During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Polish Development Fund (PFR) played a key role in saving Polish businesses from the effects of lockdowns and economic restrictions. Under Financial Shields 1.0 and 2.0, over PLN 74 billion was disbursed, supporting approximately 360,000 companies in maintaining financial liquidity and maintaining jobs. These subsidies, partially non-repayable provided certain criteria are met, have been a lifeline for many entrepreneurs in difficult times. However, since 2023, and especially since the spring of 2024, many beneficiaries have been receiving demands for repayment of these funds, often resulting in lawsuits. How can entrepreneurs defend themselves against such claims? Here are four key steps to protect your business.
1. Verify the summons (lawsuit): analysis of the legal basis
Demands for subsidy repayment and lawsuits filed by the Polish Development Fund (PFR) are often based on unclear grounds. Our experience shows that pre-litigation correspondence or lawsuits often indicate a "risk of abuse" or "failure to meet program conditions," but typically fail to provide detailed evidence or specific allegations. In many cases, the PFR bases its claims on so-called "additional audits" conducted after the subsidy agreement expires, raising doubts about the legality of such actions.
Under the Financial Shield regulations, the Polish Development Fund (PFR) had the right to verify compliance with the program's conditions only until the unforgiven portion of the subsidy was repaid or a decision on forgiveness was issued. Retroactive audits can often violate the principle of legal certainty.
What to do? It's crucial to verify whether PFR's claims are based on the subsidy agreement and the program regulations. Check whether the Fund has identified specific violations, such as failure to meet the employment retention requirement, incorrect SME status determination, or revenue adjustments that affect the subsidy amount. A lack of precise justification may constitute grounds for challenging the claim in court.
2. Collect documentation
Meticulous documentation is the foundation of defense against PFR claims. Businesses are often surprised by summonses, even though they acted in accordance with the regulations and met program conditions, such as maintaining employment or continuing business operations. As we've observed, courts often dismiss PFR claims, citing insufficient evidence from the Fund. So what should you pay particular attention to? Prepare complete documentation confirming compliance with the program conditions, including correspondence with PFR, financial documents, and—more broadly—HR documents such as payrolls, employment contracts, and confirmations of employee registration with the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS), which will prove employment has been maintained for the required period. This depends on the arguments presented by the Polish Development Fund in a given case. However, it's worth ensuring in advance that all company documentation remains complete and organized, which can significantly facilitate the response to PFR claims.
3. Objection to a payment order
The PFR often precedes lawsuits with the issuance of a payment order in summary proceedings. This order is delivered to the entrepreneur along with the lawsuit and requires a swift response – an objection must be filed within 14 days of its receipt. Filing an objection results in the order being set aside and the case being referred for full court proceedings, giving the entrepreneur the opportunity to present their arguments.
What to do? Don't ignore correspondence from PFR or the court. Immediately begin analyzing the payment order and, with the help of a professional attorney, prepare an objection. The objection should indicate why PFR's claims are unfounded, for example, lack of evidence of a violation of the program's terms, the illegality of additional inspections, or violations of civil procedure rules by the Fund (e.g., shifting the burden of proof to the entrepreneur).
4. Monitor the Supreme Audit Office's rulings and audits
The growing number of court cases filed against the Polish Development Fund (PFR) indicates the controversy surrounding the Fund's operations. In the cases we handle on behalf of our clients, we have maintained a 100% success rate – courts have issued favorable judgments for businesses, citing, among other things, the lack of sufficient evidence from the PFR and the illegality of the "additional inspections." An example is the District Court in Olsztyn's ruling of July 2025, which dismissed the PFR's claim against the business for the return of nearly PLN 150,000, citing a lack of concrete evidence of violations.
Furthermore, in February 2025, the Supreme Audit Office (NIK) announced an audit of the activities of the Polish Development Fund (PFR) and the Central Anticorruption Bureau (CBA) in connection with subsidy repayment lawsuits. NIK highlighted irregularities, such as a lack of transparency in the CBA's recommendations and unjustified requests for repayment of funds. The results of this audit could influence court decisions and provide additional arguments in favor of entrepreneurs.
It is therefore worth following court decisions in similar cases – including monitoring judgments that may set a precedent, or relying on the knowledge and experience of a professional attorney of your choice.
Summary
PFR's lawsuits seeking the repayment of subsidies from Financial Shields 1.0 and 2.0 are generating significant controversy, both among businesses and the legal community. The lack of precise justifications, retroactive audits, and reliance on undisclosed CBA recommendations often place businesses in a difficult position. Importantly, however, with an appropriate defense strategy based on solid documentation, a quick response, and legal support, businesses have a realistic chance of winning in court.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of July 23, 2025.
Author:
Series editor:
