The article analyzes the procedure for including information in the register of unfair suppliers (RNP) in the contract procurement system. Special attention is paid to the problem of a formal approach on the part of antimonopoly authorities when making decisions on inclusion in the RNP without a proper legal assessment of the circumstances of contract execution. The author analyzes the legal significance of the principle of good faith in deciding whether to include information about business entities in the register of unscrupulous suppliers in the system of state and municipal procurement. Based on the analysis of judicial practice of arbitration courts and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, criteria for assessing the integrity of participants are identified, including the degree of their guilt, the presence of objective obstacles to the fulfillment of obligations, as well as actions aimed at the proper execution of the contract. The article substantiates the need for a comprehensive legal assessment of the supplier's behavior when deciding on inclusion in the register of unscrupulous suppliers, which ensures compliance with the principles of fairness, proportionality and balance of public and private interests.

В российском праве вопросы недействительности сделок разрабатываются достаточно давно. Но несмотря на это, недействительность сделок остается достаточно сложным правовым институтом, где существует значительное число проблем. В данной работе освещается природа недействительных сделок, а также рассматриваются ограничения, связанные с предъявлением требований о недействительности сделок.

В отечественном правопорядке судебная неустойка или, как многие называют ее, астрент — используется уже достаточно давно. Но несмотря на устоявшуюся практику применения, данный институт не лишен проблемных вопросов. В данной работе рассмотрены некоторые из них.

The article analyzes the scope of application of the institution of judicial penalty (astreinte) in Russian law. It examines the evolution of judicial practice in which astreinte has gradually moved beyond the framework of classical civil law obligations and has begun to be applied in other categories of cases, including public law and labor disputes. It is shown that the initial restrictive model of astreinte application was based on its perception as a mechanism ensuring the enforcement of judicial acts requiring the performance of civil law obligations. However, the development of procedural legislation and judicial practice has led to an expansion of the possibilities for its use. Particular attention is paid to the criteria used by courts in determining the admissibility of awarding astreinte in public law disputes. The article also examines the problem of the absence of a judicial penalty mechanism in administrative proceedings, which creates an institutional gap in the system of mechanisms ensuring the enforcement of judicial acts