Voronezh contractor reached Bastrykin, demanding money from Tulaavtodor

The Arbitration Court prohibited Tulaavtodor, as well as other persons acting on its behalf or in its interests, from dismantling, disassembling, decommissioning, moving, replacing and any other change in the composition and design of video surveillance systems. The list of equipment includes video cameras, uninterruptible power supplies, video recorders and storage devices, switching equipment, cable lines, mounts, lightning protection and grounding devices.

The ban is valid at eight sites where the equipment was installed under a state contract dated February 24, 2026: (a) ABZ of the Lenin DRSF (Dubensky district, near Kurakovo); (b) ABZ of the Kireyevsky section of the Uzlovsk DRSF (Kireevsk); (c) ABZ of the Chernsky section of the Shchekinsky DRSF (St. Skuratovo); (d) ABZ of the Efremovsky section of the Uzlovsk DRSF (Red Zaryakov); (DZ) ABZ) SHFShov (Shovsky (Shov) SHKRZ) SHF (ShP) SHKRZ) SHKRZHF (SKRZ) SHP (SKRZ) SHKRZHKRZHV) SHP (SKRZ) SHKR) SHKRZHVSKSK (SKR) SHV (SKR.

Measures are introduced before the entry into force of a judicial act on the merits of the dispute. The basis for the claim was the decision of Tulaavtodor dated August 27, 2026 on unilateral refusal to execute the contract. For its part, the Voronezh entrepreneur demands to recognize this decision as invalid, to recover from the defendant a debt of 3.94 million rubles, a penalty and court costs.

The reason for the introduction of interim measures was the notification of the institution to begin dismantling the equipment on its own. The first phase of the dismantling was scheduled for 8, 9 and 12 October 2026 at the facility in the Dubensky district. The court pointed out that such actions before the dispute is resolved could destroy the subject matter of the work and make it difficult to enforce a future decision.

The editorial office of MK in Tula found the contract on the public procurement website. Indeed, in February of this year, Tulaavtodor was looking for a contractor to install a video surveillance system at its asphalt plants. According to the portal of public procurement, the initial price of the contract was 5.9 million rubles.

The contractor had to complete all the work by April 30. In total, it was planned to install 121 video cameras at 8 asphalt factories. The contractor also had to provide 10 switches and eight battery modules.

Bidding took place in February of this year, the contract was signed with Andrey Panin, he took on the obligation to perform all the work for 3.9 million rubles. What could have gone wrong with this contract? Andrey Panin himself told us about this in a short interview.

According to Andrey Panin, the video surveillance system was installed in April and in May of this year became fully operational. However, then the customer began to complain about the quality of work. First small, then more and more important. For example, first the customer demanded to install grounding and lightning protection, which was done by the contractor.

“At first I was told that this was not necessary, then it turned out that the project was necessary,” says Andrei Panin, “I did not object – I mounted it.” The systems were already working, I just finished everything in the process of operation. Prior to my contract, they had four previous contracts to purchase equipment. They were supposed to buy 4-megapixel cameras, and in fact received 2-megapixel, but paid as a 4-megapixel. I was given 121 Huawei cameras. On the invoice everything was stated correctly - "two". I mounted them. As the closing documents began, it emerged that the cameras were "wrong." I went to a personal reception with the general director of Tulaavtodor. He said, "We'll take that into account, don't worry, we'll pay for it within a week." Instead, they waited two weeks, bought 4-megapixel cameras (no longer through an official purchase) and unwittingly dismantled the ones I put in. The third organization installed new ones. Then they began to put sticks in the wheels. The territory of the plants is large, the maximum distance from the far chamber to the switch is about 500 meters. Installation was mainly on the lighting poles (on the power lines). I used one cable to connect two cameras — technically, that’s okay, cameras in player mode can work in two pairs. They said, “You have less cable.” I said, "Let's subtract the saved cable from the contract." No, the project has to go so far, we can’t sign.

According to Andrei Panin, during the execution of the contract, he had to put splitters instead of simple extension cords – the device is more expensive, but more functional. The external expert told him that from a technical point of view everything was done rationally and correctly, but since there is a discrepancy in the project documentation, the documents were not signed.

According to the entrepreneur, the examination was carried out by violations, without notifying him who was allowed to the external examination. When he requested information about the expert, education, contract, he was told that he was not obliged to provide this information. Internal examination, according to Panin, the customer also conducted.

In it, experts wrote that allegedly were not provided with passports and certificates. All the documents were handed over to the customer’s staff. The second point is again about grounding and lightning protection.

