FAQ

Publicly funded projects are subject to extensive and frequently changing rules and guidelines, and even seemingly minor formal or procedural errors may lead the funding institution to challenge expenditure and demand repayment of all or part of the funding. Experience shows that legal support at an early stage helps identify these risks and manage them safely.

The first step is to analyse the reasons for the assessment and determine whether the application was rejected on formal or substantive grounds. Only then can you assess whether filing a formal protest or taking other action is justified.

Not necessarily. Not all preparatory activities constitute the start of project implementation. The nature and scope of the work and the timing of its performance in relation to the submission of the funding application are decisive.

Yes, if the project documentation or the actual circumstances show that the declared diversification was not genuinely achieved or was merely apparent. The assessment will depend on the specific project and the manner in which it was implemented.

Yes, in certain circumstances, particularly where SME status was a condition for receiving funding or determining the applicable aid intensity. Each case requires an analysis of the relevant links and the timing of the change in status.

The authority will usually first issue a draft post-control report, to which objections may be submitted. If no objections are filed within the applicable deadline, the authority may treat the draft as final, after which it may no longer be possible to amend the findings.

In exceptional cases, yes, but changing project indicators requires specific conditions to be met and proper justification. A mere deterioration in market conditions is generally not sufficient.

Such a delay may constitute a breach of formal obligations, particularly if it affected the ability to verify the project. The circumstances of the delay and any corrective action taken by the funding recipient will be important.

Not necessarily, provided that the funding recipient can demonstrate that the failure to implement the results was caused by objective and properly documented circumstances. The way in which the project was managed and the subsequent actions taken will also be relevant.

Not necessarily, but such a decision may involve significant risk and should be preceded by legal analysis and proper documentation of the reasons. The manner and timing of project completion will be particularly important.

Yes, if the changes were not properly agreed or exceed the permitted modifications to the task. In each case, the key issue is whether the task was implemented in accordance with the agreement and the purpose for which the grant was awarded.

The key is to organise the documentation in advance and ensure consistency between the agreement, settlement documents, and the actual implementation of the project. Proper cooperation with the auditing authority is also important.