The order of competitors
Competition is the reason that makes to work as the entire market system as a whole and its separate mechanisms. This is the driving force that is both positive and negative aspects, depending on where to take the course. The latter often "forced" less successful traders unworthy to take steps and act by the rules of open competition. This behavior is reflected in the use of legitimate, it would seem, at first glance, the procedures of removing rivals from the competitive games for any period of time or until his "destruction".
Especially often resorted to "custom" checks "unwanted" business entities of various regulatory (Supervisory) bodies. The Internet is full of offers of that kind. Moreover, in such situations, mainly trying to get the unwanted competitor or conducting multiple inspections simultaneously or one check smoothly flows into another. The favourite are unplanned control measures carried out by tax authorities, labour inspection, Rospotrebnadzor, Rostechnadzor, etc. this is Due primarily to the fact that in the areas administered by these bodies, almost every second businessman there are certainly deviations or inconsistencies.
So why are unscheduled audits are as "attractive"?
This is explained by the following reasons:
1) these measures have the property of surprise.
Russian law establishes a minimum period to prevent the audited entity (usually not less than 24 hours before the start of the "audit"), or do not establish the obligation to notify about the planned procedure. For example, in the case of receiving the message, individuals or legal entities about the facts of gross violations of licence requirements the licensing body is entitled to carry out the test actions without prior notice to the licensee (see part 13 of article 19 of the Federal law of 04.05.2011 № 99 — FZ "On licensing certain types of activities"). Therefore, the controlled entity cannot prepare for the forthcoming audit with an appropriate degree of diligence and care, and especially if we are talking about multiple inspections in the same period of time.
2) the Grounds for carrying out surveillance in this form are most often applications of citizens and organizations of the activities, of a competitor violations of mandatory requirements and standards legal acts.
The most "attractive" in this case is the treatment of individuals because the Federal law dated 02.05.2006, No. 59 – FZ "On procedure of consideration of citizens of the Russian Federation" they are given protection from disclosure of the information contained in these messages, including about his private life (part 2 of article 6). Without his consent, this information cannot be provided even to the person against whom initiated the test.
In addition, as explained by the Plenum of the Supreme court (paragraph 10 of the Decision from 24.02.2005, No. 3), the applicant may not be subject to civil liability for dissemination of false data, discrediting business reputation of the company, even if during the inspection of the circumstances listed in the appeal, was not confirmed. With the exception of cases when the court finds that there was abuse of the right to commit such actions absent reasons for applying, and it was directed with the aim to bring "inconvenience" to the injured party. However, to prove the latter quite difficult.
This law establishes the right of the person making the statement, to get acquainted with the case materials, except for information restricted (part 2, article 5). Thus, the competitor is actually "disarmed" against the applicant – the physical person.
3) State authorities have broad powers ranging from requesting documents and ending with the suspension of activities of the audited entity that is sometimes the "task No. 1" for "customer".
Of course, a surprise inspection emboss legal entity from the normal working rhythm. To stay afloat the companies that have the visit of regulatory bodies, need to be vigilant in order not to commit themselves critical errors and fix the errors the validator. This significantly can affect the results of the inspection. Basically, during the "custom" unplanned inspections by state authorities are allowed the following "mistakes":
— a concurrence of events with the prosecution;
— the decision on inspection by a person not endowed with appropriate powers;
— failure to notify the company of the impending audit (in cases stipulated by the legislation of the Russian Federation);
— violation of the terms of the control events;
— "output" outside of the inspection;
— participation in the procedure by unauthorized persons;
— non-compliance with the rights of the audited entity to review the inspection report and providing their comments, etc.
The following list is non-exhaustive. How error play a decisive role to some extent depend on legal literacy and timeliness of the actions of the audited company (e.g. disputed audit reports both administratively and in court).
It should be noted that the proper approach to the problem of "custom-made" unscheduled inspections of the firm, "fell out of favor," there is a good chance to compensate for the expense of the respective budgets of harm (including loss of profits) caused by unlawful actions (inactions) of officials of controlling bodies (article 22 of the Federal law of 26.12.2008 № 294 – FZ).