Russia’s Ministry of Health has clarified the rules for describing medicinal products in state and municipal procurement procedures. The ministry reminded customers that procurement documentation must specify the international nonproprietary name of the medicine, or, if no INN is available, its chemical or grouping name.
The ministry referred to the Federal Law “On the Contract System in the Procurement of Goods, Works and Services for State and Municipal Needs,” as well as Government Resolution No. 1380, which regulates the specifics of describing medicines in public procurement. According to the document, the description of the procurement item may include functional, technical, and quality characteristics of the medicine, including equivalent dosage forms, dosage, and remaining shelf life.
At the same time, the Ministry of Health emphasized that current legislation does not allow customers to indicate an alternative supply option involving a medicine with a different INN from the main supply item. In practice, this means that procurement documents cannot provide for replacing the purchased medicine with a drug containing a different active ingredient.
Disputes over the performance of drug supply contracts and changes to procurement terms have already become the subject of court proceedings involving healthcare institutions, suppliers, and regional offices of the Federal Antimonopoly Service.
For example, in the Vologda Region, an oncology dispensary challenged the refusal of the regional FAS office to include the distributor Nord-Pharm in the register of bad-faith suppliers after the company failed to supply saline solution manufactured by Grotex. The company cited the impossibility of fulfilling the contract following the re-registration of the medicine’s maximum selling price and proposed either changing the supply terms or terminating the contract.
The arbitration court concluded that a change in the medicine’s price alone did not prove the existence of force majeure circumstances and ordered the antimonopoly authority to reconsider its decision. Later, the regional FAS office attempted to appeal the court ruling, but the appeal was first left without progress due to procedural violations and then returned by the court.
Source: Vademecum, May 22, 2026.