- It turned out that they have no estimates - all the tender documentation was only on the basis of the project, - Andrey Panin continues, - they rolled out three commercial proposals, the average was withdrawn and went to tender. There was no local estimate. There are no estimates, we can subtract the cable only according to project documentation. I have arranged four objects according to their requirements. We agreed: if they sign these four, I will deliver the rest. You didn't. I realized that they were not going to sign at all. Even during the installation process, people warned that there could be problems because of the customer. It happened.

In August 2026, Tulaavtodor unilaterally refused to fulfill the contract. Before that, according to Panin, at a meeting of the deputy director, she directly told him that if the contractor does not bring everything in line with the project, the contract with him will be terminated, nothing will be paid, they will also demand a fine, and the work will be transferred to another organization.

“After the refusal, the customer sent a demand to completely dismantle all the equipment,” says the entrepreneur, “I refused, considering it an attempt to artificially reset the result of the work already performed and working.” The institution then notified me that it was proceeding with its own dismantling, starting with the facility in the Dubensky district.

It was this notification that became the basis for filing a petition to the Arbitration Court of the Tula region for the introduction of interim measures. The court agreed that dismantling before the dispute is resolved could destroy the subject matter of the work and make it difficult to enforce a future decision.

Andrey Panin himself believes that all claims about the cable and the project are a formal reason. The system, according to him, work without complaints, and there are no complaints about the quality of installation and picture. The only problem is that the customer does not want to pay for the work done.

To clarify the situation, the editorial staff of MK Thule made an official request to Tulaavtodor to comment on the situation around the contract for the installation of video surveillance systems at eight asphalt concrete plants. In its letter signed by director Mikhail Melnikov, the institution informed us that the refusal to accept and pay was due to improper execution of the works by Andrey Panin “with significant deviations from the approved project documentation.” It was also reported that:

“The installed video surveillance system is not used for its intended purpose by the institution. In connection with the unilateral refusal of the Customer from the performance of the contract, the Contractor was requested to dismantle the entire result of work.”.

Plus, the response of Tulaavtodor said that the institution does not conduct personal receptions. The contractor participated only in production meetings, and Andrey Panin’s allegations of unauthorized replacement of cameras “are not true”:

This information does not correspond to reality, which was established by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Central District of the Tula region, as well as the Ministry for Control and Prevention of Corruption Violations in the Tula region as part of the verification of the actions of Tulaavtodor to fulfill the specified contract. As a result of the checks, no violations were found by the Customer.”.

In addition, the response reported that Tulaavtodor is financed from the budget of the region, for this reason, the recovery of funds from it is possible only on the basis of a court decision that has entered into force. The letter also contains a warning to the editorial office of MK in Tula: in case of dissemination of information that does not correspond to reality, the editorial office will be obliged to publish a retraction. The institution reserves the right to protect business reputation in court.

In this case, an interesting position from the prosecutor's office of the Tula region. She considered appeals from Andrey Panin related to the contract for the installation of video surveillance systems with Tulaavtodor.

The supervisory authority established that on August 27, 2026, Tulaavtodor indeed made a decision to unilaterally refuse to execute the contract. According to the submission of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Central District of Tula dated August 21, 2026, the expert – IE Khavroshchev D.V. – was sent a demand to pay a fine in the amount of 2 thousand rubles for improper fulfillment of obligations under contracts for the provision of expert services under this contract.

All documents on acceptance of works are placed in open access in the Unified Information System in the field of procurement (UIS). Acceptance under the contract is possible only in electronic form through the EIS. Disputes under the contract must first be considered in a claim procedure, and unresolved disagreements must be considered in the Arbitration Court of the Tula region, where Andrei Panin has already appealed.

On the other arguments of the appeal, the prosecutor’s office of the Tula region referred to earlier explanations in August of this year. Violations of the procedure for considering appeals were not established. There are currently no grounds for taking other measures of prosecutorial response. In other words, the position is: go to court and wait for the court decision.

When examining the circumstances of the case, an important detail was revealed. It turns out that GU TO "Tulavtodor" was going to make Andrei Panin in the register of unscrupulous suppliers, but Tula FAS considered the circumstances of the case, considered his arguments incorrect, and refused to enter it there. This may indirectly indicate that the contractor has fulfilled most of the terms of the contract.

Andrey Panin himself, tired of constant proceedings on the fact of execution of the contract, wrote an appeal to the Chairman of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation Alexander Bastrykin. It went to the reception of the country's chief investigator on October 14.

In the meantime, it can be said that the Arbitration Court has not yet dealt with this dispute on the merits. He merely maintained that the equipment could not be dismantled until the case was resolved. The parties remain on opposite positions.

The contractor insists that the work was completed completely, the systems functioned without complaints, and the claims are formal. The customer claims that he had every right to withdraw from the contract due to significant deviations from the project.

A new court hearing is scheduled for December 3.

MK in Tula is monitoring developments.