Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Administrative and municipal law
Reference:

Features of civil law regulation of the state defense contract in Russia.

Purge Anna Rolandovna

PhD in Law

Associate Professor at the Department of Private Law of Vladivostok State University

690014, Russia, Primorsky Krai, Vladivostok, Gogol str., 41, office 5502

a.purge@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0595.2023.2.40894

EDN:

NFAVUR

Received:

27-05-2023


Published:

03-06-2023


Abstract: The article is devoted to the analysis of individual problems of legal regulation of the state defense order in the Russian Federation. The object of the proposed study is the real social relations arising from the conclusion and termination of the state defense contract. The subject of this study is the norms of law that ensure the effectiveness of legal regulation of relations arising from the state defense contract. The resolution of the identified problems should become one of the priority tasks facing the domestic legislator in the course of improving this institution of law. In the course of the research, both general scientific methods of cognition (philosophy, logic) and comparative legal methods were used, allowing to carry out legal concepts and conduct their comparative analysis. The relevance and novelty lies in the fact that the issues of external security and, moreover, the defense of the Russian Federation in the last 30 years have been, as we can conclude now, not the most relevant – neither for the legislator (who has not yet formed a legal regime of wartime in criminal, administrative, or civil legislation), neither in the Russian civil law, which, although it paid some attention to the newly created public procurement system in 2014, has not yet dealt separately and specifically with the issues of the defense procurement system. It is concluded that, on the one hand, the Russian legal system for a long time completely lacked the model of relations of the state defense order in wartime, on the other hand, the Soviet civil–legal constructions used to mobilize industry, agriculture and transport during the Great Patriotic War were completely forgotten (due to their "planned" nature).


Keywords:

state defense contract, object of a defense order, state customer, standard terms, approximate terms, open competitive methods, non-competitive methods, closed competitive methods, customer, provider

This article is automatically translated.

The growth of military-political tension on the borders of the Russian Federation since 2014 clearly indicated the need to create such a mobilization economic model that would allow combining the advantages of a private economic initiative with the state planning necessary for the formation of a defensive economic strategy. The absence of such a model, to be put into effect immediately after the announcement of a special military operation or, in any case, after the announcement of partial mobilization, cannot but be recognized as an omission of domestic civil science. Experts note that even a year after the start of a special military operation, the army still has a shortage of many promising weapons, ammunition, special military ammunition and communications equipment, which implies a further expansion of the volume of state defense contracts in the coming years. This situation has led to a sharp (experts emphasize the need for unmanned aerial vehicles equipped with electronic equipment [1], as well as communications and encryption, thermal imagers [2, p. 11], collimator sights, etc.) increase in the volume and assortment of the state defense order, followed by a surge in demand for labor resources and materials used in the production of weapons.

The further growth of the share of the mobilization industry in the Russian economy suggests, most significantly, the formation of a new civil law model of relations in it that would meet the principle of defense efficiency declared in the legislation. Obviously, such a model will differ from the existing civil law models of delivery and contract by extremely low profitability of the order, strict requirements for the time and quality of its execution, measures of increased responsibility of the supplier (contractor), perhaps even the right of state bodies (state customer) to prompt intervention in the production or even commercial activities of the contractor.

On the other hand, at the moment of a general reduction in demand ("compression of demand"), a defense order turns out to be attractive for business activity, since, due to the stability of demand and the reliability of the state as a customer (and as a payer), it allows you to build long-term relationships ("production chains") with other manufacturers, form (including train) stable working workforce.

Thus, the effectiveness, efficiency and continuity of military production depend on a properly constructed civil law model of the mobilization economy, which explains the relevance of the proposed study.

As noted above, the number of studies of the public procurement system, as it developed with the adoption of new legislation, is relatively small. These include the works of E.G. Chumarova (2015 – on the state contract for the performance of works [3]), E. Y. Matveeva (2016 – on contracts for work on energy services, i.e. on saving electricity [4]), I.G. Yakovleva (2017 – analysis of the legal regime of the request for quotations and the request proposals [5]), A.V. Yarosh (2018 – analysis of public procurement of medicines [6]).

