Legal support in matters concerning financial corrections, project controls and repayment of funding
Legal advice to funding recipients in matters where the funding institution challenges the eligibility of expenditure, conducts a project control, imposes a financial correction, or demands repayment of funding. Support includes assessing the grounds for the financial correction and the method used to determine its amount, preparing explanations and objections, and representation in subsequent disputes concerning the funding.
Scope of Support
Legal advice on public funding matters
Good to know
You can find more information on selected topics, including project controls, financial corrections, and repayment of funding, on our blog.
01 | Project control
Support for funding recipients during a project control, including analysis of requests from the funding institution, preparation of explanations and responses to official requests, and objections to the post-control report.
02 | Financial correction
Assessment of the grounds for imposing a financial correction and the method used to determine its amount, review of the challenged expenditure and project documentation, and preparation of the funding recipient’s position aimed at having the correction set aside or reduced.
03 | Demand for repayment of funding
Analysis of the funding institution’s letter, assessment of legal risks, preparation of the funding recipient’s position, and support in a dispute concerning the obligation to repay funding.
04 | Decision determining the amount to be repaid
Preparation of an appeal, a request for reconsideration, or a complaint to an administrative court in matters concerning repayment of public funding.
05 | Termination of the grant agreement
Assessment of the consequences of termination, analysis of the grounds for the funding institution’s action, and preparation of the funding recipient’s defence strategy.
06 | Project sustainability and indicators
Legal advice on maintaining project sustainability, achieving indicators, changes in the use of infrastructure, difficulties with commercialising project results, and failure to achieve the expected outcomes.
07 | Cost eligibility
Assessment of whether challenged expenditure could be considered eligible, preparation of arguments supporting its eligibility, and assistance in disputes with the funding institution.
08 | SME status and links between enterprises
Assessment of a business’s SME status, capital and personal links, and the risk of that status being challenged during a project control, project settlement, or following ownership changes.
09 | Sale of a company receiving public funding
Assessment of legal risks related to the sale of shares, entry of an investor, corporate group restructuring, sale of the business, or ownership changes affecting a funding recipient implementing a publicly funded project.
10 | Liability of management board members for repayment of funding
Legal advice on the liability of management board members or other persons managing the company for obligations related to repayment of public funding.
11 | Breach of public finance discipline
Support in matters where the implementation, settlement, or use of public funds may involve a risk of liability for a breach of public finance discipline.
Example cases
Every project and every control is different. Below are examples of situations in which funding recipients most often seek legal assistance.
Financial Correction
Financial correction related to a procurement procedure
The funding recipient implemented a publicly funded project and selected a contractor in accordance with the procedure set out in the competition documentation. Following a project control, the funding institution found that the procurement procedure had been breached because the deadline for submitting bids was too short. As a result, the funding recipient was informed that a financial correction would be applied to the expenditure related to that procedure.
Project Control
Demand for repayment of funding following a project control
The project had already been financially settled when, towards the end of the sustainability period, the funding institution carried out a project control. It identified irregularities in the implementation of the project and demanded repayment of part of the funding. The funding recipient also learned that earlier explanations, correspondence, and documents submitted during project settlement were inconsistent with the control findings.
Indicators
Failure to achieve a project indicator
The funding recipient completed the project without achieving the revenue indicator specified in the funding application, but considered its key obligations fulfilled because the project itself had been completed. However, based on the report on the implementation of the project results, the funding institution concluded that the failure to achieve the indicator justified demanding repayment of the entire amount of funding.
Project Sustainability
Project sustainability issue
The funding recipient continued to maintain the project after its completion. During the sustainability period, however, the way in which the infrastructure was used changed and the infrastructure was moved to another location. The funding institution found that this change breached the original project objectives and the conditions governing its implementation. As a result, it terminated the grant agreement and demanded repayment of all funding received.
Cost eligibility
Cost eligibility challenged
The funding recipient incurred expenditure under the project and included it in a payment application. The funding institution found, however, that some of the costs did not meet the eligibility requirements. It questioned how the expenditure had been documented and whether it was sufficiently linked to the project. The dispute concerned whether the institution had correctly assessed the expenditure under the grant agreement, applicable rules, and project documentation.
Ownership Changes
Sale of shares in a funding recipient
The company was implementing an EU-funded project when its shareholders decided to sell their shares. From a business perspective, the transaction appeared to be a natural stage in the company’s development. The funding institution, however, considered that it breached project sustainability requirements and affected the company’s status as a funding recipient. As a result, the institution terminated the grant agreement and demanded proportional repayment of the funding.
SME Status
Loss of SME status
The funding recipient obtained funding as an SME. After the project had been completed, however, the funding institution carried out a control and challenged its SME status on the basis of personal links and other factual relationships of which the institution had previously been unaware. As the recipient no longer met the eligibility requirements, the institution terminated the grant agreement and demanded repayment of the entire amount of funding.
Management Board Liability
Liability of management board members for repayment of funding
The company received a decision ordering repayment of funding and did not appeal, making the decision final. After enforcement against the company proved unsuccessful, the institution notified the management board members that proceedings had been initiated concerning their joint and several liability for the company’s obligations arising from the repayment of funding specified in the decision.
When to seek legal support
e.g. following a project control or audit, or a challenge to the contractor selection process
e.g. following a project sustainability control, review of documentation, or a finding that expenditure is ineligible
e.g. when the funding institution requests a formal position, additional documents, or comments on control findings
e.g. a decision ordering repayment of funding, refusing or withdrawing an entitlement, or imposing an obligation
e.g. following an authority's decision, notice of an adverse outcome, or completion of administrative proceedings
e.g. before a share sale, merger, change in group structure, or disposal of part of the business
e.g. following ownership changes, acquisition of shares by a larger entity, or the creation of new capital or personal links
e.g. due to delays, technical issues, a change in the project implementation model, or difficulties in achieving the expected results
Do you have questions about your situation?
Contact us – we will discuss your matter and recommend the appropriate course of action.