Successful representation before one of Greece’s supreme courts
Papatriantafyllou & Thanasenari successfully represented its client before the Hellenic Court of Audit, one of Greece’s supreme courts and the country’s supreme financial court, in a complex dispute concerning a financial correction and the recovery of a grant imposed in connection with a co-funded investment programme in which the client company had participated.
In particular, the Tenth Chamber of the Hellenic Court of Audit upheld our client’s appeal in a material part, annulling the contested administrative act insofar as it revoked the decision approving the company’s inclusion in the investment programme, and substantially reducing the financial consequences imposed on the company. The original financial correction and recovery order exceeded EUR 160,000 in total, while, following the Court’s judgment, the recoverable amount was reduced to EUR 50,000.
Background to the dispute
The case concerned a grant paid under an investment project included in a co-funded programme. The administration had imposed a financial correction and ordered the recovery of a significant amount, relying on findings relating to the implementation of the investment project, the eligibility of certain expenditure, and changes in the corporate and business structure of the beneficiary company.
The dispute involved a high degree of technical and legal complexity. It required a combined assessment of public finance rules, EU law, the regulatory framework governing co-funded programmes, corporate restructurings, and the general principles governing administrative action. A central issue was whether the administration’s findings could lawfully justify the revocation of the company’s inclusion in the programme and the recovery of the grant to the extent initially imposed.
The Court’s ruling
After examining the factual and legal circumstances of the case, the Hellenic Court of Audit held that the contested act could not be upheld in its entirety. The Court annulled the act insofar as it revoked the decision approving the company’s participation in the programme and amended the financial correction and recovery order, limiting the final amount to EUR 50,000.
The judgment is particularly significant in an area where such disputes are examined under strict conditions and require a high level of evidentiary and legal substantiation, both in relation to the factual background of the investment and the legal assessment of the audit findings.
The ruling confirms that financial corrections and recovery measures cannot be treated as an automatic consequence of every administrative finding. Instead, a specific assessment is required of the nature of the alleged infringements, their actual impact on the investment project, their causal link with the public funding received, and, importantly, the principle of proportionality.
Significance of the judgment
The judgment is an important example of effective judicial protection for businesses facing financial correction measures, grant recovery orders, and administrative recovery actions. In such cases, the financial exposure is often substantial, while the consequences for the business may extend beyond the immediate amount subject to recovery, affecting liquidity, financial standing, relations with the administration, and the ability to participate in future investment programmes.
The substantial reduction of the financial burden from more than EUR 160,000 to EUR 50,000 represents a significant judicial outcome for our client and demonstrates that even highly complex administrative and public finance disputes can be effectively addressed through a focused legal strategy and well-substantiated advocacy.
Relevance for companies participating in co-funded programmes
The case is of particular practical importance for companies participating in NSRF, EPAnEK, or other co-funded investment schemes. Financial correction acts and grant recovery orders should not be regarded as merely formal or inevitable administrative consequences. Each such measure must be carefully reviewed in terms of its legality, reasoning, proportionality, and connection with the actual circumstances of the investment.
In particular, where the administration imposes full or extensive recovery of a grant, judicial review may prove decisive. The analysis of audit findings, programme eligibility conditions, the factual circumstances of the investment’s implementation, and the financial impact of the contested act is critical to the effective defence of the business.
Our approach
The successful outcome of this case forms part of our firm’s litigation practice in complex business disputes, with a particular focus on high-value matters before administrative authorities and courts.
Our approach combined an in-depth review of the case file, a clear understanding of the regulatory framework governing co-funded programmes, and targeted legal argumentation aimed at limiting the disproportionate consequences of the contested administrative act.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Hellenic Court of Audit highlights the importance of substantive judicial review in cases involving financial corrections and grant recovery measures, particularly where the relevant administrative acts impose significant financial consequences on businesses.
This case confirms that careful assessment of the file, a sound understanding of the applicable regulatory framework, and well-documented legal argumentation can play a decisive role in protecting businesses in complex administrative and public finance disputes.