Call for reimbursement and possible solutions
As we wrote in our earlier article (on our website here), the provider of the subsidy will call for the return of the subsidy or part of it in connection with an alleged breach of the subsidy conditions, i.e. the rules under which the subsidy is provided. Early repayment of the subsidy has the advantage that the beneficiary is relieved of the obligation to pay the statutory penalty, which is very often 100% of the subsidy granted. This is relevant in view of the possibility of not paying any penalty, which is very often at the level of 100 % of the subsidy.
It is very easy to defend against a demand for repayment of a subsidy.
Very often, a recovery notice requires repayment of 100% of the grant money received, which is many times contrary to the principle of assessing the seriousness of the infringement of the rules of the grant. We have written about how the amount of the grant reduction is determined here. Not every breach of duty imposes an obligation on the recipient to reimburse 100% of the subsidy amount and it is therefore possible to save very often hundreds of thousands to millions of CZK.
The procedure for defending against an unjustified demand for repayment of a subsidy is a unique expertise that goes beyond the levels of tax and administrative law. Briefly, it is a matter of arguing before the provider of the subsidy or the tax administrator, usually in the second instance, when the first instance of the tax administrator's decision is not favourable to the recipient.
Our know-how also includes dealing with situations before administrative courts in view of our long experience in this area. We have dealt, for example, with Operational Programmes of the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Ministry of Regional Development, various OPEC, Regional Councils (ROP and IOP) and others.
The subsidy areas are of different nature, however, very often there are misconducts alleged by the subsidy provider (which is very often the tax administrator). These include, for example, alleged breaches of grant conditions during the sustainability period, non-transparency of the selection procedure, alleged failure to meet monitoring indicators.
Of course, it is worth saying that the earlier the beneficiary defends itself in the procedure, the better its chances. Therefore, it is very useful, for example, to prepare a quality objection to the public audit report, to prepare a statement on the call for recovery of the subsidy, or to prepare a qualified reply to the financial authority's call for evidence.
We have even managed to change a 100% reduction to 0% !
We would be happy to welcome you for a non-binding meeting in Prague, Hradec Králové or Olomouc.
About the author
Disclaimer:
The information contained in this article is for general informational purposes only and serves as a basic guide to the issue as of 2026. Although we strive for maximum accuracy, laws and their interpretation evolve over time. We are ARROWS Law Firm, a member of the Czech Bar Association (our supervisory authority), and for the maximum security of our clients, we are insured for professional liability with a limit of CZK 400,000,000. To verify the current wording of the regulations and their application to your specific situation, it is necessary to contact ARROWS Law Firm directly (consultation@arws.cz). We are not liable for any damages arising from the independent use of the information in this article without prior individual legal consultation.