The peculiarities of the legal regulation of many relations are caused not so much by the needs of a certain state policy, but by their very essence and the needs of their participants, which the legislator must take into account. The essence of relations in the field of public procurement has the following specifics in comparison with general business relations.

Firstly, the specifics of the legal regulation of military procurement are predetermined, first of all, by the targeted, military nature of the goods produced, the work performed and the services provided. However, Federal Law No. 275-FZ completely lacks an indication of the intended purpose of these objects: the legislator chose a different, purely formal way of determining the defense purpose of products: fixing it as a task established by the Government of the Russian Federation and offered for execution to suppliers (performers) – commercial organizations.

As follows from paragraph "1)" of Article 3 of Federal Law No. 275-FZ [7], the object of the defense order is divided into two groups:

- goods, works and services supplied "in order to ensure the defense and security" of the Russian Federation;

- products (as you can see, there is no indication of two groups of objects - works and services – already) "in the field of military-technical cooperation" of the Russian Federation and foreign states.

At the same time, with the beginning of a special military operation and a sharp increase in the demand for the objects of the first group, the volume of their orders and production increased significantly [8].

For civil law regulation, the military nature of the object of this agreement means several consequences at once:

- the limited nature of these objects in civil circulation, which most often means that it is impossible to sell them to another buyer;

- the need to comply with a whole system of requirements related to the observance of state secrets and commercial secrets, as well as compliance with the rules for handling dangerous (flammable, explosive, etc.) objects;

- specialized production, which implies not only the availability of the necessary means of production, but also qualified personnel (which the customer of such products should also check during the bidding period).

Thus, the defensive nature of the products significantly complicates the rules of bidding for its purchase (order), introducing a set of additional requirements for the seller (contractor).

Secondly, the customer under this agreement is primarily the state. According to paragraph "m" of Article 71 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, defense and security, defense production, determination of the procedure for the sale and purchase of weapons, ammunition, military equipment and other military property, production of toxic substances - belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Russian Federation [9]. Therefore, the federal authorities or persons authorized by them always act as the customer of defense production (and the production of other objects related to military operations).

Among the subjects of the defense order are, first of all, the state customer in the person of:

- firstly, the federal executive authority, which is most often the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation (although defense orders are possible, for example, from the Federal Security Service, whose powers include the protection of the state border);

- secondly, the State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom, which provides supplies of products primarily for its special purposes. The legal status of the Rosatom State Corporation is established by a special federal law No. 317-FZ dated 01.12.2007 "On the State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom" (hereinafter – FZ No. 317-FZ) [10]. It determines the special legal capacity of the Corporation and its right to act as a customer under state defense contracts (Parts 6 and 6.1 of Federal Law No. 317-FZ). In particular, Part 6.1 of Article 6 of this Federal Law establishes that the Corporation performs the functions of the chief administrator of budget funds, the recipient of budget funds, the chief administrator of budget revenues, the administrator of budget revenues, the chief administrator of budget deficit financing sources, the administrator of budget deficit financing sources and the state customer of the state defense order in the established field of activity, the state customer of state programs Of the Russian Federation in the field of defense and security,

- thirdly, the State Corporation for Space Activities Roscosmos, which also provides supplies for its own high-tech tasks on the basis of a special legislative act on it [11]. According to paragraph 14 of part 1 of Article 14 of Federal Law No. 215-FZ of 13.07.2015, Roscosmos organizes the supply of goods and the performance of works (services) for state needs. In addition, paragraph "6)" of Article 11 of the same establishes that Roscosmos determines the main organizations for the standardization of rocket and space technology supplied under the state defense order. At the same time, Roscosmos approves regulations on these organizations. Thus, it acts at the same time as a body regulating space activities (adopting regulatory legal acts on space activities), including – making assignments in the field of space and military space needs - on the one hand, and the body performing the functions of a state customer for defense orders – on the other. As can be seen, if, as a general rule, the Government of the Russian Federation issues a state task for defense needs, and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation implements it, then, as an exception, two state corporations simultaneously form tasks and act as a state customer for their implementation.

