Success of the law firm’s client – revocation of the decision of the President of ARiMR imposing an obligation to return all funds collected
9 July 2025 • Autor: Kancelaria Brysiewicz Bokina i Wspólnicy
A client of the law firm, a company in the fruit industry, filed a complaint with the WSA in Warsaw against the decision imposing on it the obligation to return the entire financial aid granted to it, calculated by the authority to amount to over PLN 1 million, together with a request to suspend the execution of the decision in its entirety pending resolution. The company obtained financial support from ARMA, which was supposed to lead it to the status of a ‘fruit and vegetable producer group’, which, as a result of, inter alia, unfavourable weather events and the consequent deterioration of its financial situation, was difficult in relation to the contractually agreed assumptions. In view of the failure to achieve the assumed status, the President of ARMA, by means of an administrative decision, decided that the company should return 100% of the support granted to it (in the total amount of more than one million zlotys), as it had committed an intentional act or serious negligence during the implementation of the intended plan.
In this case, a total of two positive decisions were obtained in favour of the client. Firstly, in the course of the proceedings, the WSA in Warsaw decided to grant the company's application and suspend the execution of the contested decision. Secondly, the Court upheld the Client's complaint and annulled the appealed decision as regards the decision concerning the amount of funds unduly collected.
The WSA in Warsaw emphasised that in order to require the beneficiary to return all of the aid, the authority would have to prove that in the case in question, there was intentional action or serious negligence on the part of the applicant, which, in the court’s view, the President of ARMA failed to prove in the course of the proceedings. It is true that the company itself abandoned the planned attainment of the producer organisation status, but this was connected, inter alia, with unfavourable weather events and the consequent deterioration of its financial situation and the necessity to incur financial outlays from its own funds, which, however, was completely bypassed by the President of ARMA.
Consequently, the WSA fully shared the Applicant’s position and indicated that the authority did not analyse the circumstances of the case in a manner that would indicate that repayment of the entire support granted was justified.
The Office’s client in these proceedings was supported by legal adviser Krzysztof Brysiewicz, legal adviser Dr Magdalena Porzeżyńska and legal trainee Małgorzata Woźniak.
The resolved case shows that administrative courts recognise that failure to achieve the goal assumed by the entrepreneur must not always unequivocally entail the necessity of returning the entire support obtained. Both the court's suspension of the execution of the appealed decision of the President of ARMA and the verdict repealing the appealed decision indicate that it is worth appealing against the decisions of authorities which often conduct evidence proceedings in cases for the return of funds in a very limited manner and are based on their own interpretation of EU regulations, and which may have radically negative consequences for entrepreneurs. It is important that the panel of judges emphasised that when taking a decision on reimbursement, the authority cannot disregard the reasons which led to the failure to fulfil the original assumptions, and which often result from circumstances which the beneficiaries had no influence on or could not foresee at the time of applying for support.
– comments Dr Magdalena Porzezynska.
In subsidy repayment cases, the authorities granting support are usually very strict with regard to the objectives originally assumed by the beneficiaries, ignoring the circumstances occurring during the implementation of a given investment or plan, as well as the situation of entrepreneurs related to, inter alia, the possibility of various unforeseen events or the need to change the original objectives. Such a formalistic approach of the authority, however, does not take into account the principles of proportionality and fairness when deciding on the reimbursement of subsidies or EU funds, which in the end may discourage people from applying for public aid. It is therefore gratifying that the WSA in Warsaw presented an approach that takes full account of the requirements of the EU proportionality principle, which is intended to prevent extreme rigour that would impose repayment of all funds in the event of even minor infringements.
– notes apl. solicitor Małgorzata Woźniak.
Zadaj pytanie autorowi
