Can the State Treasury be ordered to perform a subsidy agreement? Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw
9 July 2025 • Autor: Kancelaria Brysiewicz Bokina i Wspólnicy
A client of the Law Firm, a foundation implementing pro bono a number of projects in the field of digital society, in connection with the unjustified termination of grant agreements for these projects by the granting institution, filed an application with the Regional Court in Warsaw to secure a claim for establishing that the statement of the State Treasury institution on the termination of the grant agreement was ineffective.
The Regional Court of Warsaw, in a decision of 5 March 2021, granted security for the Beneficiary’s claim, at the same time ordering the State Treasury to perform the agreement on its existing terms and conditions and in accordance with its content until the proceedings against the State Treasury are legally concluded.
The Court of Common Pleas thus found it plausible that the institution had wrongfully terminated the grant agreement and that the irregularities which were to form the basis of that termination had not occurred.
This ruling joins more than a dozen others we have already obtained in cases involving beneficiaries. Once again, a common court examines the contractual relationship which is the basis of the subsidy, stating the illegality of termination of the contract by the institution granting the subsidy. This case confirms the emerging line of judicial decisions, in which civil courts assess the performance of obligations by the parties to a funding agreement also from the perspective of such norms as the principles of social co-existence, loyal behaviour or the principle of proportionality. This is because it repeatedly happens in cases involving EU funds that officials try to impose the harshest possible sanctions on beneficiaries, even in the case of breaches that have little or no effect on the budget of EU funds.
– says Krzysztof Brysiewicz, managing partner of BBS Law Firm, legal counsel.
It is also pleasing that the court recognised the existence of a legal interest in the beneficiary's claim - as it is not always correctly recognised by courts, which in some cases indicate that instead of requesting an order for the contract to be implemented, the beneficiary may file a further-reaching claim for damages. Meanwhile, the claim for damages is not a 'further-reaching claim' at all, but a completely different claim, not related to the completion of the project. The grant agreement presupposes the achievement of certain outputs and results that are relevant from the perspective of the public objectives of the grant, and therefore, in our view, it is clear that a claim for damages does not consume a claim to establish that the agreement has been unlawfully terminated and is in force.
– adds Dr Magdalena Porzezynska, legal counsel, partner at BBS Law Firm.
Zadaj pytanie autorowi