The fact that the state acts as the customer under this agreement, as well as at the same time the fact that it acts to ensure its most important need – defense capability – means the exceptional reliability of such a customer, complete, from the point of view of business risks, faith in him as a debtor for the obligations of payment for a defense order.

For example, attention is drawn to the tightening of the payment period for defense contracts concluded in the procurement system adopted by the state (for itself). From June 2022, this period should not exceed 30 days after the acceptance of the products delivered under this contract [12]. It is important that in this case the legislator uses the term "no more", which means the possibility of paying for defense contracts earlier than 30 days after signing the acceptance certificate, which, in turn, frees up the contractual possibilities of the parties in this case, and also allows the business entity to form new portfolios of government orders, which is impossible without their timely payment.

On the other hand, the participation of the state (at the federal level) in defense procurement, along with its reliability as a customer, creates risks of a different nature – corruption related to violations in the field of freedom of competition for government orders. In order to ensure fair competition between performers and, most importantly, for the creation of defense orders by the state on the best terms for itself, the procedure for concluding a defense order agreement receives a special, particularly detailed settlement, the essence of which is a tender or auction.

Thirdly, the legal regulation of relations in the field of defense orders is decisively influenced by its significance: since non-fulfillment of a defense order, for any reason, creates unacceptable risks for the defense capability of the state, and since the detailed procedure for determining the best performer does not guarantee full satisfaction of the customer's needs, the legislator has established extremely strict control measures over its execution at all stages and extremely strict civil penalties for its non-fulfillment. These measures include both a variety of operational measures and a variety of civil sanctions - from property to reputational.

In particular, the creation of the institute of special separate accounts, which are specified in Article 8.3 of the Federal Law of 29.12.2012 No. 275-FZ, is aimed at monitoring the implementation of the state defense order. Their peculiarity is that funds can be debited from them only if the identifier of the state defense contract is indicated in the order for debiting. The identifier, as follows from paragraph 13 of Article 3 of the Federal Law No. 275-FZ of December 29, 2012, is a unique number assigned to a specific state contract and subject to indication in all contracts, as well as in orders drawn up by state customers, head executors and executors when making payments under the state defense order as part of the accompanied transaction. Only some documents-the grounds for writing off funds specified in Part 2.1 of Article 8.5 of this Federal Law may not have this identifier, which is recognized as the only exception to the rule established by Part 1 of Article 8.3 of this Federal Law. At the same time, funds are also debited to a separate account (with a number of exceptions provided for in paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 8.3 of this Federal Law – such as payment of taxes, payment of electricity and goods at regulated prices, etc.). At the same time, such control seems excessively strict to business: "according to the reviews of the head executors and of course, the increase in the number of cases of refusal to conclude a contract is due to the unwillingness of suppliers to open special separate accounts and apply the separate account regime" [13]. It is possible that some administrative (financial and legal) barriers created by the legal regime of a separate account will be removed when a digital ruble is introduced in settlements with suppliers, facilitating control over the flow of funds in general. Experts have long noted its extensive capabilities. The main idea of using the digital ruble in the state defense order is that "the transition to treasury support ... will make it possible to switch from bank lending to treasury advance of state orders by means of special marking of digital currency as funds submitted for targeted use. This marking would prevent attempts to withdraw funds for inappropriate purposes" [14, p. 123]. However, legislation on the transition to the digital ruble is still being prepared by the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

Operational impact measures include, for example, the right to withdraw from the contract and replace the contractor at any stage of execution. However, it should be noted that both of these measures are regulated by the general civil legislation and Federal Law No. 44-FZ dated 05.04.2013 [15], and not by the actual legislation on the defense order.

