Many entrepreneurs who benefited from the Polish Development Fund's Financial Shield during the COVID-19 pandemic are now receiving letters from the Polish Development Fund demanding the repayment of their PFR subsidies. Although the aid program was emergency in nature and aimed at saving jobs, several years after its conclusion, the PFR is still conducting verification of beneficiaries, sending many of them notices demanding the repayment of the subsidy.
The most common basis for demanding a refund was the so-called negative recommendation of the Central Anticorruption Bureau – information provided by the Central Anticorruption Bureau that the entrepreneur allegedly did not meet the conditions for receiving public aid.
The CBA, under an agreement with the Polish Development Fund (PFR), is analyzing the data of entrepreneurs who received subsidies under the anti-crisis shield. It verifies, among other things, the company's status, capital affiliations, declarations of no arrears, and employment data. This analysis may result in a negative recommendation, which is then forwarded to the PFR. In practice, it suffices for the CBA to deem the data inaccurate, outdated, or misinterpreted for the entrepreneur to be deemed ineligible for support. The problem is that such a recommendation is not an administrative decision or a court ruling, but merely an opinion of the services – often based on incomplete information.
Upon receiving a negative recommendation from the Central Anticorruption Bureau (CBA), the Polish Development Fund (PFR) typically automatically issues a demand for repayment of the COVID subsidy, along with interest. Such a letter often lacks any specific allegations, and the entrepreneur is unaware of the alleged irregularities. In practice, many such demands are purely formal—based solely on brief information from the CBA, without PFR's independent analysis of the matter.
It's worth emphasizing that a negative CBA recommendation does not prejudge the obligation to repay the PFR subsidy. It is not binding on the PFR, let alone the court. It merely provides information that the Fund may—but is not obligated to—consider when assessing the case. A growing position in court proceedings is that the PFR must prove that the entrepreneur actually violated the conditions for granting public aid. A CBA recommendation alone cannot constitute sufficient evidence—specific and reliable findings are required.
An entrepreneur who has received a request to repay a PFR subsidy should not remain passive. First, it is worth responding immediately to the correspondence and providing your own explanations. Evidence should be provided that the statements made in the subsidy application were truthful and that the funds were used in accordance with the program regulations. Second, demand disclosure of the CBA recommendation itself – PFR does not always provide it voluntarily, although the entrepreneur has the right to know its content.
Experience shows that courts are increasingly siding with entrepreneurs, pointing out that the Polish Development Fund (PFR) cannot base its decisions solely on the CBA's opinion. Several rulings have emphasized that the services' recommendation is not evidence, but merely guidance for the Fund, which should independently analyze the beneficiary's situation.
In summary, a negative CBA recommendation has recently become the main basis for demanding the repayment of COVID subsidies, but it does not automatically mean the loss of entitlement to the aid received. Each case requires an individual assessment, and there are often solid grounds for an entrepreneur to effectively defend themselves – both at the stage of proceedings before the Polish Development Fund (PFR) and in court.
If you have received a letter from the Polish Development Fund (PFR) demanding the repayment of a subsidy under the PFR Financial Shield, it is advisable to consult with an attorney as soon as possible. Our firm offers comprehensive assistance in analyzing the validity of the CBA's recommendations, preparing explanations, and representing you in disputes with the Polish Development Fund. In many cases, properly prepared arguments can effectively protect the interests of the entrepreneur and avoid the repayment of the received aid.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of October 22, 2025.
Author:
Series editor:
