood signed between the municipal capital construction department and the local company SK Service were given while circumventing the prohibition on limiting competition and that their cutting was not of an emergency nature. Of course, the attorney's office supported the demands. Former UKS director Ksenia Savitskaya, who entered into contracts on behalf of the institution, was brought into the case. To remind you that after her dismissal, the prosecutor's office requested to change the wording of the reason for leaving, since a criminal case was opened against Savitskaya for abuse of office. Savitskaya and SK Service, of course, had a different opinion on the claim of the city administration. They stated that the works under the disputed contracts were completed by the contractor in full, and their cost was economically justified. At the same time, the urgency of concluding controversial contracts was due to the need to prevent emergency situations, and in this case no real damage was caused to UKS. After studying the materials of the case, the court sided with the Murmansk government and announced the cancellation of the municipal contracts. And now this nuance is very The contracts were closed, the works were completed in full, and if all this became invalid, then how can the cost of the work be returned to the budget? I mean, the government wanted to destroy the tree for 0 rubles 00 kopecks? If so, then that's a wonderful schematosis, bravo.

The court invalidated municipal contracts for the demolition of dilapidated houses in Murmansk. And as usually happens, there is a nuance. The administration of Murmansk filed a claim in the arbitration court with the support of the heavy artillery of the regional prosecutor's office. According to the statement, the city authorities believe that seven contracts for the demolition of blocks of wood signed between the municipal capital construction department and the local company SK Service were given while circumventing the prohibition on limiting competition and that their cutting was not of an emergency nature. Of course, the attorney's office supported the demands. Former UKS director Ksenia Savitskaya, who entered into contracts on behalf of the institution, was brought into the case. To remind you that after her dismissal, the prosecutor's office requested to change the wording of the reason for leaving, since a criminal case was opened against Savitskaya for abuse of office. Savitskaya and SK Service, of course, had a different opinion on the claim of the city administration. They stated that the works under the disputed contracts were completed by the contractor in full, and their cost was economically justified. At the same time, the urgency of concluding controversial contracts was due to the need to prevent emergency situations, and in this case no real damage was caused to UKS. After studying the materials of the case, the court sided with the Murmansk government and announced the cancellation of the municipal contracts. And now this nuance is very The contracts were closed, the works were completed in full, and if all this became invalid, then how can the cost of the work be returned to the budget? I mean, the government wanted to destroy the tree for 0 rubles 00 kopecks? If so, then that's a wonderful schematosis, bravo.