Along with the establishment of penalties (part 6 of Article 34 of the Federal Law of 05.04.2013 No. 44-FZ prescribes the customer only to send claims for the recovery of penalties, the penalties themselves are provided for directly in government contracts concluded with suppliers), the legislator establishes:

- firstly, the right to reduce them. According to paragraphs 1-2 of Article 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if the penalty payable is clearly disproportionate to the consequences of the breach of the obligation, the court has the right to reduce the penalty. This rule is often practiced in courts, including in relation to suppliers for state defense orders. Thus, in one of the cases, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation tried to recover from the supplier 32.3 million rubles in penalties for a four-month delay in the delivery of 152-mm shells, but the defendant, citing the "unstable foreign policy situation", obtained from the arbitration court a reduction in the amount of the penalty by a third (up to 20 million [16]);

- secondly, other rules for their application ("write-offs"). In particular, the Government of the Russian Federation has specifically established that the penalty for breach of contract, which the customer is obliged to write off from the supplier (for obligations to perform work – the contractor, and for obligations to provide services – the contractor), cannot be written off from him only in one case: if he was prevented from fulfilling the state contract by the increase in prices for building materials (which took place in 2020-2021 due to the spread of coronavirus infection) [17].

In addition, such a measure of reputational impact as inclusion in the Register of unscrupulous performers (reputational sanctions) is applied. The register of unscrupulous suppliers for defense orders is regulated by a special decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1585 dated 19.12.2017 [18]. It should be noted immediately that inclusion in this Register is made on the basis of an act of the jurisdictional authority – a resolution on bringing to administrative responsibility for violating the requirements of the state defense order, however, it also has civil legal consequences associated with the subsequent restriction of the legal capacity of this supplier and, in particular, his right to conclude government contracts.

According to part 2 of Article 7.29.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation [19], the refusal or evasion of a supplier (contractor, contractor), occupying a dominant position in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of state defense order, from concluding a contract necessary for the execution of a state defense order, if the conclusion of such a contract is mandatory for the specified person, if these actions do not contain a criminally punishable act, - entails the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of thirty thousand to fifty thousand rubles; on legal entities - from three hundred thousand to one million rubles. At the same time, according to Part 6.1 of Article 6 of Federal Law No. 275-FZ, the conclusion of a contract is mandatory for an economic entity occupying a dominant position (the specifics of defining such a position in comparison with the general concept of a dominant position, as it is given in Article 5 of Federal Law No. 135-FZ of 26.07.2006 [20], are defined in Article 14 of Federal Law No. 275-Federal Law), provided that he has no reasonable economic or technological reasons for refusing to conclude a contract.

This register is maintained by the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation – as the body that controls the fulfillment of obligations in the field of defense orders. However, it seems that such a situation, which is quite acceptable in a peaceful period, is no longer acceptable in the conditions of mobilization measures. It should be noted that mobilization measures involve not only the mobilization of citizens for military service, but also, no less significantly, the mobilization of industry, which implies, among other things, the transfer of issues of control over the implementation of the defense order from the sphere of competence of civil administration bodies to the sphere of competence of military administration bodies. It seems expedient to remove all issues of control over the execution of the state defense order from the sphere of authority of the FAS of the Russian Federation and transfer them to a specially created federal state body (a less successful solution is to transfer these issues directly to the sphere of authority of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation).

In addition, in conclusion, it should be noted that, unfortunately, the current legislation on defense orders does not provide for a mechanism for implementing the "supplier's initiative" ("contractor's initiative"). We are talking about the fact that the contractor is obliged to fulfill the state order exactly, not being able to make improvements to the order being executed – if only for the reason that any proposals for improvements often make it necessary to suspend the execution of the order, which, in turn, is not allowed by the contract and can even be regarded by the state customer as an attempt to evade the execution of the contract or even an attempt to sabotage its execution. Meanwhile, such a need, especially at the present time, often arises as follows, describing the ongoing work on the creation of defensive structures on the border with Ukraine (in the Luhansk People's Republic, in the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions – the so-called "Surovikin line"), experts note that "the line is being built clearly on the map (moreover, the old one) and in some places the terrain is simply not taken into account. That is, an anti-tank ditch and a line of concrete "dragon teeth" on the reverse slope (300 meters from the ridge) from the direction of the expected impact, trenches almost in the lowlands" [21], etc. Under such circumstances, based on the principle of good faith in the exercise of civil rights and performance of duties, the contractor would have to notify the customer about the inexpediency of building a defense line as it is established in the state contract, as well as the need to move the boundaries of the defensive lines in accordance with the conditions of the terrain, but this was obviously not done by the contractor.

Based on the above, it seems appropriate:

- to fix the contractor's obligation to raise the issue of changing the terms of the contract in cases where its performance clearly does not correspond to the goals and essence of the obligation performed by the contractor;

- to fix the procedural mechanism for the contractor's performance of the obligation to notify the customer about the inexpediency of the execution of the order or its part, or about the possibility of making changes to it aimed at improving the efficiency of its execution.

References
1. Òokmakov, M. (2022). Our UAV, fly ahead: what is being done to saturate Russian troops with drones. Reporter: Retrieved from https://topcor.ru/27552-nash-bpla-vpered-leti-chto-delaetsja-dlja-nasyschenija-rossijskih-vojsk-dronami.html?ysclid=ldcq4rfyg4747180658
2. Bodrov, A.S., Bezdeneznykh S.I. (Eds.). (2017). Collection of reports and articles based on the materials of the II scientific and practical conference "Prospects for the development and application of complexes with unmanned aerial vehicles". Kolomna: 924 HZ BpA of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.
3. Chumarova, E. G. (2015). Civil law regulation of the state contract for the performance of research, development and technological works for state needs in Russia: problems of theory and practice (disseretion). Moscow.
4. Matveeva, E. Yu. (2016). Legal regulation of energy service contracts in the field of procurement for state and municipal needs (dissertation). Moscow.
5. Yakovleva, I. G. (2017). Request for quotations and request for proposals as procurement methods (dissertation). Moscow.
6. Yarosh, A. V. (2018). Legal regulation of procurement of medicines for state needs (dissertation). Moscow.
7. On the State Defense Order: Federal Law No. 275-FZ of 29.12.2012. SPS "ConsultantPlus". Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_140175
8. The Ministry of Defense will increase the state defense order by 1.5 times in 2023. Kommersant. – 11/30/2022. Retrieved from https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5694658
9. The Constitution of the Russian Federation. Adopted by Popular vote on December 12, 1993 (with amendments approved by Popular vote of 01.07.2020). SPS "ConsultantPlus". Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_28399
10. On the State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom: Federal Law No. 317-FZ of 01.12.2007. SPS "ConsultantPlus". Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_72969
11. On the State Corporation for Space Activities "Roscosmos": Federal Law No. 215-FZ of 13.07.2015. SPS "ConsultantPlus". Retrieved from https://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&rnd=fVdoA&base=LAW&n=413540&dst=100063&field=134#X29E2UTcgGKBNGgA
12. On the establishment of the payment term for the delivered goods, the work performed (its results), the service rendered, the individual stages of the execution of the state contract concluded in order to ensure the defense capability and security of the state: Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 16.07.2022 N 1290 SPS "ConsultantPlus". Retrieved from https://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&rnd=RZftug&base=LAW&n=422373&dst=100005&field=134#GAp1zTTrOoQfDf4Y
13. Bashlakov-Nikolaev, I. (2022). Antimonopoly requirements in the field of public procurement. Federal Antimonopoly Service: [website]. Retrieved from https://fas.gov.ru/documents/562765?ysclid=lfdst06pze140163621
14. Bokanov, A.A., Tikhomirova E.S. (Eds.) (2021). Digital ruble as a conductor of the state defense order – promising opportunities. Military-Economic Bulletin, 1, 121-125.
15. On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services for state and municipal needs: Federal Law No. 44-FZ of 05.04.2013 (ed. No. 569-FZ of 12/28/2022). SPS "ConsultantPlus". Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_144624
16. The Sverdlov plant in Dzerzhinsk will pay 20 million rubles in penalties for late defense orders. BEZFORMATA: [website]. Retrieved from https://nnovgorod.bezformata.com/listnews/zavod-sverdlova-v-dzerzhinske-viplatit/112498613/?ysclid=lfe4ah6bz2309349924
17. On the write-off of the amounts of penalties (fines, penalties) accrued to the supplier (contractor, contractor), but not written off by the customer, in connection with non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of obligations under the contract: Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 04.07.2018 N 783. SPS "ConsultantPlus". Retrieved from https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_301797
18. On the approval of the Rules for the formation and maintenance of the register of legal entities brought to administrative responsibility for refusal or evasion of the conclusion of a contract, for which the conclusion of such a contract is mandatory in accordance with the Federal Law "On the State Defense Order": Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 19.12.2017 N 1585. SPS "ConsultantPlus". Retrieved from https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_285767
19. The Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation: Federal Law No. 195-FZ of 30.12.2001. SPS "ConsultantPlus". Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_34661
20. On the Protection of Competition: Federal Law No. 135-FZ of 26.07.2006. SPS "ConsultantPlus". Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_61763/baabe5b69a3c031bfb8d485891bf8077d6809a94
21. Why we are not in a hurry with the offensive. Livejournal: [website]. Retrieved from https://masterok.livejournal.com/8983022.html?page=2&ysclid=lfe7b5qgzn637833019

Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the research of the reviewed article "Peculiarities of civil law regulation of the state defense contract in Russia" is the civil law norms governing contractual relations arising from state defense contracts in the Russian Federation. Research methodology. The methodological apparatus of the article consists of modern methods of scientific cognition: historical, formal-logical, legal-technical, formal-dogmatic, comparative jurisprudence, etc. The author of the article also used such scientific methods and techniques as deduction, modeling, systematization and generalization. A combination of theoretical and empirical information was used. The use of modern methods of scientific knowledge allowed the author to conduct a study of the hypothesis formulated in the introductory part of the article, achieve the intended results, make proposals to improve the legislation regulating the institution of the state defense contract and the practice of its application. The relevance of research. In modern conditions, the relevance of the topic of the article, the research conducted by the author and his reasoned conclusions are beyond doubt. The difficult political situation in the world poses problems for the defense industry that need to be solved, including through proper regulation of contractual relations when placing government orders, concluding and executing defense contracts (which the author draws attention to in the introductory part of his work). The scientific novelty of the research. It cannot be argued that this article is the first study of the problems of civil law regulation of state defense contracts in the Russian Federation (the works of E.Y. Matveeva, E.G. Chumarova, I.G. Yakovleva, etc. have been published), however, the chosen aspect - identifying the specifics of the defense state contract in the public procurement system - indicates the presence of elements of scientific novelty. Despite the fact that the author has attempted to analyze the civil law norms governing relations arising from the conclusion and execution of defense state contracts, the connection with public law in these relations is obvious. This is what the author is trying to show in his article. Style, structure, content. In general, the article is written in a scientific style, the author uses special legal terminology. The material is presented consistently and clearly. At the same time, the author should pay attention to the punctuation marks in sentences, adhere to the rules of the Russian language (for example, the first sentence, etc.). The article is logically structured: introduction, substantive part and conclusion. Although the article is not formally divided into parts. According to the content of the article, the topic is disclosed and fully corresponds to it. Bibliography. The author has used insufficient sources on the topic of the article. There are no links to recent publications. The source number 1 raises doubts about its scientific character. When registering sources, the requirements of the bibliographic GOST are not met. Appeal to opponents. The article presents appeals to opponents that are correct. However, there are no references to the opinions of authors who have been dealing with the problem of legal regulation of public procurement in the Russian Federation in recent years (for example, D.V. Gorokhova, E.A. Biryukova, etc.). Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The article "Peculiarities of civil law regulation of the state defense contract in Russia" is recommended for publication, because in general it meets the established requirements, the topic of the article is extremely relevant, has practical significance and is characterized by scientific novelty, and also meets the editorial policy of the scientific journal "Administrative and Municipal Law". The article may be of interest to a wide range of readers, experts in the field of public and private law.